Jump to content

How was that not a catch ?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I thought it was a catch, he gained possession, got 2 feet down, and then made IMO a football move, reaching for the pylon IMO is a normal football move, so then when the ball came loose it was after

Agreed 100%. By the rules it was a catch IMO because he had possession and made a football move by reaching for the goal line. Just by watching the play and using your two eyes it was a catch,

Karma from the non calls last week vs Detroit

Posted Images

The Cowboys got robbed... that was definitely a catch.  Proves to me that NFL analysts and refs are just nerdy non athletic goons.   

 

Three steps, two knees down, and an elbow down.  

 

 

attachicon.gifn-DEZ-BRYANT-large570.jpg

You missed the part of the rule requiring posession all the way through, which didn't happen because the ball hit the ground and he juggled it thereafter.

The Megatron play was different because he put the ball on the ground as he was getting up and then loss control.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The catch rule definitely does not follow the "50 guys in a bar" argument. I thought it was debatable that it hit the ground and he secured it while in the end zone. One of those calls I think should be upheld regardless of the call on the field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a catch, he gained possession, got 2 feet down, and then made IMO a football move, reaching for the pylon IMO is a normal football move, so then when the ball came loose it was after the completion of the catch, and should have been a completion ball on the 1 foot line.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a catch, he gained possession, got 2 feet down, and then made IMO a football move, reaching for the pylon IMO is a normal football move, so then when the ball came loose it was after the completion of the catch, and should have been a completion ball on the 1 foot line.

Agreed 100%. By the rules it was a catch IMO because he had possession and made a football move by reaching for the goal line.

Just by watching the play and using your two eyes it was a catch, period. Cowboys got screwed on that one.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the rules as currently written, it was not a catch, The receiver has to maintain possession after hitting the ground, which the receiver clearly didn't do.  From the best viewing angle, it is clear the ball went into the air, out of the receiver's hands completely. When he re-caught the ball, he was out of bounds. Incomplete.

 

Unlike most here, I like the rule. It almost completely eliminates judgment calls.  Did the receiver retain possession throughout the reception, including hitting the ground, or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a catch ... until he hit the ground and lost control of the ball .. at which point it wasn't a catch and lost all possibility of it ever being a catch again. For all of eternity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People just dont get this rule. the megatron play was not a catch because he lost control through the process of the catch. The Bryant play was a catch because the process ended the second he transitioned into a football move, ie reaching for the pylon.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

People just dont get this rule. the megatron play was not a catch because he lost control through the process of the catch. The Bryant play was a catch because the process ended the second he transitioned into a football move, ie reaching for the pylon.

 

But the ball popped out of his hands before he reached for the pylon. Thus, not a catch, as stated by the ref who reviewed the play, and the expert ex-ref in the booth who also said it was not a catch. The real proof will come tomorrow or the next day if the NFL says it was a catch, similar to their commenting on the blown PI reversal in the Lions-Cowboys game. I'll bet they don't say it was really a catch, because the rule, and the replay, are clear in this case.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a catch.  The rule needs to change.  Cut and dry.

 

 

Exactly.  Plays like this one shouldn't even be reviewable.  There was a referee standing right there, and clearly, he would've been able to see whether or not it was indeed a catch.  Which of course is why he ruled him down at the 1 yard line.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.  Plays like this one shouldn't even be reviewable.  There was a referee standing right there, and clearly, he would've been able to see whether or not it was indeed a catch.

 

But if you look at the replay, the ref was not looking at the player at the moment the ball popped out of his hands, but was looking instead at where he thought the ball should be spotted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules make it easy to decide.  

 

If you're a runner with possession, the ground can't cause a fumble.

 

If you're catching a pass and going to the ground, better hold on to it all the way through.  

 

This takes all the guesswork out of it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a catch, he gained possession, got 2 feet down, and then made IMO a football move, reaching for the pylon IMO is a normal football move, so then when the ball came loose it was after the completion of the catch, and should have been a completion ball on the 1 foot line.

Exactly. Got two feet down n was diving towards the EZ (dive was part of the football move). He wasn't going down, rather diving ahead, reaching.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the way they use instant replay to get all anal and nitpicky about every single rule.  It's just OCD and not how the game used to be played.  In all honesty it is unnecessary.  

 

In the past, a lot of games have hinged on blown calls. Just as this game, which probably would have gone the wrong way without the replay. The replay system is generally a good thing. The Lions-Cowboys game is a rare exception.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules make it easy to decide.  

 

If you're a runner with possession, the ground can't cause a fumble.

 

If you're catching a pass and going to the ground, better hold on to it all the way through.  

 

This takes all the guesswork out of it.

 

Not quite right. If a runner stumbles and falls w/o being contacted by an opposing player and the ground knocks the ball out of his hands, that's a fumble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So when does "the process of the catch" end? Is it 4 steps and a football move? 3 steps and 2 football moves? Or is it a completely arbitrary judgement call, meaning the ruling on the field shouldn't be reviewable?

 

It ends once the player has struck the ground and has maintained possession throughout the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...