jvill 51 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 It ends once the player has struck the ground and has maintained possession throughout the process. So a guy could theoretically make a catch and demonstrate posession, take 10 steps while off balance, dive forward, hit the ground, and if the ball pops out its an incomplete pass? There has to be a point where the player transitions from potential receiver into ballcarrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsmanjb Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 The referee was clearly close enough to make a judgement call- which he did and ruled Dez down at the 1 yard line. Usually, they do not overturn judgement calls and go with what they had called on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetrider Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 1. It wasn't a catch. The ball clearly bounced off the ground before Dez fully secured it. 2. Dallas had no business playing this game in the first place. Blown calls by refs eliminated Detroit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I felt Bryant was trying to extend to get the ball to cross the end zone plane. That's how i looked at it. Should have been a catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Fan RI Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 So a guy could theoretically make a catch and demonstrate posession, take 10 steps while off balance, dive forward, hit the ground, and if the ball pops out its an incomplete pass? There has to be a point where the player transitions from potential receiver into ballcarrier. No. We're talking only about the case where the receiver hits the ground as he is making the catch. He has to retain possession throughout the process of hitting the ground, even if he rolls or slides out of bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage69 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 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. True I remember John Connor losing one like that in 2010.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvill 51 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 No. We're talking only about the case where the receiver hits the ground as he is making the catch. He has to retain possession throughout the process of hitting the ground, even if he rolls or slides out of bounds. Well I guess that's where I disagree with the call then, and the rule is ambiguous. I would contend that he clearly makes the catch, takes 3 steps, makes a move "common to the game", and then contacts the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 http://deadspin.com/the-nfls-rules-are-dumb-1678940524 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peebag Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I thought it was a catch because I thought he took three steps with the ball in his hand, hit the ground and recovered his own fumble. This - the Fox ref expert (Pierra -sic?) said that steps were irrelevant - it was all in the process of making the catch - so let's assume he makes a similar move on his 10 yard line then runs all the way to his opponents 1 yard the falls and suddenly trips and falls and fumbles - is that a non catch? Once again the NFL is overtly over officiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Well I guess that's where I disagree with the call then, and the rule is ambiguous. I would contend that he clearly makes the catch, takes 3 steps, makes a move "common to the game", and then contacts the ground. The rule is not ambiguous. It's pretty ******* clear. It's just a stupid rule. http://deadspin.com/the-nfls-rules-are-dumb-1678940524 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FidelioJet Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 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. Correct...Just because he went to the ground after the catch - doesn't make it not a catch. Every catch the receiver eventually hits the ground... At some point it's an official catch and the play continues. That's what happened here - he caught the ball, had possession (the play continues) then he made a "football" move (with total control of the ball) to reach for the end zone. There is no doubt in my mind that it was a catch - within the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The Cowboys got robbed... Lions fans be like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Correct...Just because he went to the ground after the catch - doesn't make it not a catch. Every catch the receiver eventually hits the ground... At some point it's an official catch and the play continues. That's what happened here - he caught the ball, had possession (the play continues) then he made a "football" move (with total control of the ball) to reach for the end zone. There is no doubt in my mind that it was a catch - within the rules. Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete. The term "football move" appears nowhere in the NFL rulebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FidelioJet Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete. The term "football move" appears nowhere in the NFL rulebook. That's assuming the catch wasn't made prior to going to the ground. What if he caught the ball ran 20 yards down the sideline, tripped and the ball came out...still no catch? At some point when you make a catch - it's officially a catch - and then eventually go to ground. In this case the catch was clearly made - it was a catch - then he went down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 That's assuming the catch wasn't made prior to going to the ground. What if he caught the ball ran 20 yards down the sideline, tripped and the ball came out...still no catch? At some point when you make a catch - it's officially a catch - and then eventually go to ground. In this case the catch was clearly made - it was a catch - then he went down. That's actually really stupid. If he ran down the field after establishing possession, obviously it's a catch. He made the "catch" and immediately went to the ground. I've seen more clear examples of made catches get overturned than Bryant's. Calvin Johnson's springs to mind. The only reason this one is causing so much commotion is because it was the playoffs and the moment within the game that it happened. If this happened in the first quarter of a week 12 game this would not even be discussed outside the five minutes in the game. If you want to make the argument that the catch should have stood based only on when it happened that's an even weaker argument. How would that be fair to the Packers? No, it's a bad rule. But as the article clearly explains, it was the right call and it's pretty hard to argue against that. http://deadspin.com/the-nfls-rules-are-dumb-1678940524 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiFtheOracle Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The rule is not ambiguous. It's pretty ******* clear. It's just a stupid rule. http://deadspin.com/the-nfls-rules-are-dumb-1678940524 Agreed. It was a clear incompletion based on a stupid ass rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatsFanTX Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 No, it's a bad rule. But as the article clearly explains, it was the right call and it's pretty hard to argue against that. http://deadspin.com/the-nfls-rules-are-dumb-1678940524 Yep, no difference than the Tuck Rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FidelioJet Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 That's actually really stupid. If he ran down the field after establishing possession, obviously it's a catch. He made the "catch" and immediately went to the ground. I've seen more clear examples of made catches get overturned than Bryant's. Calvin Johnson's springs to mind. The only reason this one is causing so much commotion is because it was the playoffs and the moment within the game that it happened. If this happened in the first quarter of a week 12 game this would not even be discussed outside the five minutes in the game. If you want to make the argument that the catch should have stood based only on when it happened that's an even weaker argument. How would that be fair to the Packers? No, it's a bad rule. But as the article clearly explains, it was the right call and it's pretty hard to argue against that. http://deadspin.com/the-nfls-rules-are-dumb-1678940524 I don't think it's stupid at all...At what point is it, as you stated "obviously" a catch? (I was making an exaggerated point but there's a point when it's a catch and point when it's not - where is that line?) The determination, I believe is possession then making one football move - he did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I don't think it's stupid at all...At what point is it, as you stated "obviously" a catch? (I was making an exaggerated point but there's a point when it's a catch and point when it's not - where is that line?) The determination, I believe is possession then making one football move - he did that. The line is: is he going to the ground while trying to complete the catch. That's pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funaz Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I don't think it's stupid at all...At what point is it, as you stated "obviously" a catch? (I was making an exaggerated point but there's a point when it's a catch and point when it's not - where is that line?) The determination, I believe is possession then making one football move - he did that. I agree. The calvin johnson catch that keeps getting brought up was a jump ball in the end zone. Dez's was a catch, two steps, and then a dive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 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. n-DEZ-BRYANT-large570.jpg It was a catch, the rule is just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Yep, no difference than the Tuck Rule. Troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I agree. The calvin johnson catch that keeps getting brought up was a jump ball in the end zone. Dez's was a catch, two steps, and then a dive. I think you need to watch the video again because Dez leapt in the air to make the catch. He very clearly left his feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funaz Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I think you need to watch the video again because Dez leapt in the air to make the catch. He very clearly left his feet. I see three steps, then a dive. Like I said. The reason its different then the Megatron catch was that it was in the endzone, its either a TD or not, no advancing the ball further down the field or making a football move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Fan RI Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Well I guess that's where I disagree with the call then, and the rule is ambiguous. I would contend that he clearly makes the catch, takes 3 steps, makes a move "common to the game", and then contacts the ground. There were no steps. He was flying through the air as he caught the ball. As he came down from flying through the air with the ball he strikes the ground, and the ball contacts the ground too. There is at least one camera angle that shows the moment the ball contacted the ground, it moved in his hands. That's not a "catch" as defined in the rules. The fact that he caught the ball in mid-air does not make it a catch. If the ball moves in his hands after the ball strikes the ground, that is an incomplete pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I see three steps, then a dive. Like I said. The reason its different then the Megatron catch was that it was in the endzone, its either a TD or not, no advancing the ball further down the field or making a football move. So you look at those clips and don't see Bryant leave his feet prior to the ball hitting his hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsmanjb Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 There were no steps. He was flying through the air as he caught the ball. As he came down from flying through the air with the ball he strikes the ground, and the ball contacts the ground too. There is at least one camera angle that shows the moment the ball contacted the ground, it moved in his hands. That's not a "catch" as defined in the rules. The fact that he caught the ball in mid-air does not make it a catch. If the ball moves in his hands after the ball strikes the ground, that is an incomplete pass. I really don't understand how you even attempt an argument on this one... you sure you're not a packers fan ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Fan RI Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I really don't understand how you even attempt an argument on this one... you sure you're not a packers fan ? Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsmanjb Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 In my opinion the ruling after the challenge should have been that there isn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. The rule does not apply when the receiver takes 3 steps, gets two knees down, and an elbow down, prior to the ball getting slightly nudged by the ground as he was reaching out for the end zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Fan RI Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 In my opinion the ruling after the challenge should have been that there isn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. The rule does not apply when the receiver takes 3 steps, gets two knees down, and an elbow down, prior to the ball getting slightly nudged by the ground as he was reaching out for the end zone. The problem is that he did not take any steps after falling to the ground. Since the ball contacted the ground and moved in his hand, it's an incomplete pass. As judged not only by the referee who reviewed the replays at the time, but also as judged by the ex-ref expert in the booth. And let's see if the league comes out and says that was a blown reversal like in the Cowboys-Lions game. If they don't, this was a clearly an incomplete pass, as judged by the experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 In my opinion the ruling after the challenge should have been that there isn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. The rule does not apply when the receiver takes 3 steps, gets two knees down, and an elbow down, prior to the ball getting slightly nudged by the ground as he was reaching out for the end zone. Umm... there's a very good link explaining the call in detail that's been posted multiple times in this thread. I won't argue the rule itself. But if you actually know the rule, it really can't be argued that it was a bad call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsmanjb Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 Either way there has to be strong evidence to overturn any call with instant replay. I didn't see it there on that play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jet Fan RI Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Either way there has to be strong evidence to overturn any call with instant replay. I didn't see it there on that play. Ball clearly moving in his hands when it hits the ground is strong evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetrider Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I see three steps, then a dive. Like I said. The reason its different then the Megatron catch was that it was in the endzone, its either a TD or not, no advancing the ball further down the field or making a football move. He landed each foot separately. That doesn't count as steps after the catch. When the ball bounced off the ground (inside the 1 yard line) he didn't maintain control through the process per the rulebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetrider Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Here's what happened next. While the play was under review a UFO landed on the 3-yard-line and used a brain taser phaser gazer on the officiating crew: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.