IF a receiver jumps, they have almost no room for error when they come back down with regards to possession. If the ball moves = no catch.
In this case, while stumbling, Bryant attempted to reach out for the goal-line before establishing possession, when he hit the ground and the ball popped out = no catch.
Doomster posted something very similar to this on an earlier thread.
Three calls, on the field, that to any lay person appear to be correct, Overturned by replay, and deciding the biggest games there are, by a mechanism that should be used only to overturn egrisously incorrect calls
and by the rule it was not a catch. If he just caught the ball and didnt try to score he probably makes the catch. When his arm slammed to the ground and it popped loose that cost them the game. It was also a bad play call on 4th down, very low percentage play Dez was not open and it would have been a spectacular play on his part. But I hate the Cowboys and am happy to see them out. I also think if they would have just fed Murray the ball when they had the lead they would have won easily. He was gaining 5 yards a clip on 1st down, just as Coughlin stated. I would have pounded him more than 25 carries.
Not to mention its the second week in a row where Dez was on the field with no helmet yelling at the refs. Not saying he should get penalized in a game of this magnitude but there should be a fine or the refs should warn him and if he doesnt leave the field he should be penalized.
But the objective football fan would say this use-case was a little different than the typical definition of the rule because Dez did not dive for the ball and land on the ground in the same motion. To me it looked like he jumped, caught it, took two steps, and then with his third he dove and outstretched his arm for the goal line. Ball hits ground and moves loose, but to me because of the steps and football move it should have been down by contact.
But the objective football fan would say this use-case was a little different than the typical definition of the rule because Dez did not dive for the ball and land on the ground in the same motion. To me it looked like he jumped, caught it, took two steps, and then with his third he dove and outstretched his arm for the goal line. Ball hits ground and moves loose, but to me because of the steps and football move it should have been down by contact.
Oh well, Cowboys season over, how sad.
You left out the bobbling of the ball that occurred during the process.
RE: I can't believe there's so much debate about this
Odell would have just come out and mocked the cowboys for their misfortune. Show no support for Dez's case whatsoever. We all saw Dez mocking Odell at the end of the Sunday Night game and it would have been awesome for Odell to return the favor
Possession + 2 feet = catch. Worked fine for years. Leave it to the NFL to fix something that wasn't broken.
Real simple except: what's possession? Teo hands on the ball? For how long?
Two hands possessing the ball long enough for two feet to touch the ground. That worked forever.
Except when it didn't. There are plays that meet your criteria where the ball is in the receivers hands a ridiculously short period of time. Extreme example: stationary receiver standing on two feet has a ball hit him in both hands and almost immediately pop out. A catch by the rule you would like.
Gary, I'm glad you think it was that obvious. I'm not so convinced and ice read the rule and watched the replay 100 times.
I guess it depends on what you think is happening after he catches the ball. Some are arguing that he took two steps, therefore that counts as an action common to the game, i.e. a "football move" so it's a catch.
Watching the reply, it seems clear to me that he's not securing possession and taking two steps. He's falling and his feet hit the ground as he falls. Therefore the ball hits the ground as part of the process of going to the ground and pops out. That's an incomplete pass.
You can watch it here on continuous loop until it drives you insane. Link - ( New Window )
RE: RE: RE: I can't believe there's so much debate about this
Gary, I'm glad you think it was that obvious. I'm not so convinced and ice read the rule and watched the replay 100 times.
I guess it depends on what you think is happening after he catches the ball. Some are arguing that he took two steps, therefore that counts as an action common to the game, i.e. a "football move" so it's a catch.
Watching the reply, it seems clear to me that he's not securing possession and taking two steps. He's falling and his feet hit the ground as he falls. Therefore the ball hits the ground as part of the process of going to the ground and pops out. That's an incomplete pass.
You can watch it here on continuous loop until it drives you insane. Link - ( New Window )
I see it that way too... to me he's falling forward.
Possession + 2 feet = catch. Worked fine for years. Leave it to the NFL to fix something that wasn't broken.
Real simple except: what's possession? Teo hands on the ball? For how long?
Two hands possessing the ball long enough for two feet to touch the ground. That worked forever.
this "two hands" would eliminate Beckham's one-handed catch from his arsenal.
I think they got the call right, but if this call were not overturned I don't think the debate would be much different. In other words the people arguing that that was not a catch wouldn't be any more vocal than the people defending it as a non-catch. If you see what I'm saying. Just a guess though.
Dez had two hands on the ball while in the air. The defender got a hand on the ball, forcing it to move from Dez's hands to his shoulder, so no clear possession established. At that point, he needs to "finish the process" of the catch - whether you like the rule or not, that is what it is.
When he goes to the ground, he stretches out and both his arm and the ball contact the ground, and the ball moves again. Right there it becomes an incomplete pass.
but I definitely don't think anything was "clear" about that or it was an obvious call. It was a very long review and I believe will be long-debated (even though I think it was correct).
here is if you believe that Dez was going to the ground as part of the catch or not. If you conclude it was all part of the same action, then its not a catch. If you think he caught it and then ran 2 steps and fell to the ground while being tackled, its down by contact. The rules are pretty clear on this.
I thought it was all part of the same action, but it was really close. This should make for some great bitching and moaning tomorrow on talk radio here in Dallas!!!!
If Bryant took 3 steps, we wouldn't be having this talk
The fact that he stumbled and fell and didn't maintain control is the issue.
There is no "if". Bryant caught ball, came down, took three steps, reached for the goal line. We're the steps not steps? Is there a new definition of steps I don't know about?
RE: RE: If Bryant took 3 steps, we wouldn't be having this talk
The fact that he stumbled and fell and didn't maintain control is the issue.
There is no "if". Bryant caught ball, came down, took three steps, reached for the goal line. We're the steps not steps? Is there a new definition of steps I don't know about?
You are right, there is no "if" - he didn't come down with the ball. Number of steps don't matter if you don't have possession. He was in the air, was contacted, and went to the ground. He has to maintain possession all the way through the process. His arm and the ball hit the ground and the ball came loose.
Loved this one from the Lions
LOL
LINK - ( New Window )
IF a receiver jumps, they have almost no room for error when they come back down with regards to possession. If the ball moves = no catch.
In this case, while stumbling, Bryant attempted to reach out for the goal-line before establishing possession, when he hit the ground and the ball popped out = no catch.
Doomster posted something very similar to this on an earlier thread.
How do they fix it? Take out the entire part about completing the process of the catch?
I don't think it's going to be changed unless they just say two feet down with control is a catch. And i very much doubt they will do that
Not to mention its the second week in a row where Dez was on the field with no helmet yelling at the refs. Not saying he should get penalized in a game of this magnitude but there should be a fine or the refs should warn him and if he doesnt leave the field he should be penalized.
Oh well, Cowboys season over, how sad.
Real simple except: what's possession? Teo hands on the ball? For how long?
Oh well, Cowboys season over, how sad.
You left out the bobbling of the ball that occurred during the process.
Gary, I'm glad you think it was that obvious. I'm not so convinced and ice read the rule and watched the replay 100 times.
Quote:
Possession + 2 feet = catch. Worked fine for years. Leave it to the NFL to fix something that wasn't broken.
Real simple except: what's possession? Teo hands on the ball? For how long?
Two hands possessing the ball long enough for two feet to touch the ground. That worked forever.
Quote:
In comment 12089960 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Possession + 2 feet = catch. Worked fine for years. Leave it to the NFL to fix something that wasn't broken.
Real simple except: what's possession? Teo hands on the ball? For how long?
Two hands possessing the ball long enough for two feet to touch the ground. That worked forever.
Except when it didn't. There are plays that meet your criteria where the ball is in the receivers hands a ridiculously short period of time. Extreme example: stationary receiver standing on two feet has a ball hit him in both hands and almost immediately pop out. A catch by the rule you would like.
Gary, I'm glad you think it was that obvious. I'm not so convinced and ice read the rule and watched the replay 100 times.
I guess it depends on what you think is happening after he catches the ball. Some are arguing that he took two steps, therefore that counts as an action common to the game, i.e. a "football move" so it's a catch.
Watching the reply, it seems clear to me that he's not securing possession and taking two steps. He's falling and his feet hit the ground as he falls. Therefore the ball hits the ground as part of the process of going to the ground and pops out. That's an incomplete pass.
You can watch it here on continuous loop until it drives you insane.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Gary, I'm glad you think it was that obvious. I'm not so convinced and ice read the rule and watched the replay 100 times.
I guess it depends on what you think is happening after he catches the ball. Some are arguing that he took two steps, therefore that counts as an action common to the game, i.e. a "football move" so it's a catch.
Watching the reply, it seems clear to me that he's not securing possession and taking two steps. He's falling and his feet hit the ground as he falls. Therefore the ball hits the ground as part of the process of going to the ground and pops out. That's an incomplete pass.
You can watch it here on continuous loop until it drives you insane. Link - ( New Window )
I see it that way too... to me he's falling forward.
Quote:
In comment 12089960 Go Terps said:
Quote:
Possession + 2 feet = catch. Worked fine for years. Leave it to the NFL to fix something that wasn't broken.
Real simple except: what's possession? Teo hands on the ball? For how long?
Two hands possessing the ball long enough for two feet to touch the ground. That worked forever.
this "two hands" would eliminate Beckham's one-handed catch from his arsenal.
I think they got the call right, but if this call were not overturned I don't think the debate would be much different. In other words the people arguing that that was not a catch wouldn't be any more vocal than the people defending it as a non-catch. If you see what I'm saying. Just a guess though.
I think most people just dont like the rule, but agree that going by the rule, its an incomplete pass.
When he goes to the ground, he stretches out and both his arm and the ball contact the ground, and the ball moves again. Right there it becomes an incomplete pass.
Not really much to see here IMO.
It's a bit convoluted but in the end the WR has to demonstrate a clear cut catch. Whatever works..
Horrible call. But the Football Gods got retribution on the Boys in a quick week after the craziness against Detroit...
I thought it was all part of the same action, but it was really close. This should make for some great bitching and moaning tomorrow on talk radio here in Dallas!!!!
The fact that he stumbled and fell and didn't maintain control is the issue.
The fact that he stumbled and fell and didn't maintain control is the issue.
There is no "if". Bryant caught ball, came down, took three steps, reached for the goal line. We're the steps not steps? Is there a new definition of steps I don't know about?
Quote:
As they would've called a TD.
The fact that he stumbled and fell and didn't maintain control is the issue.
There is no "if". Bryant caught ball, came down, took three steps, reached for the goal line. We're the steps not steps? Is there a new definition of steps I don't know about?
You are right, there is no "if" - he didn't come down with the ball. Number of steps don't matter if you don't have possession. He was in the air, was contacted, and went to the ground. He has to maintain possession all the way through the process. His arm and the ball hit the ground and the ball came loose.