I'm actually okay with the rule. It makes the reciever accountable.
I see that call week in, week out, and am used to it. The only reason it's an issue today is because of the spot it was in.
Dez really should have just cradled the ball and made the catch. There was nothing to be gained by him reaching out and putting the ball at risk in an unsecured manner. He paid for taking an unneccessary risk.
a lot of people who have a problem with the call have the same argument about what qualifies as a catch as that supreme court justice did with regard to pornography: "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it"
But if I had to make a change it would be that if the ball comes loose only as a result of hitting the ground while it was in his control and the player can regain possession before either the ball lands on the ground or he ends up out of bounds that they allow him to re-establish possession and it be a considered a complete pass.
Listened to Cris Carter this morning on Mike and Mike
the 3rd Step & the ball fully tucked away/secured = completed pass. Not 1 handed, on other body part securing it, etc. That may make it more complicated but I think it makes sense. They could go deeper and consider reaching for the pilon with the ball is considered a football move AFTER both feet come down with the ball, etc, as well.
I dont disagree with the call, I disagree with the way it is written. 3 Steps then falling after the ball is 100% secured should be a fumble if not downed by contact
I may be mistaken, but I remember spending my formative years as a football fan where the rule was two feet and possession meant a catch. I don't recall hearing the terms "football move" or "finishing the process". I also can't recall it ever being a problem.
The rule was correctly enforced on Bryant. But when the rule says that what happened yesterday isn't a catch, the rule is broken.
But if I had to make a change it would be that if the ball comes loose only as a result of hitting the ground while it was in his control and the player can regain possession before either the ball lands on the ground or he ends up out of bounds that they allow him to re-establish possession and it be a considered a complete pass.
When you say "hitting the ground", do you mean the player or the ball?
The lack of understanding surrounding the rule seems to be the biggest problem.
When you go to the ground in the process of making the catch, you have to hold onto the football. I'm still not sure what all the confusion is. The questions about him making "a football move common to the game" is a different question, and one that didn't apply here since he never gained full possession of the ball.
No need to make a change, just enforce it consistently as they did yesterday.
this similar call happened to us. Ruben Randle this year against the Skins. He caught the ball for a td, took nearly 4 steps (including spinning across the goal line) was hit, ball popped out, INT. Game speed, clear INT. Review should have overturned that call. There were so many sports analysts and pro athletes writing "if that was not a touchdown, I dont understand the rule" during the replay. Only to be still hosed (but that isnt because of the rule, that is because we are NYG and hated by the nfl)
:)
of having to maintain control of the ball all the way through the catch. I think that is necessary. what I don't like is the introduction of the verbiage "a football move" into any of the rules. It is not only confusing to interpret, it is highly subjective.
I would rather keep it that as long as the ball doesn't contact the ground (and then move) during a catch, it counts without adding in other variables.
RE: Listened to Cris Carter this morning on Mike and Mike
he is fine with the rule and doesn't think it should be changed.
I love the rule since it went against the Boy's yesterday.Would hate it if it went against the Giants.
It has gone against the Giants... The Randle play as somebody said above, and I remember it happening to OBJ once this year on the way out of bounds, too, I believe.
It's just that it was the spot in the game yesterday that it's getting this attention. If it happened in the 1st quarter 0-0, probably not a big deal.
of having to maintain control of the ball all the way through the catch. I think that is necessary. what I don't like is the introduction of the verbiage "a football move" into any of the rules. It is not only confusing to interpret, it is highly subjective.
I would rather keep it that as long as the ball doesn't contact the ground (and then move) during a catch, it counts without adding in other variables.
Does "football move" come into play because he was going to the ground?
you will write the rule so that there is no more controversy or grey areas. Even using the "catch and two feet down" standard is open to interpretation. Under that rule alone, if a receiver is standing on the ground (or running) it would be a catch the instant it hit his hands. The ball would instantly become a fumble unless you start analyzing whether he "controlled" the ball, or whether it just hit his hands.
There will always be uncretainty with the rules. We just need to live with that.
But if I had to make a change it would be that if the ball comes loose only as a result of hitting the ground while it was in his control and the player can regain possession before either the ball lands on the ground or he ends up out of bounds that they allow him to re-establish possession and it be a considered a complete pass.
When you say "hitting the ground", do you mean the player or the ball?
Really either. Of course that means it was in the players control to that point and not being juggled or something akin to that and then hits the ground, which should always be incomplete. Kind of like the ground can't cause a fumble with a runner. If the players has the ball in control in his hands and while going though the completing of the catch to the ground it causes the ball to come loose he would have the opportunity to still regain possession if he stays in bounds or the ball doesn't land on the turf.
Again, I don't have a problem with the rule as currently written, but if they determine something needed to be changed I wouldn't be upset if the changed it to allow this.
To me this thread is proof the rule is broken. There isn't going to be complete agreement on something as subjective as "completing the process" or what exactly constitutes a football move.
There's another fundamental question here: is the game made better by introducing these terms to complicate the definition of a catch? Further, is the game made better by putting more interpretation into the hands of the refs?
We've got instant replay and seemingly hundreds of HD cameras covering every angle of the field...so why does it feel like blown calls abound?
a. a player is hit while making attempting to make a catch
b. the player hits the ground
c. the player is in bounds (including the end zone) when he hits the ground
d. the player catches the ball (i.e it at no point touches the ground before he has full possession)
then it's a catch even if the ball was being juggled when the receiver hit the ground.
of having to maintain control of the ball all the way through the catch. I think that is necessary. what I don't like is the introduction of the verbiage "a football move" into any of the rules. It is not only confusing to interpret, it is highly subjective.
I would rather keep it that as long as the ball doesn't contact the ground (and then move) during a catch, it counts without adding in other variables.
Does "football move" come into play because he was going to the ground?
relative to yesterday, that was never explained, but I think "football move" comes into play because then the receiver has become a runner and the ground can't cause a fumble (but it can cause an incompletion).
jump up, catch the ball in the air, land with two feet on the ground, then stretch the ball out to reach the goal line, that is a football move and a catch.
don't like the cowboys, but that was a catch.
To me this thread is proof the rule is broken. There isn't going to be complete agreement on something as subjective as "completing the process" or what exactly constitutes a football move.
There's another fundamental question here: is the game made better by introducing these terms to complicate the definition of a catch? Further, is the game made better by putting more interpretation into the hands of the refs?
We've got instant replay and seemingly hundreds of HD cameras covering every angle of the field...so why does it feel like blown calls abound?
I don't think yesterday's call was a blown call. I think the ref got it wrong in real time, but the replay fixed it, which is what is supposed to happen. I don't think it is broken so I don't think it needs to be fixed.
"catch" the ball in the air and whatever happens after that doesn't matter. They want you to maintain control as you hit the ground. When Dez hit the ground, the ball did also and was dislodged so the GROUND contacted the ball in a manner comparable (sort of) to trapping a pass against the ground. Ground contact negates the "catch".
of having to maintain control of the ball all the way through the catch. I think that is necessary. what I don't like is the introduction of the verbiage "a football move" into any of the rules. It is not only confusing to interpret, it is highly subjective.
I would rather keep it that as long as the ball doesn't contact the ground (and then move) during a catch, it counts without adding in other variables.
Does "football move" come into play because he was going to the ground?
When I watch the replay I see a lunge and not a continuous falling to the ground motion( or whatever made it incomplete). Obviously what I think I see is not the correct interpretation. So, I think that's the subjective part of " football move" that bothers me.
in fact do not even see how you can change the way it is worded. The problem is replay. The rules were not written to hold up to each play being slowed down and viewed time and again in 1080P resolution.
At full speed that is a catch, it is catch in the playground, at pop warner, college, NFL, anywhere they play football. Bryant caught the ball and had two feet in bounds, he even took two steps. As he came to a stop on the ground he has the ball in his hands.
It was called a catch on the field (because it was) and everyone who was on the field or watching it full speed thought it was a catch.
To slow it down to look to see if the ball point hit the ground or he "finished the process" or some crap is ridiculous. It empowers the officials too much and takes away from a great football play.
Now, I will admit I am bias overall against replay. I think it should be used only for clear cut plays( crossing the goal-line, in out of bounds) and outside of clear cut calls like that should be used sparingly to overturn judgement calls made on the field.
The concept is to OVERTURN the call, that the burden of proof is on the overturn of the call made on the field . I think that this is not how the system is implemented. Calls are overturned all the time where there is not clear cut evidence to do so, and in my opinion that is what happened yesterday.
The human element should not be removed from these events. Would the game be any worse without replay for judgement calls like yesterdays? No one even knows what the rules are and all it does it empower the officials way too much. I would rather settle it on the field of play.
in fact do not even see how you can change the way it is worded. The problem is replay. The rules were not written to hold up to each play being slowed down and viewed time and again in 1080P resolution.
At full speed that is a catch, it is catch in the playground, at pop warner, college, NFL, anywhere they play football. Bryant caught the ball and had two feet in bounds, he even took two steps. As he came to a stop on the ground he has the ball in his hands.
It was called a catch on the field (because it was) and everyone who was on the field or watching it full speed thought it was a catch.
To slow it down to look to see if the ball point hit the ground or he "finished the process" or some crap is ridiculous. It empowers the officials too much and takes away from a great football play.
Now, I will admit I am bias overall against replay. I think it should be used only for clear cut plays( crossing the goal-line, in out of bounds) and outside of clear cut calls like that should be used sparingly to overturn judgement calls made on the field.
The concept is to OVERTURN the call, that the burden of proof is on the overturn of the call made on the field . I think that this is not how the system is implemented. Calls are overturned all the time where there is not clear cut evidence to do so, and in my opinion that is what happened yesterday.
The human element should not be removed from these events. Would the game be any worse without replay for judgement calls like yesterdays? No one even knows what the rules are and all it does it empower the officials way too much. I would rather settle it on the field of play.
Overall, I think replay makes the games much better. While there are instances where the replay seems to get it wrong, more times than not it corrects errors.
I must have been watching a different highlight than you. I saw a guy falling to the ground struggling to secure the ball after the db popped it loose, and when the ball clearly hit the ground, it came completely loose. IMO it would have been a crime to call that a catch.
I should have clarified. Yesterday's call should not have any invocation of the "football move" language because Dez never came down cleanly with the ball.
I'm actually fine with defining the catch as being two feet or going to the ground and maintaining control.
what confuses plays is when the element of "making a football move" comes into play. Keep it simple. Two feet upright OR maintaining the ball on plays while going to the ground = a catch. Get rid of any rule that discusses making a football move.
we already saw earlier this year the giants get penalized for hitting a defenseless TE who hadn't made a "football move" yet was allowed to lower his head and initiate contact.
To me this thread is proof the rule is broken. There isn't going to be complete agreement on something as subjective as "completing the process" or what exactly constitutes a football move.
There's another fundamental question here: is the game made better by introducing these terms to complicate the definition of a catch? Further, is the game made better by putting more interpretation into the hands of the refs?
We've got instant replay and seemingly hundreds of HD cameras covering every angle of the field...so why does it feel like blown calls abound?
The thread exists because of posts like your first one in this thread. The only thing is "it sucks". No why or how to change.
I know they got it right on replay according to the rule, but I'm saying a rule that declares that incomplete is a bad rule. He clearly had possession for at least two steps. To me that's a catch.
What if he stumbled for another three or four off balance steps and then hit the ground in the end zone and lost the ball? By rule that would have been incomplete. Absurd.
To me this thread is proof the rule is broken. There isn't going to be complete agreement on something as subjective as "completing the process" or what exactly constitutes a football move.
There's another fundamental question here: is the game made better by introducing these terms to complicate the definition of a catch? Further, is the game made better by putting more interpretation into the hands of the refs?
We've got instant replay and seemingly hundreds of HD cameras covering every angle of the field...so why does it feel like blown calls abound?
The thread exists because of posts like your first one in this thread. The only thing is "it sucks". No why or how to change.
Bullshit. I've pointed out why it sucks (open to interpretation) and how to change it (2 feet after possession is a catch). Clearly.
the one important thing that isn't getting discussed may be Shields swatting the ball, causing Dez to lose his grip on it. That doesn't happen, play may have ended differently.
in fact do not even see how you can change the way it is worded. The problem is replay. The rules were not written to hold up to each play being slowed down and viewed time and again in 1080P resolution.
At full speed that is a catch, it is catch in the playground, at pop warner, college, NFL, anywhere they play football. Bryant caught the ball and had two feet in bounds, he even took two steps. As he came to a stop on the ground he has the ball in his hands.
It was called a catch on the field (because it was) and everyone who was on the field or watching it full speed thought it was a catch.
To slow it down to look to see if the ball point hit the ground or he "finished the process" or some crap is ridiculous. It empowers the officials too much and takes away from a great football play.
Now, I will admit I am bias overall against replay. I think it should be used only for clear cut plays( crossing the goal-line, in out of bounds) and outside of clear cut calls like that should be used sparingly to overturn judgement calls made on the field.
The concept is to OVERTURN the call, that the burden of proof is on the overturn of the call made on the field . I think that this is not how the system is implemented. Calls are overturned all the time where there is not clear cut evidence to do so, and in my opinion that is what happened yesterday.
The human element should not be removed from these events. Would the game be any worse without replay for judgement calls like yesterdays? No one even knows what the rules are and all it does it empower the officials way too much. I would rather settle it on the field of play.
What it think you're saying is you hate instant replay and you don't care if the officials get it wrong on the field, correct?
You have to maintain possession of the ball the entire time you are going to the ground, regardless of "moves common to the game" and all that stuff. Dez caught the ball in the air and lost it when he hit the ground. Incomplete. Simple, clear call.
Hypothetical: A player catches a pass on the sideline or in the endzone without a defender around him, gets their toes in, hits the ground untouched and the ball pops out... You want that to be a catch (or TD)?
Hypothetical: A player catches a pass on the sideline or in the endzone without a defender around him, gets their toes in, hits the ground untouched and the ball pops out... You want that to be a catch (or TD)?
If he makes the catch, how long does he have to hold onto the ball, to have it be considered a catch? There is nothing in the rule that states this....once again, an interpretation by the ref....
If he is juggling the ball as he falls, and just before hitting the ground he finally has possession....how long does possession have to be, when he hits the ground and the ball comes loose?
By forcing the player to maintain possession throughout the process, you eliminate the interpretation of the ref....it's a good rule....
Hypothetical: A player catches a pass on the sideline or in the endzone without a defender around him, gets their toes in, hits the ground untouched and the ball pops out... You want that to be a catch (or TD)?
Yes. Absolutely.
So at the end of Superbowl 43, when Santonio Holmes tip toes in the back corner of the endzone...
Can you imagine if the ball popped out when he hit the ground and the Steelers won because it was ruled a TD?
I may be mistaken, but I remember spending my formative years as a football fan where the rule was two feet and possession meant a catch. I don't recall hearing the terms "football move" or "finishing the process". I also can't recall it ever being a problem.
The rule was correctly enforced on Bryant. But when the rule says that what happened yesterday isn't a catch, the rule is broken.
This.
As GT and FMiC say, it's the introduction of the terms "Football move" into the rule that makes it ridiculous. What the hell does that even mean? So catching a football, getting two feet down, taking three steps, and falling down.... there is not a football move in there?? lol
And actually I remember it being worse (or just as bad) on the Calvin Johnson overturn that sparked the controversy on this particular rule. Google that one. And the same replay official made the call on both catches (Gene Steratore).
But if I had to make a change it would be that if the ball comes loose only as a result of hitting the ground while it was in his control and the player can regain possession before either the ball lands on the ground or he ends up out of bounds that they allow him to re-establish possession and it be a considered a complete pass.
I'd agree with that, qualifying it only (vs. ball "lands" on the ground) that the ground does not facilitate maintaining possession or control.
In responding to Kyle's game thread comment yesterday I was clearly (doh) wrong in saying the ball didn't touch the ground: if Dez could have done anything different, as a different poster said, it would have been not to extend his arms/ball in the effort to cross the plane of the goal line in order to score; had he gone fetal, Cowboys likely have a 1st, then a TD, and different result.
Why not? It's the same as a fumble. If a play is over the instant a ball carrier hits the ground (so the ball coming out isn't a fumble), why isn't the play over the instant a receiver hits the ground?
Take Santonio Holmes in the Super Bowl as the perfect example.
Did he possess the ball? Yes.
Did he have two feet in bounds when he possessed it? Yes.
So the play is over at that instant. Touchdown. But because of the way the rule is written, all sorts of interpretation is needed if Holmes loses or even juggles the ball when he hits the ground. Makes no sense.
Or more simply...any rule that has Randle NOT scoring a TD in Washington is a bad rule.
RE: So on a pass over the middle, no sidelines involved,
you see guys regularly secure the catch and maintain possession of it through the catch A TON more than you see it go the other way.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
if a runner has possession of the ball and is contacted, he is down as soon as he hits the ground. So the ball coming out subsequent to that is after the play is over.
I don't understand the rule and have not seen it written to interpret
But if Dez had done the same thing in the middle of the field and at the 50 yard line, would it have been a catch? I would think it should be provided he doesn't use the ground to help make the catch.
RE: I don't understand the rule and have not seen it written to interpret
But if Dez had done the same thing in the middle of the field and at the 50 yard line, would it have been a catch? I would think it should be provided he doesn't use the ground to help make the catch.
He never went out of bounds. The call would have been the same.
you see guys regularly secure the catch and maintain possession of it through the catch A TON more than you see it go the other way.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
That's not lowering a standard at all. It's making a rule consistent with the rest of the game, and taking one more thing out of the ref's hands. I certainly wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a higher standard or good for the game. Schadenfreude is fun, but what happened yesterday was a black eye for the game.
RE: I don't understand the rule and have not seen it written to interpret
But if Dez had done the same thing in the middle of the field and at the 50 yard line, would it have been a catch? I would think it should be provided he doesn't use the ground to help make the catch.
No, because he lost control of the ball when he hit the ground. Doesn't matter where on the field it happened.
you see guys regularly secure the catch and maintain possession of it through the catch A TON more than you see it go the other way.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
That's not lowering a standard at all. It's making a rule consistent with the rest of the game, and taking one more thing out of the ref's hands. I certainly wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a higher standard or good for the game. Schadenfreude is fun, but what happened yesterday was a black eye for the game.
All Dez had to do was cradle the ball and catch it. He didn't need to extend it.
All Randle had to do was hold on to it for it to be a TD.
All the player has to do to keep it out of the refs hands is make the catch and maintain control. That's the best way to not have the rule invoked in the first place.
I would day any ball that touches the ground in the process of catching it should be incomplete. Other than that, if the ball never touches the ground, it should be a completed pass. If you control ball (no bobble) and get two feet down and someone pops it out = fumble. If your ass or knee is down = down by contact. If it is in end zone or sidelines and ball pops out = TD if end zone and catch or fumble if sidelines. Everything else seems to require too much analysis.
calls that vary from referee to referee, this rule is very objective and easy to enforce correctly and consistently (with instant replay). The bad thing is that everything else about these catches is absolutely brilliant highlight reel material and deserving of more than just an "incompletion." Too bad there is no "do over" rule.
In golf, it's called "rub of the green." For instance when the ball hits the flag stick and bounces off the green into a trap or into the lake.
I think we're going to have to live with this rule, like it or not.
the offense, especially receivers, this rule is totally needed. You're not allowed to be touched after 5 yards, hold onto the freakin ball from catch to whistle.
I dislike the rule because it doesn't reward a WR for making...
...and extreme effort. I get the purpose of the rule, to eliminate the so-called "cheap fumbles" that would arise when a ball pops out after hitting the ground. But screw it, fumbles are fun.
(Also, though no officials have said this, I think another reason for the rule is to prevent defenders from trying to lay out the receiver as he catches it; if the rule is two feet plus control, there will be a lot more fumbles when a defender knocks the ball loose before the WR can secure it and make a couple steps -- those situations would be incomplete passes under the current rule).
I may be mistaken, but I remember spending my formative years as a football fan where the rule was two feet and possession meant a catch. I don't recall hearing the terms "football move" or "finishing the process". I also can't recall it ever being a problem.
The rule was correctly enforced on Bryant. But when the rule says that what happened yesterday isn't a catch, the rule is broken.
I do remember it being a problem. One play in particular, I think on MNF in the '70's, when a receiver in the endzone (I think he was a Cardinal) was ruled to have a caught a touchdown pass even though the ball barely touched his hands before it fell to the ground. It was dissatisfaction with outcomes like that one that eventually led to the current rule, in which a player has to hang on to the ball at least long enough to make a football move.
in fact do not even see how you can change the way it is worded. The problem is replay. The rules were not written to hold up to each play being slowed down and viewed time and again in 1080P resolution.
At full speed that is a catch, it is catch in the playground, at pop warner, college, NFL, anywhere they play football. Bryant caught the ball and had two feet in bounds, he even took two steps. As he came to a stop on the ground he has the ball in his hands.
It was called a catch on the field (because it was) and everyone who was on the field or watching it full speed thought it was a catch.
To slow it down to look to see if the ball point hit the ground or he "finished the process" or some crap is ridiculous. It empowers the officials too much and takes away from a great football play.
Now, I will admit I am bias overall against replay. I think it should be used only for clear cut plays( crossing the goal-line, in out of bounds) and outside of clear cut calls like that should be used sparingly to overturn judgement calls made on the field.
The concept is to OVERTURN the call, that the burden of proof is on the overturn of the call made on the field . I think that this is not how the system is implemented. Calls are overturned all the time where there is not clear cut evidence to do so, and in my opinion that is what happened yesterday.
The human element should not be removed from these events. Would the game be any worse without replay for judgement calls like yesterdays? No one even knows what the rules are and all it does it empower the officials way too much. I would rather settle it on the field of play.
What it think you're saying is you hate instant replay and you don't care if the officials get it wrong on the field, correct?
Replay should be used mainly for clear cut things that can not be debated. In/out of bounds, breaking the plane etc.
Anything that is a judgement call or subjective, the call on the field should have great weight. It is just lip service now that there needs to be clear evidence to overturn
I do not think replay makes the game better or more accurately officiated. It should be a last resort for the most egregious errors. I know I am in the minority regarding this.
you see guys regularly secure the catch and maintain possession of it through the catch A TON more than you see it go the other way.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
That's not lowering a standard at all. It's making a rule consistent with the rest of the game, and taking one more thing out of the ref's hands. I certainly wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a higher standard or good for the game. Schadenfreude is fun, but what happened yesterday was a black eye for the game.
All Dez had to do was cradle the ball and catch it. He didn't need to extend it.
All Randle had to do was hold on to it for it to be a TD.
All the player has to do to keep it out of the refs hands is make the catch and maintain control. That's the best way to not have the rule invoked in the first place.
Dez was trying to score an enormous touchdown in an enormous game. He's extending for the end zone. He catches it, takes three steps, pushes off with his third and dives for the end zone.
I just watched the replay again several times. If the rules say that isn't a catch then the rules are bad. We can be happy all we want, but a guy made an incredible play yesterday and a bad rule screwed his team out of it. It's not good for the game.
you see guys regularly secure the catch and maintain possession of it through the catch A TON more than you see it go the other way.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
That's not lowering a standard at all. It's making a rule consistent with the rest of the game, and taking one more thing out of the ref's hands. I certainly wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a higher standard or good for the game. Schadenfreude is fun, but what happened yesterday was a black eye for the game.
All Dez had to do was cradle the ball and catch it. He didn't need to extend it.
All Randle had to do was hold on to it for it to be a TD.
All the player has to do to keep it out of the refs hands is make the catch and maintain control. That's the best way to not have the rule invoked in the first place.
Dez was trying to score an enormous touchdown in an enormous game. He's extending for the end zone. He catches it, takes three steps, pushes off with his third and dives for the end zone.
I just watched the replay again several times. If the rules say that isn't a catch then the rules are bad. We can be happy all we want, but a guy made an incredible play yesterday and a bad rule screwed his team out of it. It's not good for the game.
I agree 100%.
I am glad they lost. Very glad. But as a fan of football to take away that play in that critical situation is a travesty.
How many people here yesterday, in real time before it began being discussed on the broadcast, saw the replay and KNEW it was going to replay and knew that the replay would be based on the Calvin Johnson rule?
I did, and I imagine a lot of other people did too.
To me, that indicates that people knew the rule, and understood what was happening.
Most casual fans probably have a problem with the rule, but that's because they don't understand it.
Dives? You're saying he voluntarily went to the ground on a dive and that he was in complete control before said dive?
This ^^^^^. I did not see a receiver with possession of the ball take three steps (or even two), and then dive for the end zone. I saw a guy trying to pull down a ball he had already bobbled in the air as he fell to the ground.
Since the db was on the ground before Dez was, not sure why he would have not just walked into the end zone if he had possession of the ball and was on his feet under control as opposed to involuntarily falling to the ground.
you see guys regularly secure the catch and maintain possession of it through the catch A TON more than you see it go the other way.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
That's not lowering a standard at all. It's making a rule consistent with the rest of the game, and taking one more thing out of the ref's hands. I certainly wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a higher standard or good for the game. Schadenfreude is fun, but what happened yesterday was a black eye for the game.
All Dez had to do was cradle the ball and catch it. He didn't need to extend it.
All Randle had to do was hold on to it for it to be a TD.
All the player has to do to keep it out of the refs hands is make the catch and maintain control. That's the best way to not have the rule invoked in the first place.
Dez was trying to score an enormous touchdown in an enormous game. He's extending for the end zone. He catches it, takes three steps, pushes off with his third and dives for the end zone.
I just watched the replay again several times. If the rules say that isn't a catch then the rules are bad. We can be happy all we want, but a guy made an incredible play yesterday and a bad rule screwed his team out of it. It's not good for the game.
It was 4th and 1 with 3 minutes left. Dez did not need to put the ball at risk, he just needed to make the catch.
He catches that, it's 1st and goal at the 1 yard line.
the rule was put into place. On review, it was clear the receiver did not have total control of the ball (it was moving) before going to the ground. this isn't even a gray area. It is not a catch, by the rule.
There was no "football move" here, because the ball was not yet secured.
The one piece of the rule I do not like is when a receiver does have control of the ball, and either stretches for the goalline or lands in the end zone and the ball pops out when he hits the ground. In my opinion, as long as control was maintained, this should be a TD because the ball crossed the plain. The caveat here would the receiver would have to have had 2 feet down prior to going to the ground.
RE: Plays like this one in question a re big reason
the rule was put into place. On review, it was clear the receiver did not have total control of the ball (it was moving) before going to the ground. this isn't even a gray area. It is not a catch, by the rule.
There was no "football move" here, because the ball was not yet secured.
The one piece of the rule I do not like is when a receiver does have control of the ball, and either stretches for the goalline or lands in the end zone and the ball pops out when he hits the ground. In my opinion, as long as control was maintained, this should be a TD because the ball crossed the plain. The caveat here would the receiver would have to have had 2 feet down prior to going to the ground.
Replay is what makes this rule controversial. It is impossible to tell if he "does or does not" have control coming down without slowing it down and looking at in in HD.
Full speed it is a catch.
That seems to be where the biggest disagreement is
I saw one continuous motion wherein Dez grabbed the ball in the air, fell forward, and lost it when he hit the ground. It looked like one continuous act that ended when he lost control of the ball before he completed the process. No catch.
I have a problem with people who are saying that Dez caught the ball, took three steps, then hit the ground as he extended the ball.
That's incorrect. He took steps while bobbling the ball. If he had caught the ball cleanly then took three steps, it would have been called a catch. But he bobbled it from the start, really only started to secure it with one hand on his final step as he fell to the ground, and lost it as the ball hit the ground. It was very close to being a catch, but once I saw the replay for the first time, I said right away that it was incomplete.
Remember, the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion.
you see guys regularly secure the catch and maintain possession of it through the catch A TON more than you see it go the other way.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
That's not lowering a standard at all. It's making a rule consistent with the rest of the game, and taking one more thing out of the ref's hands. I certainly wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a higher standard or good for the game. Schadenfreude is fun, but what happened yesterday was a black eye for the game.
All Dez had to do was cradle the ball and catch it. He didn't need to extend it.
All Randle had to do was hold on to it for it to be a TD.
All the player has to do to keep it out of the refs hands is make the catch and maintain control. That's the best way to not have the rule invoked in the first place.
Dez was trying to score an enormous touchdown in an enormous game. He's extending for the end zone. He catches it, takes three steps, pushes off with his third and dives for the end zone.
I just watched the replay again several times. If the rules say that isn't a catch then the rules are bad. We can be happy all we want, but a guy made an incredible play yesterday and a bad rule screwed his team out of it. It's not good for the game.
It was 4th and 1 with 3 minutes left. Dez did not need to put the ball at risk, he just needed to make the catch.
He catches that, it's 1st and goal at the 1 yard line.
That isn't the point. Not even close. The guy caught it, took three steps, switched the ball to his left hand. How is that not enough for the rules to call that a catch?
What if he had kept his balance long enough to take two or three more steps (like the Indy TE yesterday) and then lost the ball? The rules state that would be incomplete too. It's crazy.
The truth is no one cares because it's Bryant. But when it was Randle people were pissed. Had that been us yesterday BBI would have imploded.
I'm not a rule guy, but imo if you have the ball in your hands and you are going to the ground during the "process" and you DON'T re-establish yourself upright then you should have to hold it all the way.
the ambiguity falls into interpreting "football moves" and such, but imo you can't do a football move if you are in the air and going to the ground all in 1 motion... as in not re-establishing balance on 2 feet.
you see guys regularly secure the catch and maintain possession of it through the catch A TON more than you see it go the other way.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
That's not lowering a standard at all. It's making a rule consistent with the rest of the game, and taking one more thing out of the ref's hands. I certainly wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a higher standard or good for the game. Schadenfreude is fun, but what happened yesterday was a black eye for the game.
All Dez had to do was cradle the ball and catch it. He didn't need to extend it.
All Randle had to do was hold on to it for it to be a TD.
All the player has to do to keep it out of the refs hands is make the catch and maintain control. That's the best way to not have the rule invoked in the first place.
Dez was trying to score an enormous touchdown in an enormous game. He's extending for the end zone. He catches it, takes three steps, pushes off with his third and dives for the end zone.
I just watched the replay again several times. If the rules say that isn't a catch then the rules are bad. We can be happy all we want, but a guy made an incredible play yesterday and a bad rule screwed his team out of it. It's not good for the game.
It was 4th and 1 with 3 minutes left. Dez did not need to put the ball at risk, he just needed to make the catch.
He catches that, it's 1st and goal at the 1 yard line.
That isn't the point. Not even close. The guy caught it, took three steps, switched the ball to his left hand. How is that not enough for the rules to call that a catch?
What if he had kept his balance long enough to take two or three more steps (like the Indy TE yesterday) and then lost the ball? The rules state that would be incomplete too. It's crazy.
The truth is no one cares because it's Bryant. But when it was Randle people were pissed. Had that been us yesterday BBI would have imploded.
Disagree and it did happen to us earlier this year vs Redskins when Randle caught a ball in the EZ, took two steps backwards while securing the ball and had it knocked out of his hands for an interception.
He never secured the ball on his first two steps, he was double clutching it, and the defender still was in contact with him, up until his third step. At that point, once he secured the ball, he still had to get the so-called "second foot down" to complete the catch. He went down, the ball contacted the ground and came loose. Text book incompletion
The alternative you propose I do not agree with, that two tip toes equals possession, and whatever happens after is irrelevant.
I think it's easy enough for the offense as is. Wide recievers are paid a lot of money to catch and secure the ball. Not catch it for a second and then whatever happens happens.
I have a problem with people who are saying that Dez caught the ball, took three steps, then hit the ground as he extended the ball.
That's incorrect. He took steps while bobbling the ball. If he had caught the ball cleanly then took three steps, it would have been called a catch. But he bobbled it from the start, really only started to secure it with one hand on his final step as he fell to the ground, and lost it as the ball hit the ground. It was very close to being a catch, but once I saw the replay for the first time, I said right away that it was incomplete.
Remember, the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion.
I actually disagree. He secured the ball on his first step. It was a fantastic effort. He clearly had control of the ball until the ground removed it. It's clear to me he was falling either way though... however he presented control with at least 2 steps, and had enough control to try to extend himself further to get into the EZ. Those 2 steps and that stretch are control and football moves in my mind. Again though, based on how it's written I see the point of it being over-turned. As a football fan I will never like it though.
The rule needs to exist because without a specific definition of a catch it would be completely up to the ref to decide catch or no catch and on any given day in the NFL you would see the exact same circumstance called two different ways. On every bang-bang catch/drop/fumble play there could be varying interpretations. The only other (horrible) option is to use some silly duration based approach which of course would be close to impossible in real time.
Having similar plays called differently is far more unacceptable than pretty much anything else. The current rule strives to minimize that. That said, nothing is perfect, but it's a game, so we'll live.
Because the defender still had his hand between the ball and Dez's left hand. You could possibly make a case for the second step, but they have been calling this shit incomplete for the last few seasons.
I must admit: I am still not sure I understand exactly
I have come to accept the "Calvin Johnson" rule. We know that if a receiver catches the ball and hits the ground, they have to maintain possession the entire way through for it to be a completion... thus, those situations where the receiver slides out of bounds while the ball is being juggled or they juggle the drop the ball at the end are incomplete passes.
But with the Dez play, he never actually dropped the ball, did he? He bobbled it but ended up in the EZ with the ball in his possession. Ultimately I would think that is and should be a catch.
All that said, I am not losing any sleep over the Cowboys losing on a ref call, but for the good of the game, it would be nice if there was not so much debate regarding what is and is not a catch.
I have come to accept the "Calvin Johnson" rule. We know that if a receiver catches the ball and hits the ground, they have to maintain possession the entire way through for it to be a completion... thus, those situations where the receiver slides out of bounds while the ball is being juggled or they juggle the drop the ball at the end are incomplete passes.
But with the Dez play, he never actually dropped the ball, did he? He bobbled it but ended up in the EZ with the ball in his possession. Ultimately I would think that is and should be a catch.
All that said, I am not losing any sleep over the Cowboys losing on a ref call, but for the good of the game, it would be nice if there was not so much debate regarding what is and is not a catch.
Dez extended the ball with one arm, and an entire side of the ball hit the ground and bounced out of his grip, up into the air. The ball touched the ground. That is the difference.
As for the debate about the catch, I'd say most people realize and admit that "by rule" the right call was made.
People are debating the rule rather than this particular catch, itself.
In the Bryant scenario, he went up for the ball, had two hands firmly on it, thus giving him possession of the ball, and then took two steps as he was falling to the ground which then jarred the ball loose. If he were to do the same thing, but instead of falling after two steps, he was hit by a defending player that jarred the ball lose, then it would be considered a fumble. Why should the act of falling change anything? Possession and two steps, to me, should be a catch no matter what.
The ground can't cause a fumble, so why can it cause an incompletion?
It looked like one continuous act that ended when he lost control of the ball before he completed the process. No catch.
That's how I saw it too. He was fighting the defender for the ball which was briefly loose; then he had it while he was falling but lost it when he hit the ground.
It's unfortunate the ref made reference to "football move" or whatever as I think that's made the discussion more complicated than it needs to be.
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.
It sure looked to me that Dez extended trying to get the TD and I agree with others here saying had he just cradled it he would have caught it.
But why isn't him extending the ball for the TD not considered a football move?
Either way, I love the final score!
My guess, and that's all it is...
Is that they couldn't tell whether Dez was intentionally extending, vs. naturally reacting to falling forward at a high rate of speed after being off balance.
In the Bryant scenario, he went up for the ball, had two hands firmly on it, thus giving him possession of the ball, and then took two steps as he was falling to the ground which then jarred the ball loose. If he were to do the same thing, but instead of falling after two steps, he was hit by a defending player that jarred the ball lose, then it would be considered a fumble. Why should the act of falling change anything? Possession and two steps, to me, should be a catch no matter what.
The ground can't cause a fumble, so why can it cause an incompletion?
In the Bryant scenario, he went up for the ball, had two hands firmly on it, thus giving him possession of the ball, and then took two steps as he was falling to the ground which then jarred the ball loose. If he were to do the same thing, but instead of falling after two steps, he was hit by a defending player that jarred the ball lose, then it would be considered a fumble. Why should the act of falling change anything? Possession and two steps, to me, should be a catch no matter what.
The ground can't cause a fumble, so why can it cause an incompletion?
The "ground can't cause a fumble" is not a rule.
By rule, a fumble is a possessed ball. An incompletion is not posessed by the receiver.
RE: Here is the pertinent language from the rule book
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.
This clarifies the problem I had of why him extending the ball for a TD did not count as a football move. According to this, he never got to the point in the play where a football move would come into consideration because he was falling to the ground during the process of establishing control of the ball and before he did that, he let it touch the ground while he was bobbling it. So he never established control in the first place, and the extension of his arm, if that was what it was, did not matter because he has to establish control BEFORE making the football move. Dez did not do that.
"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."
He did not "maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground."
To me the only way to keep that from being a catch is to employ a convoluted rule to define what constitutes a catch. Congrats to the NFL for making what we see there not a catch.
What rule would I rather have? I'll take Peter King's suggestion
for a catch to be catch as soon as a receiver gets two feet down and possesses the ball clearly.
As for the difficulty of deciding whether a receiver had possession of a ball long enough to justify a fumble if he loses it, the officials made that determination for years without causing an uproar as big as this.
Let them review the possession question in New York.
for a catch to be catch as soon as a receiver gets two feet down and possesses the ball clearly.
As for the difficulty of deciding whether a receiver had possession of a ball long enough to justify a fumble if he loses it, the officials made that determination for years without causing an uproar as big as this.
Let them review the possession question in New York.
Even if that's the rule, then when does he clearly have possession in the gif above?
At the top of the jump? Well, no, because the CB knocks the ball sideways in his hands.
Middle of the action? No, because he's trying to control it in both hands.
End of the action? No, because the ball hits the ground and is knocked loose.
At no point does he have both feet down and established possession that I can see.
has made it easier on the offense. This one doesn't.
If a WR goes up for a ball or extends, it gives a defender an opportunity to make a play and knock the ball loose. I like it.
This rule also makes it clear what a catch really is when a player leaves his feet for the ball. If the player is going to the ground or off balance when landing he has to hold the ball the entire way. What's the problem with that?
BTW, I did enjoy the comments on the game thread. Some of the same people who bitched about "taking 3 steps" in the Rutgers/Michgan game were now screaming "That is not a catch!"
It was the same play. Guy goes up. Lands off balance. Taps 3 feet. And does not hold onto the ball after hitting the ground. An easy call. No catch!
confirms is that Bryant doesn't appear to be consciously stretching the ball for the goalline like Garrett keeps saying. It looks like he hits the ground from the momentum of jumping.
with Peter King's suggestion is that it's not any easier determing what "possess the ball clearly" means. Guy makes a diving catch over the middle while not contacted and has the ball not moving in his hands as he's horizontal to the ground-- his two feet tap the ground a split second before he lands and the ball comes out as he hits the ground. That's a completion and a fumble? What if the receiver is diving for a ball, catches it in his chest in mid-air, and then lands on his chest/elbow and the ball immediately squirts out? If his elbow hit first, we would call that a fumble?
Since the receiver was not contacted and not giving himself up, he would not be down and thus the loose ball would beconsidered fumbles, if we determine possession.
But it seems that Peter King would argue that this is possession because he had a firm grip on the ball and then had two feet/elbow down.
confirms is that Bryant doesn't appear to be consciously stretching the ball for the goalline like Garrett keeps saying. It looks like he hits the ground from the momentum of jumping.
Good observation. I agree and previously had thought he was stretching for the TD. He was NOT!
RE: The best part of Britt's video is the baby crying
that 9/10 times (I would say 10/10, but have to compensate for the inevitable incompetent official, the Jeff Triplette's and Bill Leavy's of the world),during the regular season, or in non crucial juncture in a game, that is not a catch and nobody really has a problem with it.
The larger question is if the rule makes sense. If you showed that gif to an alien, would they think it was a catch?
Possession plus three steps during which he put the ball in his left hand (I'd call each step and the shifting of the ball a series of football moves but I guess they aren't for some reason).
The larger question is if the rule makes sense. If you showed that gif to an alien, would they think it was a catch?
Possession plus three steps during which he put the ball in his left hand (I'd call each step and the shifting of the ball a series of football moves but I guess they aren't for some reason).
It's not possession plus 3 steps. He does not have possession at the top.
I don't think Peter King meant literally that both feet have to
be down. Either both feet or any other part of the body that strikes the ground while the receiver has possession, like a knee or a shoulder.
If the receiver gets his hands on the ball and then loses it and it is recovered by the other team and ruled a recovered fumble, then as a turnover it will automatically be reviewed in New York and let them make the determination of whether the receiver possessed the ball long enough.
I'm not religious about King's suggestion. It's a difficult question, but I think they can do better than the rule that was in place this year.
John Mara, who is on the rules committee, said that changing this rule was discussed last year, but they decided to keep the rule the way it was. I'm sure it will be discussed again off-season and I hope that they can come up with something better.
had he transitioned from a receiver to a runner? This is the key - after completing possession a receiver becomes a runner and the rules all change.
Now if he transitioned from a receiver to a runner then that would be because he completed the catch. If that's the case, why did he go to the ground? Was he tackled? I didn't see a tackle.
I think it was the momentum from the catch that took him to the ground. I think this is why he is still a receiver, and still in the process of making the catch. That's why the catch rule was applied, and not the fumble rule.
I don't like the way things played out against Randle, but in Randle's case it was a little more egregious because in the end zone he cannot make a football move. I don't think these are being fairly compared.
To the OP question - while I don't always like the outcome, I really like the rule. To me, it provides some clarity. The ball comes out? Then it's not a catch. It would be very difficult to write a better rule than that. Like the OP, I'd like to see some suggestions.
Let's hypothetically he did actually have possession at one point, but we all agree that he lost possession when he hit the ground, which I don't think anybody is disputing.
Here is the play in real time:
What did he have possession for? A split second? Is that the precendent we want to set?
The larger question is if the rule makes sense. If you showed that gif to an alien, would they think it was a catch?
Possession plus three steps during which he put the ball in his left hand (I'd call each step and the shifting of the ball a series of football moves but I guess they aren't for some reason).
It's not possession plus 3 steps. He does not have possession at the top.
I don't agree with you. By the time the first step hits, I think he's got it. And he has it all the way until the ball itself touches the ground.
Terps, in regards to having it at the first step...
Watching again in real time, I don't think it looks like a catch by the letter of the law either. He took two steps in stride while securing the catch. It is questionable whether, at that point, the dive is considered a football move because it is questionable that he established control prior to the dive.
doesn't secure the ball right away because of the play the DB makes and then the ball clearly disengages from his hands after it hits the ground and he's rolled over.
That's the key part - that the ball hits the ground and loses contact with his hands. It is clear evidence that possession was lost.
RE: Terps, in regards to having it at the first step...
If you watch all the slow motion replays in the link I posted above...
The corner dislodges the ball so it's moving in Dez's hands when the first step hits.
I don't agree, but even if you're right it's still another two steps where he clearly has control of the ball, so much so that he shifts it to his left hand in an effort to extend towards the end zone. He doesn't manage to fully extend because he clearly never fully regains his balance...there's no doubt he's going to the ground from the point of the catch. Thus the correct ruling.
Rule says no catch, common sense says something else IMO.
1) It wasn't a TD anyway, because the ball never crossed the plane. He would have to have been ruled down by contact upon review, if it was viewed as a catch.
2) I never understood where people got the 3 steps notion. The ball hit his hands and was shifting when his first foot hit. He took two choppy steps, the first he seemed to still be securing the ball, and from the second step either dove or fell. At best he took 2 steps with the ball, but total control was never established per the rules.
3) I don't care if what team you are a fan of. There is no reason for complaint, as the officials ended up getting this one correct.
RE: RE: Terps, in regards to having it at the first step...
If you watch all the slow motion replays in the link I posted above...
The corner dislodges the ball so it's moving in Dez's hands when the first step hits.
I don't agree, but even if you're right it's still another two steps where he clearly has control of the ball, so much so that he shifts it to his left hand in an effort to extend towards the end zone. He doesn't manage to fully extend because he clearly never fully regains his balance...there's no doubt he's going to the ground from the point of the catch. Thus the correct ruling.
Rule says no catch, common sense says something else IMO.
The problem with that, Terps...
Step one, ball dislodged by CB
Step two, ball in transition being secured/switching hands
Step three, falling forward extended, ground knocks it loose.
As fast as that sequence of events, there was never a point where he had both feet down AND established possession.
is whether his left knee hit the ground before his elbow or the ball. that would affect the spot of the ball, but whether or not it is considered a catch.
You notice in that shot that there is an official not five yards away from Bryant viewing him in perfect position to view his landing in the end zone. And that official ruled a catch.
This rule is supposed to help the officials make the catch/nocatch decision easer, but that official in perfect position called it wrong.
RE: RE: Terps, in regards to having it at the first step...
If you watch all the slow motion replays in the link I posted above...
The corner dislodges the ball so it's moving in Dez's hands when the first step hits.
I don't agree, but even if you're right it's still another two steps where he clearly has control of the ball, so much so that he shifts it to his left hand in an effort to extend towards the end zone. He doesn't manage to fully extend because he clearly never fully regains his balance...there's no doubt he's going to the ground from the point of the catch. Thus the correct ruling.
Rule says no catch, common sense says something else IMO.
But until he regains his balance he is still in the process of catching the ball. That and the fact he is double clutching it as he comes down with the first step are the two crucial points. Now if he never let it hit the ground and jar loose it would have been a catch. But the whole time he is out of control until the ending of the ball popping loose
but if you look at the official, he is running to the spot to mark it when the ball actually becomes dislodged from Bryant's hands. I can see why it was ruled a catch on the field. Before Bryant is done rolling around, the official is already at the 1 marking the ball - he didn't look at the play all the way to completion.
Again it seems most agree the correct call was made. Especially since the ball is jarred loose by the DB. It's a great play all the way around... the DB had great coverage and did everything he could to make the play. Just great effort and great play all the way around.
That said, the thing that really sticks to me in believing this catch "makes the rule suck", is the fact that Bryant secures the ball, has it knocked loose, takes two steps while securing the ball again... and establishing control by the fact that he switches hands before he hits the ground. To me the rule fits... but damn man... that's a catch...
This was posted on the game thread and the same rule came into play
The issue with the steps is from step one he is going to the ground and he has not made the catch yet. That's it right there.
In a Dec game this year, Chiefs TE Kelce ran a deep out. THe ball was high. He jumped, caught the ball and landed cleanly on both feet. His feet were under him and he was not stumbling. He took one more step to the sideline and was hit from behind. He landed and the ball came out. It was a catch.
Why? Because, as Dan mentioned above, he transitioned to a runner and that is the key. Bryant did not. He was still trying to complete the catch as his feet hit. He was going to the ground with his first step. Throughout the play was going to the ground. As he was going down 2 more feet hit.
If a guy is going to the ground while making the catch he must hold the ball to complete the catch. That's what happened with Bryant. Doesn't that make it easy to call?
The issue with the steps is from step one he is going to the ground and he has not made the catch yet. That's it right there.
In a Dec game this year, Chiefs TE Kelce ran a deep out. THe ball was high. He jumped, caught the ball and landed cleanly on both feet. His feet were under him and he was not stumbling. He took one more step to the sideline and was hit from behind. He landed and the ball came out. It was a catch.
Why? Because, as Dan mentioned above, he transitioned to a runner and that is the key. Bryant did not. He was still trying to complete the catch as his feet hit. He was going to the ground with his first step. Throughout the play was going to the ground. As he was going down 2 more feet hit.
If a guy is going to the ground while making the catch he must hold the ball to complete the catch. That's what happened with Bryant. Doesn't that make it easy to call?
That and the fact that he did not have it secured on the first step because the GB defender still had his hand in between the ball and Dez's right hand
of from home is the slo-mo replays and multiple angles. The ref that makes the call sees everything in a blur and has to determine if possession was maintained, all while trying to make sure he has the spot right.
I will say that as much as we want to scream incompetence, in a real-time look - it is a tough call to make.
I tend to scream incompetence more when a replay is reviewed and they still get the call wrong. Like I said above, if the catch had been allowed to stand after looking at replay, that would have been a bigger travesty than the call in the Lions game.
The issue with the steps is from step one he is going to the ground and he has not made the catch yet. That's it right there.
If a guy is going to the ground while making the catch he must hold the ball to complete the catch. That's what happened with Bryant. Doesn't that make it easy to call?
This is what I have been trying to say. We are under a rule called "Going to the Ground." It applies to this specific situation. The rule is clear and its application to this play is clear.
That ref bringing up "football moves" added an element to this discussion that is completely unhelpful.
all he had to say was the reciever did not maintain possession through the process of going to the ground, therefor incomplete pass, Green Bay ball, 1st and 10.
And I think there would have been a lot less outcry.
and I think it is a good rule. Two feet and possession would be a very bad rule and would end up cause all sorts of issues.
Imagine OBJ's TD catch against the Cowboys. What if the ball had popped out when he landed on his back? Under the current rule that would rightly be no catch. Under a rule of 2 feet and possession, it would have been a TD before his back even hit the ground. Now imagine he wasn't contacted by the defender and the catch happened at the 5 yard line. If the ball comes out when he lands on his back, it becomes a fumble. I don't see how that is what you would want the rules to be.
from which the phrase "Calvin Johnson rule" was taken is this:
That, too, was much more clearly a catch than the one yesterday. It shouldn't be difficult to rewrite trules which leave that one as a catch, but not the one from yesterday. There was no question in the Calvin Johjnson catch that he maintained posession all the way to the ground, imo.
The rule used to be that a pass was incomplete if it touched the ground without regard to whether the receiver had control. This came to be known as the Bert Emanuel rule after the Tampa received made a catch in the 1999 NFC championship game that was ruled incomplete because it touched the ground. It was the correct call according to the rule. The competition committee changed the rule to allow the ball to touch the ground providing the receiver maintains control of the ball throughout the entire process of the making catch. Basically, if the ball moves after it touches contacts the ground, it's an incomplete pass.
It's clear, a least to me, that Bryant was stumbling after he caught the ball and he lost control when he fell and the ball hit the ground. At that point, it's incomplete. I thought it was incomplete in real time, after the initial replay, and in subsequent replays. I don't think you can critize Bryant for trying to extend the ball because he didn't. He jumped, stumbled, hit the ground and the ball came lose.
is exactly what I don't agree with about the rule. Secured catch plus 2 feet down in the end zone should result in a TD, regardless of what happens next. How is that different than fumbling after the ball crosses the plane, for example? 2 feet with control is a catch. If all of that happens in the end zone the ball crossed the plane with the offensive player in control the play shjould stop right there.
The larger question is if the rule makes sense. If you showed that gif to an alien, would they think it was a catch?
Possession plus three steps during which he put the ball in his left hand (I'd call each step and the shifting of the ball a series of football moves but I guess they aren't for some reason).
It isn't 3 steps or a series of moves. The # of steps and/or series of moves only beomces relevant after the ball is secured. He lands with his first foot while securing the ball. At best he takes 2 stumbling steps after the ball is secured. I say at best, because it isn't abundantly clear he had full control of the ball when his second foot hits.
I agree with you in that I also think he did not make a dive. To me, it looks like he is stumbling to the ground, aided by contact with the DB. This is why I said earlier that even if they ruled it a catch, the ball should be spotted somewhere around the 1 yard line.
and I think it is a good rule. Two feet and possession would be a very bad rule and would end up cause all sorts of issues.
Imagine OBJ's TD catch against the Cowboys. What if the ball had popped out when he landed on his back? Under the current rule that would rightly be no catch. Under a rule of 2 feet and possession, it would have been a TD before his back even hit the ground. Now imagine he wasn't contacted by the defender and the catch happened at the 5 yard line. If the ball comes out when he lands on his back, it becomes a fumble. I don't see how that is what you would want the rules to be.
The OBJ catch is not unlike the Johnson catch, in my mind, when you look at this rule. these are glaring examples of how the rule can go wrong. In my opinion, the OBJ catch should end as soon as he has 1) possession, 2) 2 feet (or other applicable body parts) and 3) the ball crosses the plane. On any play falling short of the goalline, going to the ground should apply. But, in my opinion, any play where the ball crosses the goalline, according to all other rules, should result in a TD...period.
but I disagree that he did not reach for the goal line. It looks to me like he has the ball close to his body, turns his head, sees the goal line, and pushes off with his toes to try to get there. He props himself with his right hand go get the extra inches. Granted, he was off balance and it was awkward, but I think he was reaching for it.
I'm a firm believer that nuances in judgement should be left out of the rulebook. For my money, if you can't describe the rule in clearly observable and unambiguous terms, then it shouldn't be a rule. Judgements are made by people, and therefore nuances in judgement will be a part of the call even if you're crystal clear in the rulebook. Make the rulebook as unambiguous as you can, and live with the fact that there will be some level of interpretation on the field because of circumstances. The "football act" language feels like the legal equivalent of "if you like how it looks".
I call BS.
I believe that the rule should be modified to basically be, if the receiver has two hands on the ball and the ball is not bobbling, and he contacts the ground with two feet and or another part of his body other than his hands, it's a catch. If the ball comes out afterward and before being touched, then it's a fumble and ruled accordingly.
My 2 cents, and worth every penny you paid for it.
I think this is a moot point to the interpretation of the rule. I just added it as an observation.
Before the dive or stumble, he took two choppy or stumbling "steps" while securing the ball. however, it isn't clear if he had complete control of the ball at this point. Even that becomes moot because once the ball popped out as he hit the ground it became an incompletion regardless.
RE: This was posted on the game thread and the same rule came into play
This isn't the same rule at all. Here, 'going to the ground' doesn't come into play.
They ruled the ball incomplete because he did not control it all the way through the process. They ruled that an Interception instead of a TD because of the same thing
but I disagree that he did not reach for the goal line. It looks to me like he has the ball close to his body, turns his head, sees the goal line, and pushes off with his toes to try to get there. He props himself with his right hand go get the extra inches. Granted, he was off balance and it was awkward, but I think he was reaching for it.
I'm a firm believer that nuances in judgement should be left out of the rulebook. For my money, if you can't describe the rule in clearly observable and unambiguous terms, then it shouldn't be a rule. Judgements are made by people, and therefore nuances in judgement will be a part of the call even if you're crystal clear in the rulebook. Make the rulebook as unambiguous as you can, and live with the fact that there will be some level of interpretation on the field because of circumstances. The "football act" language feels like the legal equivalent of "if you like how it looks".
I call BS.
I believe that the rule should be modified to basically be, if the receiver has two hands on the ball and the ball is not bobbling, and he contacts the ground with two feet and or another part of his body other than his hands, it's a catch. If the ball comes out afterward and before being touched, then it's a fumble and ruled accordingly.
My 2 cents, and worth every penny you paid for it.
I think making the receiver complete the catch without losing it when he hits the ground has less judgement than your scenario.
I guess you could make the rule that the ball can't come out period,..but then how tdo you account for a short pass that is caught and turned upfield for 20 yards of RAC only to be fumbled?
I may be mistaken, but I remember spending my formative years as a football fan where the rule was two feet and possession meant a catch. I don't recall hearing the terms "football move" or "finishing the process". I also can't recall it ever being a problem.
The rule was correctly enforced on Bryant. But when the rule says that what happened yesterday isn't a catch, the rule is broken.
Didn't this emanate from the Reidel Anthony non-catch in the 1999 NFC Championship? I think they changed the rule to make it clearer as to what is and isn't a catch and to take some discretion away from the officials to lead to more consistency. The rule is easy: if the ball hits the ground while you are falling after you get the ball, it's not a catch.
The rule is hard-line, so easier to interpret, but has harsher effect in squirrely cases like Bryant's. I can see why people argue that it is a catch because his feet hit the ground, then he took a step, he manipulated the ball, reached it out, etc. People keep getting confused when making arguments that it was a catch, saying stuff that is either irrelevant, or ignores the lynchpin of the analysis, like:
1. "you only need two feet down and control" - which doesn't address whether or not the "falling" portion of the rule was triggered, or
2. "he made a football move" - which also doesn't address whether or not the "falling" portion of the rule was triggered, or
3. the most idiotic "the ground can't cause a fumble" - which isn't relevant because Bryant recovered the ball anyway, and the issue is whether he established himself as a runner, not whether he fumbled. This isn't even a correct recitation of that rule, since a non-contacted player who loses control of the ball after falling on the ground has fumbled. Eli has done this.
So the critical part of the analysis is whether or not he was going to the ground while in the process of making the catch. And this depends on whether you think he jumped, landed under control, took the next step, and then dove, in which case the "falling" portion of the rule isn't triggered, or if you think he was stumbling as he was falling, triggering the "falling" portion of the rule. If it's the former, it's a catch. If it's the latter, it's not.
My view is that it was not a catch because I don't really think you can count Bryant's "steps" as anything other than stumbling and trying unsuccessfully to regain his balance as he was falling. It was not like he jumped, landed under control and took another step to dive to the end-zone. He jumped to grab the ball, got it, lost it for a half-sec when the defender touched it, regained control, landed awkwardly and uncontrolled, stumbled to try to regain his balance, than as he was falling, tried to push off to fall more forward.
So he was going to the ground while in the process of making the catch. Case closed.
I guess they could tweak the rule so that if the receiver takes steps, he is not going to ground, but it seems like splitting hairs.
I don't think this one was worse than Megatron's catch, though, because Dez lost control of the ball. Megatron never did. He just decided not to pick it up when he ran to celebrate.
I may be mistaken, but I remember spending my formative years as a football fan where the rule was two feet and possession meant a catch. I don't recall hearing the terms "football move" or "finishing the process". I also can't recall it ever being a problem.
The rule was correctly enforced on Bryant. But when the rule says that what happened yesterday isn't a catch, the rule is broken.
Didn't this emanate from the Reidel Anthony non-catch in the 1999 NFC Championship? I think they changed the rule to make it clearer as to what is and isn't a catch and to take some discretion away from the officials to lead to more consistency. The rule is easy: if the ball hits the ground while you are falling after you get the ball, it's not a catch.
The rule is hard-line, so easier to interpret, but has harsher effect in squirrely cases like Bryant's. I can see why people argue that it is a catch because his feet hit the ground, then he took a step, he manipulated the ball, reached it out, etc. People keep getting confused when making arguments that it was a catch, saying stuff that is either irrelevant, or ignores the lynchpin of the analysis, like:
1. "you only need two feet down and control" - which doesn't address whether or not the "falling" portion of the rule was triggered, or
2. "he made a football move" - which also doesn't address whether or not the "falling" portion of the rule was triggered, or
3. the most idiotic "the ground can't cause a fumble" - which isn't relevant because Bryant recovered the ball anyway, and the issue is whether he established himself as a runner, not whether he fumbled. This isn't even a correct recitation of that rule, since a non-contacted player who loses control of the ball after falling on the ground has fumbled. Eli has done this.
So the critical part of the analysis is whether or not he was going to the ground while in the process of making the catch. And this depends on whether you think he jumped, landed under control, took the next step, and then dove, in which case the "falling" portion of the rule isn't triggered, or if you think he was stumbling as he was falling, triggering the "falling" portion of the rule. If it's the former, it's a catch. If it's the latter, it's not.
My view is that it was not a catch because I don't really think you can count Bryant's "steps" as anything other than stumbling and trying unsuccessfully to regain his balance as he was falling. It was not like he jumped, landed under control and took another step to dive to the end-zone. He jumped to grab the ball, got it, lost it for a half-sec when the defender touched it, regained control, landed awkwardly and uncontrolled, stumbled to try to regain his balance, than as he was falling, tried to push off to fall more forward.
So he was going to the ground while in the process of making the catch. Case closed.
I guess they could tweak the rule so that if the receiver takes steps, he is not going to ground, but it seems like splitting hairs.
I don't think this one was worse than Megatron's catch, though, because Dez lost control of the ball. Megatron never did. He just decided not to pick it up when he ran to celebrate.
My bad, I forgot it was Emmanuel, not Anthony for the Bucs.
My main problem with the rule is that it requires too many (unfair) constraints on a receiver while making it too easy for a runner. A runner merely has to have ball break plane of end zone by a micrometer and it's a TD even if he fumbles as soon as he falls into end zone; by comparison the receiver has to maintain possession, while getting smashed by opposing players, complete a football move, & keep possession when landing. If NFL wants such a rule, make it the same for both running and catching..why make it so difficult for such a skilled, acrobatic, athletic player, & then nothing for simply crossing a line for a brief moment in time??
My main problem with the rule is that it requires too many (unfair) constraints on a receiver while making it too easy for a runner. A runner merely has to have ball break plane of end zone by a micrometer and it's a TD even if he fumbles as soon as he falls into end zone; by comparison the receiver has to maintain possession, while getting smashed by opposing players, complete a football move, & keep possession when landing. If NFL wants such a rule, make it the same for both running and catching..why make it so difficult for such a skilled, acrobatic, athletic player, & then nothing for simply crossing a line for a brief moment in time??
It's actually pretty simple. The runner already has possession when he crosses the plane. If you haven't noticed, this entire conversation has been about the receiver establishing possession.
I see that call week in, week out, and am used to it. The only reason it's an issue today is because of the spot it was in.
Dez really should have just cradled the ball and made the catch. There was nothing to be gained by him reaching out and putting the ball at risk in an unsecured manner. He paid for taking an unneccessary risk.
I love the rule since it went against the Boy's yesterday.Would hate it if it went against the Giants.
I dont disagree with the call, I disagree with the way it is written. 3 Steps then falling after the ball is 100% secured should be a fumble if not downed by contact
The rule was correctly enforced on Bryant. But when the rule says that what happened yesterday isn't a catch, the rule is broken.
When you say "hitting the ground", do you mean the player or the ball?
When you go to the ground in the process of making the catch, you have to hold onto the football. I'm still not sure what all the confusion is. The questions about him making "a football move common to the game" is a different question, and one that didn't apply here since he never gained full possession of the ball.
No need to make a change, just enforce it consistently as they did yesterday.
:)
I would rather keep it that as long as the ball doesn't contact the ground (and then move) during a catch, it counts without adding in other variables.
I love the rule since it went against the Boy's yesterday.Would hate it if it went against the Giants.
It has gone against the Giants... The Randle play as somebody said above, and I remember it happening to OBJ once this year on the way out of bounds, too, I believe.
It's just that it was the spot in the game yesterday that it's getting this attention. If it happened in the 1st quarter 0-0, probably not a big deal.
I would rather keep it that as long as the ball doesn't contact the ground (and then move) during a catch, it counts without adding in other variables.
Does "football move" come into play because he was going to the ground?
There will always be uncretainty with the rules. We just need to live with that.
Quote:
But if I had to make a change it would be that if the ball comes loose only as a result of hitting the ground while it was in his control and the player can regain possession before either the ball lands on the ground or he ends up out of bounds that they allow him to re-establish possession and it be a considered a complete pass.
When you say "hitting the ground", do you mean the player or the ball?
Really either. Of course that means it was in the players control to that point and not being juggled or something akin to that and then hits the ground, which should always be incomplete. Kind of like the ground can't cause a fumble with a runner. If the players has the ball in control in his hands and while going though the completing of the catch to the ground it causes the ball to come loose he would have the opportunity to still regain possession if he stays in bounds or the ball doesn't land on the turf.
Again, I don't have a problem with the rule as currently written, but if they determine something needed to be changed I wouldn't be upset if the changed it to allow this.
There's another fundamental question here: is the game made better by introducing these terms to complicate the definition of a catch? Further, is the game made better by putting more interpretation into the hands of the refs?
We've got instant replay and seemingly hundreds of HD cameras covering every angle of the field...so why does it feel like blown calls abound?
a. a player is hit while making attempting to make a catch
b. the player hits the ground
c. the player is in bounds (including the end zone) when he hits the ground
d. the player catches the ball (i.e it at no point touches the ground before he has full possession)
then it's a catch even if the ball was being juggled when the receiver hit the ground.
Quote:
of having to maintain control of the ball all the way through the catch. I think that is necessary. what I don't like is the introduction of the verbiage "a football move" into any of the rules. It is not only confusing to interpret, it is highly subjective.
I would rather keep it that as long as the ball doesn't contact the ground (and then move) during a catch, it counts without adding in other variables.
Does "football move" come into play because he was going to the ground?
relative to yesterday, that was never explained, but I think "football move" comes into play because then the receiver has become a runner and the ground can't cause a fumble (but it can cause an incompletion).
don't like the cowboys, but that was a catch.
There's another fundamental question here: is the game made better by introducing these terms to complicate the definition of a catch? Further, is the game made better by putting more interpretation into the hands of the refs?
We've got instant replay and seemingly hundreds of HD cameras covering every angle of the field...so why does it feel like blown calls abound?
I don't think yesterday's call was a blown call. I think the ref got it wrong in real time, but the replay fixed it, which is what is supposed to happen. I don't think it is broken so I don't think it needs to be fixed.
Quote:
of having to maintain control of the ball all the way through the catch. I think that is necessary. what I don't like is the introduction of the verbiage "a football move" into any of the rules. It is not only confusing to interpret, it is highly subjective.
I would rather keep it that as long as the ball doesn't contact the ground (and then move) during a catch, it counts without adding in other variables.
Does "football move" come into play because he was going to the ground?
When I watch the replay I see a lunge and not a continuous falling to the ground motion( or whatever made it incomplete). Obviously what I think I see is not the correct interpretation. So, I think that's the subjective part of " football move" that bothers me.
I am happy to say "screw Dallas" though.
At full speed that is a catch, it is catch in the playground, at pop warner, college, NFL, anywhere they play football. Bryant caught the ball and had two feet in bounds, he even took two steps. As he came to a stop on the ground he has the ball in his hands.
It was called a catch on the field (because it was) and everyone who was on the field or watching it full speed thought it was a catch.
To slow it down to look to see if the ball point hit the ground or he "finished the process" or some crap is ridiculous. It empowers the officials too much and takes away from a great football play.
Now, I will admit I am bias overall against replay. I think it should be used only for clear cut plays( crossing the goal-line, in out of bounds) and outside of clear cut calls like that should be used sparingly to overturn judgement calls made on the field.
The concept is to OVERTURN the call, that the burden of proof is on the overturn of the call made on the field . I think that this is not how the system is implemented. Calls are overturned all the time where there is not clear cut evidence to do so, and in my opinion that is what happened yesterday.
The human element should not be removed from these events. Would the game be any worse without replay for judgement calls like yesterdays? No one even knows what the rules are and all it does it empower the officials way too much. I would rather settle it on the field of play.
At full speed that is a catch, it is catch in the playground, at pop warner, college, NFL, anywhere they play football. Bryant caught the ball and had two feet in bounds, he even took two steps. As he came to a stop on the ground he has the ball in his hands.
It was called a catch on the field (because it was) and everyone who was on the field or watching it full speed thought it was a catch.
To slow it down to look to see if the ball point hit the ground or he "finished the process" or some crap is ridiculous. It empowers the officials too much and takes away from a great football play.
Now, I will admit I am bias overall against replay. I think it should be used only for clear cut plays( crossing the goal-line, in out of bounds) and outside of clear cut calls like that should be used sparingly to overturn judgement calls made on the field.
The concept is to OVERTURN the call, that the burden of proof is on the overturn of the call made on the field . I think that this is not how the system is implemented. Calls are overturned all the time where there is not clear cut evidence to do so, and in my opinion that is what happened yesterday.
The human element should not be removed from these events. Would the game be any worse without replay for judgement calls like yesterdays? No one even knows what the rules are and all it does it empower the officials way too much. I would rather settle it on the field of play.
Overall, I think replay makes the games much better. While there are instances where the replay seems to get it wrong, more times than not it corrects errors.
I must have been watching a different highlight than you. I saw a guy falling to the ground struggling to secure the ball after the db popped it loose, and when the ball clearly hit the ground, it came completely loose. IMO it would have been a crime to call that a catch.
I'm actually fine with defining the catch as being two feet or going to the ground and maintaining control.
what confuses plays is when the element of "making a football move" comes into play. Keep it simple. Two feet upright OR maintaining the ball on plays while going to the ground = a catch. Get rid of any rule that discusses making a football move.
we already saw earlier this year the giants get penalized for hitting a defenseless TE who hadn't made a "football move" yet was allowed to lower his head and initiate contact.
There's another fundamental question here: is the game made better by introducing these terms to complicate the definition of a catch? Further, is the game made better by putting more interpretation into the hands of the refs?
We've got instant replay and seemingly hundreds of HD cameras covering every angle of the field...so why does it feel like blown calls abound?
The thread exists because of posts like your first one in this thread. The only thing is "it sucks". No why or how to change.
What if he stumbled for another three or four off balance steps and then hit the ground in the end zone and lost the ball? By rule that would have been incomplete. Absurd.
Quote:
To me this thread is proof the rule is broken. There isn't going to be complete agreement on something as subjective as "completing the process" or what exactly constitutes a football move.
There's another fundamental question here: is the game made better by introducing these terms to complicate the definition of a catch? Further, is the game made better by putting more interpretation into the hands of the refs?
We've got instant replay and seemingly hundreds of HD cameras covering every angle of the field...so why does it feel like blown calls abound?
The thread exists because of posts like your first one in this thread. The only thing is "it sucks". No why or how to change.
Bullshit. I've pointed out why it sucks (open to interpretation) and how to change it (2 feet after possession is a catch). Clearly.
At full speed that is a catch, it is catch in the playground, at pop warner, college, NFL, anywhere they play football. Bryant caught the ball and had two feet in bounds, he even took two steps. As he came to a stop on the ground he has the ball in his hands.
It was called a catch on the field (because it was) and everyone who was on the field or watching it full speed thought it was a catch.
To slow it down to look to see if the ball point hit the ground or he "finished the process" or some crap is ridiculous. It empowers the officials too much and takes away from a great football play.
Now, I will admit I am bias overall against replay. I think it should be used only for clear cut plays( crossing the goal-line, in out of bounds) and outside of clear cut calls like that should be used sparingly to overturn judgement calls made on the field.
The concept is to OVERTURN the call, that the burden of proof is on the overturn of the call made on the field . I think that this is not how the system is implemented. Calls are overturned all the time where there is not clear cut evidence to do so, and in my opinion that is what happened yesterday.
The human element should not be removed from these events. Would the game be any worse without replay for judgement calls like yesterdays? No one even knows what the rules are and all it does it empower the officials way too much. I would rather settle it on the field of play.
What it think you're saying is you hate instant replay and you don't care if the officials get it wrong on the field, correct?
Hypothetical: A player catches a pass on the sideline or in the endzone without a defender around him, gets their toes in, hits the ground untouched and the ball pops out... You want that to be a catch (or TD)?
Hypothetical: A player catches a pass on the sideline or in the endzone without a defender around him, gets their toes in, hits the ground untouched and the ball pops out... You want that to be a catch (or TD)?
Yes. Absolutely.
If he is juggling the ball as he falls, and just before hitting the ground he finally has possession....how long does possession have to be, when he hits the ground and the ball comes loose?
By forcing the player to maintain possession throughout the process, you eliminate the interpretation of the ref....it's a good rule....
This pretty much sums it up for me.
Quote:
"two feet after possession is a catch"
Hypothetical: A player catches a pass on the sideline or in the endzone without a defender around him, gets their toes in, hits the ground untouched and the ball pops out... You want that to be a catch (or TD)?
Yes. Absolutely.
So at the end of Superbowl 43, when Santonio Holmes tip toes in the back corner of the endzone...
Can you imagine if the ball popped out when he hit the ground and the Steelers won because it was ruled a TD?
The rule was correctly enforced on Bryant. But when the rule says that what happened yesterday isn't a catch, the rule is broken.
This.
As GT and FMiC say, it's the introduction of the terms "Football move" into the rule that makes it ridiculous. What the hell does that even mean? So catching a football, getting two feet down, taking three steps, and falling down.... there is not a football move in there?? lol
And actually I remember it being worse (or just as bad) on the Calvin Johnson overturn that sparked the controversy on this particular rule. Google that one. And the same replay official made the call on both catches (Gene Steratore).
I'd agree with that, qualifying it only (vs. ball "lands" on the ground) that the ground does not facilitate maintaining possession or control.
In responding to Kyle's game thread comment yesterday I was clearly (doh) wrong in saying the ball didn't touch the ground: if Dez could have done anything different, as a different poster said, it would have been not to extend his arms/ball in the effort to cross the plane of the goal line in order to score; had he gone fetal, Cowboys likely have a 1st, then a TD, and different result.
Catch and fumble or incomplete?
Why not? It's the same as a fumble. If a play is over the instant a ball carrier hits the ground (so the ball coming out isn't a fumble), why isn't the play over the instant a receiver hits the ground?
Take Santonio Holmes in the Super Bowl as the perfect example.
Did he possess the ball? Yes.
Did he have two feet in bounds when he possessed it? Yes.
So the play is over at that instant. Touchdown. But because of the way the rule is written, all sorts of interpretation is needed if Holmes loses or even juggles the ball when he hits the ground. Makes no sense.
Or more simply...any rule that has Randle NOT scoring a TD in Washington is a bad rule.
Catch and fumble or incomplete?
Fumble. That used to be the rule and it worked fine.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
He never went out of bounds. The call would have been the same.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
That's not lowering a standard at all. It's making a rule consistent with the rest of the game, and taking one more thing out of the ref's hands. I certainly wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a higher standard or good for the game. Schadenfreude is fun, but what happened yesterday was a black eye for the game.
No, because he lost control of the ball when he hit the ground. Doesn't matter where on the field it happened.
Quote:
you see guys regularly secure the catch and maintain possession of it through the catch A TON more than you see it go the other way.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
That's not lowering a standard at all. It's making a rule consistent with the rest of the game, and taking one more thing out of the ref's hands. I certainly wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a higher standard or good for the game. Schadenfreude is fun, but what happened yesterday was a black eye for the game.
All Dez had to do was cradle the ball and catch it. He didn't need to extend it.
All Randle had to do was hold on to it for it to be a TD.
All the player has to do to keep it out of the refs hands is make the catch and maintain control. That's the best way to not have the rule invoked in the first place.
In golf, it's called "rub of the green." For instance when the ball hits the flag stick and bounces off the green into a trap or into the lake.
I think we're going to have to live with this rule, like it or not.
bobbled, if it's never touched the ground I agree.
The Randle TD that wasn't - ( New Window )
(Also, though no officials have said this, I think another reason for the rule is to prevent defenders from trying to lay out the receiver as he catches it; if the rule is two feet plus control, there will be a lot more fumbles when a defender knocks the ball loose before the WR can secure it and make a couple steps -- those situations would be incomplete passes under the current rule).
The rule was correctly enforced on Bryant. But when the rule says that what happened yesterday isn't a catch, the rule is broken.
I do remember it being a problem. One play in particular, I think on MNF in the '70's, when a receiver in the endzone (I think he was a Cardinal) was ruled to have a caught a touchdown pass even though the ball barely touched his hands before it fell to the ground. It was dissatisfaction with outcomes like that one that eventually led to the current rule, in which a player has to hang on to the ball at least long enough to make a football move.
I prefer the current rule to the old one.
Quote:
in fact do not even see how you can change the way it is worded. The problem is replay. The rules were not written to hold up to each play being slowed down and viewed time and again in 1080P resolution.
At full speed that is a catch, it is catch in the playground, at pop warner, college, NFL, anywhere they play football. Bryant caught the ball and had two feet in bounds, he even took two steps. As he came to a stop on the ground he has the ball in his hands.
It was called a catch on the field (because it was) and everyone who was on the field or watching it full speed thought it was a catch.
To slow it down to look to see if the ball point hit the ground or he "finished the process" or some crap is ridiculous. It empowers the officials too much and takes away from a great football play.
Now, I will admit I am bias overall against replay. I think it should be used only for clear cut plays( crossing the goal-line, in out of bounds) and outside of clear cut calls like that should be used sparingly to overturn judgement calls made on the field.
The concept is to OVERTURN the call, that the burden of proof is on the overturn of the call made on the field . I think that this is not how the system is implemented. Calls are overturned all the time where there is not clear cut evidence to do so, and in my opinion that is what happened yesterday.
The human element should not be removed from these events. Would the game be any worse without replay for judgement calls like yesterdays? No one even knows what the rules are and all it does it empower the officials way too much. I would rather settle it on the field of play.
What it think you're saying is you hate instant replay and you don't care if the officials get it wrong on the field, correct?
Replay should be used mainly for clear cut things that can not be debated. In/out of bounds, breaking the plane etc.
Anything that is a judgement call or subjective, the call on the field should have great weight. It is just lip service now that there needs to be clear evidence to overturn
I do not think replay makes the game better or more accurately officiated. It should be a last resort for the most egregious errors. I know I am in the minority regarding this.
Quote:
In comment 12091403 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
you see guys regularly secure the catch and maintain possession of it through the catch A TON more than you see it go the other way.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
That's not lowering a standard at all. It's making a rule consistent with the rest of the game, and taking one more thing out of the ref's hands. I certainly wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a higher standard or good for the game. Schadenfreude is fun, but what happened yesterday was a black eye for the game.
All Dez had to do was cradle the ball and catch it. He didn't need to extend it.
All Randle had to do was hold on to it for it to be a TD.
All the player has to do to keep it out of the refs hands is make the catch and maintain control. That's the best way to not have the rule invoked in the first place.
Dez was trying to score an enormous touchdown in an enormous game. He's extending for the end zone. He catches it, takes three steps, pushes off with his third and dives for the end zone.
I just watched the replay again several times. If the rules say that isn't a catch then the rules are bad. We can be happy all we want, but a guy made an incredible play yesterday and a bad rule screwed his team out of it. It's not good for the game.
Quote:
In comment 12091424 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 12091403 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
you see guys regularly secure the catch and maintain possession of it through the catch A TON more than you see it go the other way.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
That's not lowering a standard at all. It's making a rule consistent with the rest of the game, and taking one more thing out of the ref's hands. I certainly wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a higher standard or good for the game. Schadenfreude is fun, but what happened yesterday was a black eye for the game.
All Dez had to do was cradle the ball and catch it. He didn't need to extend it.
All Randle had to do was hold on to it for it to be a TD.
All the player has to do to keep it out of the refs hands is make the catch and maintain control. That's the best way to not have the rule invoked in the first place.
Dez was trying to score an enormous touchdown in an enormous game. He's extending for the end zone. He catches it, takes three steps, pushes off with his third and dives for the end zone.
I just watched the replay again several times. If the rules say that isn't a catch then the rules are bad. We can be happy all we want, but a guy made an incredible play yesterday and a bad rule screwed his team out of it. It's not good for the game.
I agree 100%.
I am glad they lost. Very glad. But as a fan of football to take away that play in that critical situation is a travesty.
I did, and I imagine a lot of other people did too.
To me, that indicates that people knew the rule, and understood what was happening.
Most casual fans probably have a problem with the rule, but that's because they don't understand it.
This ^^^^^. I did not see a receiver with possession of the ball take three steps (or even two), and then dive for the end zone. I saw a guy trying to pull down a ball he had already bobbled in the air as he fell to the ground.
Since the db was on the ground before Dez was, not sure why he would have not just walked into the end zone if he had possession of the ball and was on his feet under control as opposed to involuntarily falling to the ground.
That's how I saw it, yes.
Quote:
In comment 12091424 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 12091403 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
you see guys regularly secure the catch and maintain possession of it through the catch A TON more than you see it go the other way.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
That's not lowering a standard at all. It's making a rule consistent with the rest of the game, and taking one more thing out of the ref's hands. I certainly wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a higher standard or good for the game. Schadenfreude is fun, but what happened yesterday was a black eye for the game.
All Dez had to do was cradle the ball and catch it. He didn't need to extend it.
All Randle had to do was hold on to it for it to be a TD.
All the player has to do to keep it out of the refs hands is make the catch and maintain control. That's the best way to not have the rule invoked in the first place.
Dez was trying to score an enormous touchdown in an enormous game. He's extending for the end zone. He catches it, takes three steps, pushes off with his third and dives for the end zone.
I just watched the replay again several times. If the rules say that isn't a catch then the rules are bad. We can be happy all we want, but a guy made an incredible play yesterday and a bad rule screwed his team out of it. It's not good for the game.
It was 4th and 1 with 3 minutes left. Dez did not need to put the ball at risk, he just needed to make the catch.
He catches that, it's 1st and goal at the 1 yard line.
Quote:
Dives? You're saying he voluntarily went to the ground on a dive and that he was in complete control before said dive?
That's how I saw it, yes.
Once again, I agree with you and saw it the same way.
It was a catch.
So I guess those are the breaks.
There was no "football move" here, because the ball was not yet secured.
The one piece of the rule I do not like is when a receiver does have control of the ball, and either stretches for the goalline or lands in the end zone and the ball pops out when he hits the ground. In my opinion, as long as control was maintained, this should be a TD because the ball crossed the plain. The caveat here would the receiver would have to have had 2 feet down prior to going to the ground.
There was no "football move" here, because the ball was not yet secured.
The one piece of the rule I do not like is when a receiver does have control of the ball, and either stretches for the goalline or lands in the end zone and the ball pops out when he hits the ground. In my opinion, as long as control was maintained, this should be a TD because the ball crossed the plain. The caveat here would the receiver would have to have had 2 feet down prior to going to the ground.
Replay is what makes this rule controversial. It is impossible to tell if he "does or does not" have control coming down without slowing it down and looking at in in HD.
Full speed it is a catch.
That's incorrect. He took steps while bobbling the ball. If he had caught the ball cleanly then took three steps, it would have been called a catch. But he bobbled it from the start, really only started to secure it with one hand on his final step as he fell to the ground, and lost it as the ball hit the ground. It was very close to being a catch, but once I saw the replay for the first time, I said right away that it was incomplete.
Remember, the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion.
Quote:
In comment 12091440 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 12091424 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 12091403 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
you see guys regularly secure the catch and maintain possession of it through the catch A TON more than you see it go the other way.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
That's not lowering a standard at all. It's making a rule consistent with the rest of the game, and taking one more thing out of the ref's hands. I certainly wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a higher standard or good for the game. Schadenfreude is fun, but what happened yesterday was a black eye for the game.
All Dez had to do was cradle the ball and catch it. He didn't need to extend it.
All Randle had to do was hold on to it for it to be a TD.
All the player has to do to keep it out of the refs hands is make the catch and maintain control. That's the best way to not have the rule invoked in the first place.
Dez was trying to score an enormous touchdown in an enormous game. He's extending for the end zone. He catches it, takes three steps, pushes off with his third and dives for the end zone.
I just watched the replay again several times. If the rules say that isn't a catch then the rules are bad. We can be happy all we want, but a guy made an incredible play yesterday and a bad rule screwed his team out of it. It's not good for the game.
It was 4th and 1 with 3 minutes left. Dez did not need to put the ball at risk, he just needed to make the catch.
He catches that, it's 1st and goal at the 1 yard line.
That isn't the point. Not even close. The guy caught it, took three steps, switched the ball to his left hand. How is that not enough for the rules to call that a catch?
What if he had kept his balance long enough to take two or three more steps (like the Indy TE yesterday) and then lost the ball? The rules state that would be incomplete too. It's crazy.
The truth is no one cares because it's Bryant. But when it was Randle people were pissed. Had that been us yesterday BBI would have imploded.
Happy it happened to Dallas though. See ya next season Cowboys.
Jerry Jones said after the game that the call was the right call.
the ambiguity falls into interpreting "football moves" and such, but imo you can't do a football move if you are in the air and going to the ground all in 1 motion... as in not re-establishing balance on 2 feet.
Happy it happened to Dallas though. See ya next season Cowboys.
We have lost plenty of games, including playoff games, on good calls, bad calls, sh-tty calls, etc...
That's life in the NFL.
Jerry Jones said after the game that the call was the right call.
You don't seem to be hearing me. They got the call right. According to the rulebook, it's not a catch.
I'm saying the rule is a bad one.
Quote:
In comment 12091546 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 12091440 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
In comment 12091424 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 12091403 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
you see guys regularly secure the catch and maintain possession of it through the catch A TON more than you see it go the other way.
So you're basically lowering the standard of what is a catch. At this point in the already watered down NFL, I'm not loving the idea of lowering any more standards.
That's not lowering a standard at all. It's making a rule consistent with the rest of the game, and taking one more thing out of the ref's hands. I certainly wouldn't call what we saw yesterday a higher standard or good for the game. Schadenfreude is fun, but what happened yesterday was a black eye for the game.
All Dez had to do was cradle the ball and catch it. He didn't need to extend it.
All Randle had to do was hold on to it for it to be a TD.
All the player has to do to keep it out of the refs hands is make the catch and maintain control. That's the best way to not have the rule invoked in the first place.
Dez was trying to score an enormous touchdown in an enormous game. He's extending for the end zone. He catches it, takes three steps, pushes off with his third and dives for the end zone.
I just watched the replay again several times. If the rules say that isn't a catch then the rules are bad. We can be happy all we want, but a guy made an incredible play yesterday and a bad rule screwed his team out of it. It's not good for the game.
It was 4th and 1 with 3 minutes left. Dez did not need to put the ball at risk, he just needed to make the catch.
He catches that, it's 1st and goal at the 1 yard line.
That isn't the point. Not even close. The guy caught it, took three steps, switched the ball to his left hand. How is that not enough for the rules to call that a catch?
What if he had kept his balance long enough to take two or three more steps (like the Indy TE yesterday) and then lost the ball? The rules state that would be incomplete too. It's crazy.
The truth is no one cares because it's Bryant. But when it was Randle people were pissed. Had that been us yesterday BBI would have imploded.
Disagree and it did happen to us earlier this year vs Redskins when Randle caught a ball in the EZ, took two steps backwards while securing the ball and had it knocked out of his hands for an interception.
He never secured the ball on his first two steps, he was double clutching it, and the defender still was in contact with him, up until his third step. At that point, once he secured the ball, he still had to get the so-called "second foot down" to complete the catch. He went down, the ball contacted the ground and came loose. Text book incompletion
He wouldn't have. He would have run it in.
I think it's easy enough for the offense as is. Wide recievers are paid a lot of money to catch and secure the ball. Not catch it for a second and then whatever happens happens.
That's incorrect. He took steps while bobbling the ball. If he had caught the ball cleanly then took three steps, it would have been called a catch. But he bobbled it from the start, really only started to secure it with one hand on his final step as he fell to the ground, and lost it as the ball hit the ground. It was very close to being a catch, but once I saw the replay for the first time, I said right away that it was incomplete.
Remember, the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion.
I actually disagree. He secured the ball on his first step. It was a fantastic effort. He clearly had control of the ball until the ground removed it. It's clear to me he was falling either way though... however he presented control with at least 2 steps, and had enough control to try to extend himself further to get into the EZ. Those 2 steps and that stretch are control and football moves in my mind. Again though, based on how it's written I see the point of it being over-turned. As a football fan I will never like it though.
The rule needs to exist because without a specific definition of a catch it would be completely up to the ref to decide catch or no catch and on any given day in the NFL you would see the exact same circumstance called two different ways. On every bang-bang catch/drop/fumble play there could be varying interpretations. The only other (horrible) option is to use some silly duration based approach which of course would be close to impossible in real time.
Having similar plays called differently is far more unacceptable than pretty much anything else. The current rule strives to minimize that. That said, nothing is perfect, but it's a game, so we'll live.
I have come to accept the "Calvin Johnson" rule. We know that if a receiver catches the ball and hits the ground, they have to maintain possession the entire way through for it to be a completion... thus, those situations where the receiver slides out of bounds while the ball is being juggled or they juggle the drop the ball at the end are incomplete passes.
But with the Dez play, he never actually dropped the ball, did he? He bobbled it but ended up in the EZ with the ball in his possession. Ultimately I would think that is and should be a catch.
All that said, I am not losing any sleep over the Cowboys losing on a ref call, but for the good of the game, it would be nice if there was not so much debate regarding what is and is not a catch.
I have come to accept the "Calvin Johnson" rule. We know that if a receiver catches the ball and hits the ground, they have to maintain possession the entire way through for it to be a completion... thus, those situations where the receiver slides out of bounds while the ball is being juggled or they juggle the drop the ball at the end are incomplete passes.
But with the Dez play, he never actually dropped the ball, did he? He bobbled it but ended up in the EZ with the ball in his possession. Ultimately I would think that is and should be a catch.
All that said, I am not losing any sleep over the Cowboys losing on a ref call, but for the good of the game, it would be nice if there was not so much debate regarding what is and is not a catch.
Dez extended the ball with one arm, and an entire side of the ball hit the ground and bounced out of his grip, up into the air. The ball touched the ground. That is the difference.
As for the debate about the catch, I'd say most people realize and admit that "by rule" the right call was made.
People are debating the rule rather than this particular catch, itself.
The ground can't cause a fumble, so why can it cause an incompletion?
That's how I saw it too. He was fighting the defender for the ball which was briefly loose; then he had it while he was falling but lost it when he hit the ground.
It's unfortunate the ref made reference to "football move" or whatever as I think that's made the discussion more complicated than it needs to be.
So in this case, it was that touching of the ground that is at issue. I missed that part.
But why isn't him extending the ball for the TD not considered a football move?
Either way, I love the final score!
So in this case, it was that touching of the ground that is at issue. I missed that part.
Not just touching the ground. It was losing possession while it was touching the ground.
But why isn't him extending the ball for the TD not considered a football move?
Either way, I love the final score!
How did he extend it when it never got past his head?
But why isn't him extending the ball for the TD not considered a football move?
Either way, I love the final score!
My guess, and that's all it is...
Is that they couldn't tell whether Dez was intentionally extending, vs. naturally reacting to falling forward at a high rate of speed after being off balance.
That's just a guess, though, obviously.
The ground can't cause a fumble, so why can it cause an incompletion?
The "ground can't cause a fumble" is not a rule.
Quote:
In the Bryant scenario, he went up for the ball, had two hands firmly on it, thus giving him possession of the ball, and then took two steps as he was falling to the ground which then jarred the ball loose. If he were to do the same thing, but instead of falling after two steps, he was hit by a defending player that jarred the ball lose, then it would be considered a fumble. Why should the act of falling change anything? Possession and two steps, to me, should be a catch no matter what.
The ground can't cause a fumble, so why can it cause an incompletion?
The "ground can't cause a fumble" is not a rule.
By rule, a fumble is a possessed ball. An incompletion is not posessed by the receiver.
Quote:
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.
This clarifies the problem I had of why him extending the ball for a TD did not count as a football move. According to this, he never got to the point in the play where a football move would come into consideration because he was falling to the ground during the process of establishing control of the ball and before he did that, he let it touch the ground while he was bobbling it. So he never established control in the first place, and the extension of his arm, if that was what it was, did not matter because he has to establish control BEFORE making the football move. Dez did not do that.
He did not "maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground."
for a catch to be catch as soon as a receiver gets two feet down and possesses the ball clearly.
As for the difficulty of deciding whether a receiver had possession of a ball long enough to justify a fumble if he loses it, the officials made that determination for years without causing an uproar as big as this.
Let them review the possession question in New York.
Very good call by the refs in a crucial moment.
for a catch to be catch as soon as a receiver gets two feet down and possesses the ball clearly.
As for the difficulty of deciding whether a receiver had possession of a ball long enough to justify a fumble if he loses it, the officials made that determination for years without causing an uproar as big as this.
Let them review the possession question in New York.
Even if that's the rule, then when does he clearly have possession in the gif above?
At the top of the jump? Well, no, because the CB knocks the ball sideways in his hands.
Middle of the action? No, because he's trying to control it in both hands.
End of the action? No, because the ball hits the ground and is knocked loose.
At no point does he have both feet down and established possession that I can see.
It's all one continuous act.
If a WR goes up for a ball or extends, it gives a defender an opportunity to make a play and knock the ball loose. I like it.
This rule also makes it clear what a catch really is when a player leaves his feet for the ball. If the player is going to the ground or off balance when landing he has to hold the ball the entire way. What's the problem with that?
BTW, I did enjoy the comments on the game thread. Some of the same people who bitched about "taking 3 steps" in the Rutgers/Michgan game were now screaming "That is not a catch!"
It was the same play. Guy goes up. Lands off balance. Taps 3 feet. And does not hold onto the ball after hitting the ground. An easy call. No catch!
He gets up, doesn't celebrate at all, and then immediately lobbies to the official making "catch" motion.
Why does he do that? Because he knew that it was questionable.
Link - ( New Window )
I can see why people would not like that call, but it is the proper one according to the rule as written
Since the receiver was not contacted and not giving himself up, he would not be down and thus the loose ball would beconsidered fumbles, if we determine possession.
But it seems that Peter King would argue that this is possession because he had a firm grip on the ball and then had two feet/elbow down.
This would be a horrific definition of a catch.
Good observation. I agree and previously had thought he was stretching for the TD. He was NOT!
LMAO..there is a baby crying in the background
Possession plus three steps during which he put the ball in his left hand (I'd call each step and the shifting of the ball a series of football moves but I guess they aren't for some reason).
Possession plus three steps during which he put the ball in his left hand (I'd call each step and the shifting of the ball a series of football moves but I guess they aren't for some reason).
It's not possession plus 3 steps. He does not have possession at the top.
If the receiver gets his hands on the ball and then loses it and it is recovered by the other team and ruled a recovered fumble, then as a turnover it will automatically be reviewed in New York and let them make the determination of whether the receiver possessed the ball long enough.
I'm not religious about King's suggestion. It's a difficult question, but I think they can do better than the rule that was in place this year.
John Mara, who is on the rules committee, said that changing this rule was discussed last year, but they decided to keep the rule the way it was. I'm sure it will be discussed again off-season and I hope that they can come up with something better.
Now if he transitioned from a receiver to a runner then that would be because he completed the catch. If that's the case, why did he go to the ground? Was he tackled? I didn't see a tackle.
I think it was the momentum from the catch that took him to the ground. I think this is why he is still a receiver, and still in the process of making the catch. That's why the catch rule was applied, and not the fumble rule.
I don't like the way things played out against Randle, but in Randle's case it was a little more egregious because in the end zone he cannot make a football move. I don't think these are being fairly compared.
To the OP question - while I don't always like the outcome, I really like the rule. To me, it provides some clarity. The ball comes out? Then it's not a catch. It would be very difficult to write a better rule than that. Like the OP, I'd like to see some suggestions.
Let's hypothetically he did actually have possession at one point, but we all agree that he lost possession when he hit the ground, which I don't think anybody is disputing.
Here is the play in real time:
What did he have possession for? A split second? Is that the precendent we want to set?
Quote:
The larger question is if the rule makes sense. If you showed that gif to an alien, would they think it was a catch?
Possession plus three steps during which he put the ball in his left hand (I'd call each step and the shifting of the ball a series of football moves but I guess they aren't for some reason).
It's not possession plus 3 steps. He does not have possession at the top.
I don't agree with you. By the time the first step hits, I think he's got it. And he has it all the way until the ball itself touches the ground.
The corner dislodges the ball so it's moving in Dez's hands when the first step hits.
That's the key part - that the ball hits the ground and loses contact with his hands. It is clear evidence that possession was lost.
The corner dislodges the ball so it's moving in Dez's hands when the first step hits.
I don't agree, but even if you're right it's still another two steps where he clearly has control of the ball, so much so that he shifts it to his left hand in an effort to extend towards the end zone. He doesn't manage to fully extend because he clearly never fully regains his balance...there's no doubt he's going to the ground from the point of the catch. Thus the correct ruling.
Rule says no catch, common sense says something else IMO.
2) I never understood where people got the 3 steps notion. The ball hit his hands and was shifting when his first foot hit. He took two choppy steps, the first he seemed to still be securing the ball, and from the second step either dove or fell. At best he took 2 steps with the ball, but total control was never established per the rules.
3) I don't care if what team you are a fan of. There is no reason for complaint, as the officials ended up getting this one correct.
Quote:
If you watch all the slow motion replays in the link I posted above...
The corner dislodges the ball so it's moving in Dez's hands when the first step hits.
I don't agree, but even if you're right it's still another two steps where he clearly has control of the ball, so much so that he shifts it to his left hand in an effort to extend towards the end zone. He doesn't manage to fully extend because he clearly never fully regains his balance...there's no doubt he's going to the ground from the point of the catch. Thus the correct ruling.
Rule says no catch, common sense says something else IMO.
The problem with that, Terps...
Step one, ball dislodged by CB
Step two, ball in transition being secured/switching hands
Step three, falling forward extended, ground knocks it loose.
As fast as that sequence of events, there was never a point where he had both feet down AND established possession.
You notice in that shot that there is an official not five yards away from Bryant viewing him in perfect position to view his landing in the end zone. And that official ruled a catch.
This rule is supposed to help the officials make the catch/nocatch decision easer, but that official in perfect position called it wrong.
Quote:
If you watch all the slow motion replays in the link I posted above...
The corner dislodges the ball so it's moving in Dez's hands when the first step hits.
I don't agree, but even if you're right it's still another two steps where he clearly has control of the ball, so much so that he shifts it to his left hand in an effort to extend towards the end zone. He doesn't manage to fully extend because he clearly never fully regains his balance...there's no doubt he's going to the ground from the point of the catch. Thus the correct ruling.
Rule says no catch, common sense says something else IMO.
But until he regains his balance he is still in the process of catching the ball. That and the fact he is double clutching it as he comes down with the first step are the two crucial points. Now if he never let it hit the ground and jar loose it would have been a catch. But the whole time he is out of control until the ending of the ball popping loose
Again it seems most agree the correct call was made. Especially since the ball is jarred loose by the DB. It's a great play all the way around... the DB had great coverage and did everything he could to make the play. Just great effort and great play all the way around.
That said, the thing that really sticks to me in believing this catch "makes the rule suck", is the fact that Bryant secures the ball, has it knocked loose, takes two steps while securing the ball again... and establishing control by the fact that he switches hands before he hits the ground. To me the rule fits... but damn man... that's a catch...
This was easily more of a catch then Dez's
In a Dec game this year, Chiefs TE Kelce ran a deep out. THe ball was high. He jumped, caught the ball and landed cleanly on both feet. His feet were under him and he was not stumbling. He took one more step to the sideline and was hit from behind. He landed and the ball came out. It was a catch.
Why? Because, as Dan mentioned above, he transitioned to a runner and that is the key. Bryant did not. He was still trying to complete the catch as his feet hit. He was going to the ground with his first step. Throughout the play was going to the ground. As he was going down 2 more feet hit.
If a guy is going to the ground while making the catch he must hold the ball to complete the catch. That's what happened with Bryant. Doesn't that make it easy to call?
In a Dec game this year, Chiefs TE Kelce ran a deep out. THe ball was high. He jumped, caught the ball and landed cleanly on both feet. His feet were under him and he was not stumbling. He took one more step to the sideline and was hit from behind. He landed and the ball came out. It was a catch.
Why? Because, as Dan mentioned above, he transitioned to a runner and that is the key. Bryant did not. He was still trying to complete the catch as his feet hit. He was going to the ground with his first step. Throughout the play was going to the ground. As he was going down 2 more feet hit.
If a guy is going to the ground while making the catch he must hold the ball to complete the catch. That's what happened with Bryant. Doesn't that make it easy to call?
That and the fact that he did not have it secured on the first step because the GB defender still had his hand in between the ball and Dez's right hand
This was easily more of a catch then Dez's
I agree...to me both are examples of why the rules defining what constitutes a reception are flawed.
Quote:
This was easily more of a catch then Dez's
I agree...to me both are examples of why the rules defining what constitutes a reception are flawed.
Yeah the rule is definitely in need of some clarity
I will say that as much as we want to scream incompetence, in a real-time look - it is a tough call to make.
I tend to scream incompetence more when a replay is reviewed and they still get the call wrong. Like I said above, if the catch had been allowed to stand after looking at replay, that would have been a bigger travesty than the call in the Lions game.
If a guy is going to the ground while making the catch he must hold the ball to complete the catch. That's what happened with Bryant. Doesn't that make it easy to call?
This is what I have been trying to say. We are under a rule called "Going to the Ground." It applies to this specific situation. The rule is clear and its application to this play is clear.
That ref bringing up "football moves" added an element to this discussion that is completely unhelpful.
And I think there would have been a lot less outcry.
If he kept it simple, it would have seemed more routine, like it usually is.
Imagine OBJ's TD catch against the Cowboys. What if the ball had popped out when he landed on his back? Under the current rule that would rightly be no catch. Under a rule of 2 feet and possession, it would have been a TD before his back even hit the ground. Now imagine he wasn't contacted by the defender and the catch happened at the 5 yard line. If the ball comes out when he lands on his back, it becomes a fumble. I don't see how that is what you would want the rules to be.
That, too, was much more clearly a catch than the one yesterday. It shouldn't be difficult to rewrite trules which leave that one as a catch, but not the one from yesterday. There was no question in the Calvin Johjnson catch that he maintained posession all the way to the ground, imo.
It's clear, a least to me, that Bryant was stumbling after he caught the ball and he lost control when he fell and the ball hit the ground. At that point, it's incomplete. I thought it was incomplete in real time, after the initial replay, and in subsequent replays. I don't think you can critize Bryant for trying to extend the ball because he didn't. He jumped, stumbled, hit the ground and the ball came lose.
Seriously, I know it's the Cowboys and fuck them - but take a bit wider view - who would be actually happy if we went back to the old rule.
I think the rule is fine, and I think it was ruled correctly.
Possession plus three steps during which he put the ball in his left hand (I'd call each step and the shifting of the ball a series of football moves but I guess they aren't for some reason).
It isn't 3 steps or a series of moves. The # of steps and/or series of moves only beomces relevant after the ball is secured. He lands with his first foot while securing the ball. At best he takes 2 stumbling steps after the ball is secured. I say at best, because it isn't abundantly clear he had full control of the ball when his second foot hits.
Imagine OBJ's TD catch against the Cowboys. What if the ball had popped out when he landed on his back? Under the current rule that would rightly be no catch. Under a rule of 2 feet and possession, it would have been a TD before his back even hit the ground. Now imagine he wasn't contacted by the defender and the catch happened at the 5 yard line. If the ball comes out when he lands on his back, it becomes a fumble. I don't see how that is what you would want the rules to be.
The OBJ catch is not unlike the Johnson catch, in my mind, when you look at this rule. these are glaring examples of how the rule can go wrong. In my opinion, the OBJ catch should end as soon as he has 1) possession, 2) 2 feet (or other applicable body parts) and 3) the ball crosses the plane. On any play falling short of the goalline, going to the ground should apply. But, in my opinion, any play where the ball crosses the goalline, according to all other rules, should result in a TD...period.
I'm a firm believer that nuances in judgement should be left out of the rulebook. For my money, if you can't describe the rule in clearly observable and unambiguous terms, then it shouldn't be a rule. Judgements are made by people, and therefore nuances in judgement will be a part of the call even if you're crystal clear in the rulebook. Make the rulebook as unambiguous as you can, and live with the fact that there will be some level of interpretation on the field because of circumstances. The "football act" language feels like the legal equivalent of "if you like how it looks".
I call BS.
I believe that the rule should be modified to basically be, if the receiver has two hands on the ball and the ball is not bobbling, and he contacts the ground with two feet and or another part of his body other than his hands, it's a catch. If the ball comes out afterward and before being touched, then it's a fumble and ruled accordingly.
My 2 cents, and worth every penny you paid for it.
Before the dive or stumble, he took two choppy or stumbling "steps" while securing the ball. however, it isn't clear if he had complete control of the ball at this point. Even that becomes moot because once the ball popped out as he hit the ground it became an incompletion regardless.
This was easily more of a catch then Dez's
This isn't the same rule at all. Here, 'going to the ground' doesn't come into play.
Quote:
This was easily more of a catch then Dez's
This isn't the same rule at all. Here, 'going to the ground' doesn't come into play.
They ruled the ball incomplete because he did not control it all the way through the process. They ruled that an Interception instead of a TD because of the same thing
I'm a firm believer that nuances in judgement should be left out of the rulebook. For my money, if you can't describe the rule in clearly observable and unambiguous terms, then it shouldn't be a rule. Judgements are made by people, and therefore nuances in judgement will be a part of the call even if you're crystal clear in the rulebook. Make the rulebook as unambiguous as you can, and live with the fact that there will be some level of interpretation on the field because of circumstances. The "football act" language feels like the legal equivalent of "if you like how it looks".
I call BS.
I believe that the rule should be modified to basically be, if the receiver has two hands on the ball and the ball is not bobbling, and he contacts the ground with two feet and or another part of his body other than his hands, it's a catch. If the ball comes out afterward and before being touched, then it's a fumble and ruled accordingly.
My 2 cents, and worth every penny you paid for it.
Offenses need help in this league, guys, my rule is great for fantasy football.
Obviously this does not apply to OBJ.
The rule was correctly enforced on Bryant. But when the rule says that what happened yesterday isn't a catch, the rule is broken.
Didn't this emanate from the Reidel Anthony non-catch in the 1999 NFC Championship? I think they changed the rule to make it clearer as to what is and isn't a catch and to take some discretion away from the officials to lead to more consistency. The rule is easy: if the ball hits the ground while you are falling after you get the ball, it's not a catch.
The rule is hard-line, so easier to interpret, but has harsher effect in squirrely cases like Bryant's. I can see why people argue that it is a catch because his feet hit the ground, then he took a step, he manipulated the ball, reached it out, etc. People keep getting confused when making arguments that it was a catch, saying stuff that is either irrelevant, or ignores the lynchpin of the analysis, like:
1. "you only need two feet down and control" - which doesn't address whether or not the "falling" portion of the rule was triggered, or
2. "he made a football move" - which also doesn't address whether or not the "falling" portion of the rule was triggered, or
3. the most idiotic "the ground can't cause a fumble" - which isn't relevant because Bryant recovered the ball anyway, and the issue is whether he established himself as a runner, not whether he fumbled. This isn't even a correct recitation of that rule, since a non-contacted player who loses control of the ball after falling on the ground has fumbled. Eli has done this.
So the critical part of the analysis is whether or not he was going to the ground while in the process of making the catch. And this depends on whether you think he jumped, landed under control, took the next step, and then dove, in which case the "falling" portion of the rule isn't triggered, or if you think he was stumbling as he was falling, triggering the "falling" portion of the rule. If it's the former, it's a catch. If it's the latter, it's not.
My view is that it was not a catch because I don't really think you can count Bryant's "steps" as anything other than stumbling and trying unsuccessfully to regain his balance as he was falling. It was not like he jumped, landed under control and took another step to dive to the end-zone. He jumped to grab the ball, got it, lost it for a half-sec when the defender touched it, regained control, landed awkwardly and uncontrolled, stumbled to try to regain his balance, than as he was falling, tried to push off to fall more forward.
So he was going to the ground while in the process of making the catch. Case closed.
I guess they could tweak the rule so that if the receiver takes steps, he is not going to ground, but it seems like splitting hairs.
I don't think this one was worse than Megatron's catch, though, because Dez lost control of the ball. Megatron never did. He just decided not to pick it up when he ran to celebrate.
Quote:
I may be mistaken, but I remember spending my formative years as a football fan where the rule was two feet and possession meant a catch. I don't recall hearing the terms "football move" or "finishing the process". I also can't recall it ever being a problem.
The rule was correctly enforced on Bryant. But when the rule says that what happened yesterday isn't a catch, the rule is broken.
Didn't this emanate from the Reidel Anthony non-catch in the 1999 NFC Championship? I think they changed the rule to make it clearer as to what is and isn't a catch and to take some discretion away from the officials to lead to more consistency. The rule is easy: if the ball hits the ground while you are falling after you get the ball, it's not a catch.
The rule is hard-line, so easier to interpret, but has harsher effect in squirrely cases like Bryant's. I can see why people argue that it is a catch because his feet hit the ground, then he took a step, he manipulated the ball, reached it out, etc. People keep getting confused when making arguments that it was a catch, saying stuff that is either irrelevant, or ignores the lynchpin of the analysis, like:
1. "you only need two feet down and control" - which doesn't address whether or not the "falling" portion of the rule was triggered, or
2. "he made a football move" - which also doesn't address whether or not the "falling" portion of the rule was triggered, or
3. the most idiotic "the ground can't cause a fumble" - which isn't relevant because Bryant recovered the ball anyway, and the issue is whether he established himself as a runner, not whether he fumbled. This isn't even a correct recitation of that rule, since a non-contacted player who loses control of the ball after falling on the ground has fumbled. Eli has done this.
So the critical part of the analysis is whether or not he was going to the ground while in the process of making the catch. And this depends on whether you think he jumped, landed under control, took the next step, and then dove, in which case the "falling" portion of the rule isn't triggered, or if you think he was stumbling as he was falling, triggering the "falling" portion of the rule. If it's the former, it's a catch. If it's the latter, it's not.
My view is that it was not a catch because I don't really think you can count Bryant's "steps" as anything other than stumbling and trying unsuccessfully to regain his balance as he was falling. It was not like he jumped, landed under control and took another step to dive to the end-zone. He jumped to grab the ball, got it, lost it for a half-sec when the defender touched it, regained control, landed awkwardly and uncontrolled, stumbled to try to regain his balance, than as he was falling, tried to push off to fall more forward.
So he was going to the ground while in the process of making the catch. Case closed.
I guess they could tweak the rule so that if the receiver takes steps, he is not going to ground, but it seems like splitting hairs.
I don't think this one was worse than Megatron's catch, though, because Dez lost control of the ball. Megatron never did. He just decided not to pick it up when he ran to celebrate.
My bad, I forgot it was Emmanuel, not Anthony for the Bucs.
It's actually pretty simple. The runner already has possession when he crosses the plane. If you haven't noticed, this entire conversation has been about the receiver establishing possession.