Dez Bryant made brilliant catch. Cowboys hosed

[ducky]

Agreed. I think they should change it. If you catch it in bounds and drop it hitting the ground out of bounds, it's a catch because the play ended as soon as you went out of bounds. If you catch it and cross the goal line, and then it pops out, it's a TD because the play ended as soon as you crossed the goal line.

That's not true. The same rules apply to a WR falling out of bounds as one falling in bounds. He needs to maintain control thru the process in either situation.

 

[BoBlake]

Put a chip in the ball for goal line stuff (we have GPS in piece of shit cars, why not a football) and let them play football.

The technology isn't ready for this. And GPS certainly isn't the tech we'd use. The best GPS accuracy right now is ~1 yard. The worst is around ~7 yards.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

The technology isn't ready for this. And GPS certainly isn't the tech we'd use. The best GPS accuracy right now is ~1 yard. The worst is around ~7 yards.

I have no GPS in my life anywhere so I didn't know. I thought it could pick flyshit out of pepper.

 

[gordontrue]

The technology isn't ready for this. And GPS certainly isn't the tech we'd use. The best GPS accuracy right now is ~1 yard. The worst is around ~7 yards.

RFID would do the trick

 

[ATL96Steeler]

After looking thru a lot of this thread. There is a lot of push back on the rule, stating it's stupid etc....the rule is supposed to make it easier on the refs to call it correctly and obviously the human element is never going to do that.

If the WR is falling during the catch, then X must happen...if not he's not then Y must happen.

The ruling.

On the CON side...I get it...it was a clear catch, but...regardless of what people think they saw, he didn't control the ball all the way to the ground.

On the PRO side...if you go back to the old control and 2 steps = possession...I would prefer that because imo the ground should not cause an incompletion much like it can't cause a fumble...but, it just opens the can of worms back up and the NFL doesn't trust that their officials can handle it.

damned if you do, damned if you don't imo.

 

[gohusk]

After looking thru a lot of this thread. There is a lot of push back on the rule, stating it's stupid etc....the rule is supposed to make it easier on the refs to call it correctly and obviously the human element is never going to do that.

If the WR is falling during the catch, then X must happen...if not he's not then Y must happen.

The ruling.

On the CON side...I get it...it was a clear catch, but...regardless of what people think they saw, he didn't control the ball all the way to the ground.

On the PRO side...if you go back to the old control and 2 steps = possession...I would prefer that because imo the ground should not cause an incompletion much like it can't cause a fumble...but, it just opens the can of worms back up and the NFL doesn't trust that their officials can handle it.

damned if you do, damned if you don't imo.

The ground can cause a fumble. If a guy trips over himself and the ball comes out then it's a fumble. The rule is down by contact when the ball is dislodged by the ground if they were tackled.

 

[ratenstein]

Originally Posted by ratenstein
Agreed. I think they should change it. If you catch it in bounds and drop it hitting the ground out of bounds, it's a catch because the play ended as soon as you went out of bounds. If you catch it and cross the goal line, and then it pops out, it's a TD because the play ended as soon as you crossed the goal line.

That's not true. The same rules apply to a WR falling out of bounds as one falling in bounds. He needs to maintain control thru the process in either situation.

No duh.
I typed, "I think they should change it."

 

[gordontrue]

The ground can cause a fumble. If a guy trips over himself and the ball comes out then it's a fumble. The rule is down by contact when the ball is dislodged by the ground if they were tackled.

Yeah, that makes sense because in the NFL you have to be touched to be 'down'. If you've been touched by a defender... as soon as the ball hits the ground (usually the player's knee or elbow has anyway) he is down... before the ball has a chance to cause a fumble.


In the case of these controversial "going to the ground" incompletions... the player has been contacted by the defense... therefore if he were a ball carrier rather than a receiver... there would be no fumble.


I just don't understand a justification for treating a completion/incompletion differently if the receiver is upright vs going to the ground.

We trust the refs to make a judgement call on whether the receiver had possession if he stays upright... but not if he ends up on the ground? It seems so arbitrary.

The refs generally do a good job of determining in live action whether the receiver has possession long enough to make it a fumble instead of an incompletion. That can always be challenged... and if its hard to distinguish in the replay... let the call on the field stand.

 

[Cleaves2000]

Geez dallas fans are still crying? Like you guys told us lion fans last week....STOP CRYING!

 

[gordontrue]

Geez dallas fans are still crying? Like you guys told us lion fans last week....STOP CRYING!

The majority of posters on this thread recently aren't even dallas fans.

How does discussing a current rule and whether it should be changed equal 'crying'?

 

[Cincyfan78]

Yeah, that makes sense because in the NFL you have to be touched to be 'down'. If you've been touched by a defender... as soon as the ball hits the ground (usually the player's knee or elbow has anyway) he is down... before the ball has a chance to cause a fumble.


In the case of these controversial "going to the ground" incompletions... the player has been contacted by the defense... therefore if he were a ball carrier rather than a receiver... there would be no fumble.


I just don't understand a justification for treating a completion/incompletion differently if the receiver is upright vs going to the ground.
We trust the refs to make a judgement call on whether the receiver had possession if he stays upright... but not if he ends up on the ground? It seems so arbitrary.

The refs generally do a good job of determining in live action whether the receiver has possession long enough to make it a fumble instead of an incompletion. That can always be challenged... and if its hard to distinguish in the replay... let the call on the field stand.

Because, unlike a RB, the WR in the act of catching a pass does not already have possession of the ball. In order to establish possession, he has to complete the catch. It can't simply be catch and feet if momentum is taking him to the ground (touched or not, it is irrelevant). The reason being, the momentum that is taking him to the ground is a part of the prior act of catching the ball, which occurs before he ever touches the ball. Kind of like chain of command. Thus, once that momentum is started it has to completely stop before anything else can take place. So, if a WR jumps, and comes to the ground, he has to maintain possession all the way through the catch to complete the original momentum he started, which was prior to the WR ever having touched the ball.

 

[RobBase]

The majority of posters on this thread recently aren't even dallas fans.

How does discussing a current rule and whether it should be changed equal 'crying'?

Not gonna get changed. A dropped ball will never be a catch in the NFL.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

Not gonna get changed. A dropped ball will never be a catch in the NFL.

A "dropped" ball never occurred on this play.

 

[Cleaves2000]

The majority of posters on this thread recently aren't even dallas fans.

How does discussing a current rule and whether it should be changed equal 'crying'?

Dez bryant makes brilliant catch....cowboys hosed......sounds like a crybaby thread to me.....if u wanna discuss rules, maybe you should make a new thread explaining its to discuss rules.

But either or i could care less.....last week it was mostly non lion fans who kept talking about the picked up flag, BUT most cowboy fans on here kept calling lions fans out.....i call it karma.....and it couldnt had happened to a better guy.....

 

[cwood]

If the ball hits the ground before the receiver establishes possession it can't move or it's not a catch. It's not that complicated of a rule and not that interesting. I don't get why this is such a big issue.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

Dez bryant makes brilliant catch....cowboys hosed......sounds like a crybaby thread to me.....if u wanna discuss rules, maybe you should make a new thread explaining its to discuss rules.

But either or i could care less.....last week it was mostly non lion fans who kept talking about the picked up flag, BUT most cowboy fans on here kept calling lions fans out.....i call it karma.....and it couldnt had happened to a better guy.....

Which means you do care a little. And we don't take that for granted.

 

[Cleaves2000]

The majority of posters on this thread recently aren't even dallas fans.

How does discussing a current rule and whether it should be changed equal 'crying'?

Plus why should it be changed NOW? Because it happened to the almighty cowboys? Where were the discussions to change the rule when it happened to calvin johnson, TWICE!!!


How bout lets change the rule that if a penalty is announced and marked off, a crooked official 40 yds away cant over rule it.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

If the ball hits the ground before the receiver establishes possession it can't move or it's not a catch. It's not that complicated of a rule and not that interesting. I don't get why this is such a big issue.

You and people of your ilk are keeping it relevant.

 

[cwood]

You and people of your ilk are keeping it relevant.

Really? How many times have I posted in this 17 page thread?

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Which means you do care a little. And we don't take that for granted.

Ed Zachary. How much less could he care?