ESPN working hard to convince people

[Doublejive]

I still think the rule is lame,he had one hand on it,holding it and that to me means possession and i am no Dallas fan so,but i hope they revisit this.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I still think the rule is lame,he had one hand on it,holding it and that to me means possession and i am no Dallas fan so,but i hope they revisit this.

Because there's more to the rule of catching a ball, and establishing actual posession than most people want to dig into.

It wasn't a catch, by the rule. Everyone that complains it should be changed can't come up with any other valid way to determine how it should be changed.

The rule is fine the way it is, and the Refs get it right more often than not.

 

[Davis_Mike]

The rule is fine the way it is.

 

[SonnyCID]

Why are you watching ESPN? It brainwashes the average fan like many of you. QB's win and lose games not teams. ETC... It's the type of people they want to watch there crap. Skip Bayless agrees.

Is there an echó in here?

 

[NickVT10]

It wasn't a catch.

So you are saying Dez didn't catch the ball that was thrown to him? He clearly caught it. He wasn't bobbling it. It didn't slip through his hands. He had complete control as he was falling.

I understand the rule and it is what it is but he caught the ball. The ruling to make it a legal catch in the NFL is a different story.


The way I see it, if this was baseball and an infielder caught a fly ball on the run and tried to extend his glove after 3 steps to dive and tag the base for a double play and when he hits the ground the ball pops out, it is still ruled an out but not a double play. In this case, it would be a catch but not a fumble because he was down by contact. That is a logical look at the play but a bad rule says logic is stupid.

 

[bigdeal701]

It wasn't a catch.

Funny a very similar play happened to the Chargers a couple years back, it was ruled a catch and upheld on review. The rule needs to be changed and I think it will be. He caught the ball with both hands even changed hands, contact was made by the defender, he then stretched for the goal line. Had the very play happened to GreenBay you would be screaming catch.

 

[NickVT10]

Because there's more to the rule of catching a ball, and establishing actual posession than most people want to dig into.

It wasn't a catch, by the rule. Everyone that complains it should be changed can't come up with any other valid way to determine how it should be changed.

The rule is fine the way it is, and the Refs get it right more often than not.

A valid way to determine a catch? Same way its done now. A judgement call by the official if the player had clear possession of the ball and if that player had crossed the ball across the goal line, established his feet in bounds before touching out of bounds, if the player was down by contact, or if the player had clear, firm possession of the ball before hitting the ground and fumbling it. The last part can be applied to a WR getting hit and losing possession of the ball. Did he have clear and firm possession or was he still trying to get the ball situated in his hands?

There is no cut and dry catch/no catch for every situation and there will be judgement calls by the refs/replay officials. You have to give them to room to look at a play from a logical standpoint and say that guy clearly had the ball but lost it after his knee or elbow hit, therefor he is down or is a fumble.

 

[Cincyfan78]

So you are saying Dez didn't catch the ball that was thrown to him? He clearly caught it. He wasn't bobbling it. It didn't slip through his hands. He had complete control as he was falling.

I understand the rule and it is what it is but he caught the ball. The ruling to make it a legal catch in the NFL is a different story.


The way I see it, if this was baseball and an infielder caught a fly ball on the run and tried to extend his glove after 3 steps to dive and tag the base for a double play and when he hits the ground the ball pops out, it is still ruled an out but not a double play. In this case, it would be a catch but not a fumble because he was down by contact. That is a logical look at the play but a bad rule says logic is stupid.

Dear God, make it stop. You can't compare two different sports. Just. Stop.

It wasn't a catch. It wasn't a completed catch because he never had any other momentum other than falling after the catch. Because his body was still in motion from the catch, any move made within that momentum does NOT consitute a football move....

It's not rocket science.

 

[Cincyfan78]

A valid way to determine a catch? Same way its done now. A judgement call by the official if the player had clear possession of the ball and if that player had crossed the ball across the goal line, established his feet in bounds before touching out of bounds, if the player was down by contact, or if the player had clear, firm possession of the ball before hitting the ground and fumbling it. The last part can be applied to a WR getting hit and losing possession of the ball. Did he have clear and firm possession or was he still trying to get the ball situated in his hands?

There is no cut and dry catch/no catch for every situation and there will be judgement calls by the refs/replay officials. You have to give them to room to look at a play from a logical standpoint and say that guy clearly had the ball but lost it after his knee or elbow hit, therefor he is down or is a fumble.

But the problem is he has to MAINTAIN posession...he can't be down by contact because a WR must first establish possession of the ball. Down by contact has no place in this discussion. He first must establish possession, and in order to do that, while falling in the attempt to make a catch, must maintain control of the ball all the way through the entire process in order to establish said possession. This rule comes before any contact rule, and it's why it has absolutely no bearing on this.

 

[Cyder]

Funny a very similar play happened to the Chargers a couple years back, it was ruled a catch and upheld on review. The rule needs to be changed and I think it will be. He caught the ball with both hands even changed hands, contact was made by the defender, he then stretched for the goal line. Had the very play happened to GreenBay you would be screaming catch.

Happened to Megatron week one and it was a no catch for the same reason. Not a rule I like however.

EVen if it is a reception I doubt the Boys win. Rodgers was on fire in the 4th and problably goes right back down the field.

Granted I had the over so I was hoping it was a catch to get some more points on the boards. Shoulda took the Boys and the over with the damn teaser

 

[bigdeal701]

A valid way to determine a catch? Same way its done now. A judgement call by the official if the player had clear possession of the ball and if that player had crossed the ball across the goal line, established his feet in bounds before touching out of bounds, if the player was down by contact, or if the player had clear, firm possession of the ball before hitting the ground and fumbling it. The last part can be applied to a WR getting hit and losing possession of the ball. Did he have clear and firm possession or was he still trying to get the ball situated in his hands?

There is no cut and dry catch/no catch for every situation and there will be judgement calls by the refs/replay officials. You have to give them to room to look at a play from a logical standpoint and say that guy clearly had the ball but lost it after his knee or elbow hit, therefor he is down or is a fumble.

^^^^This

 

[BoBlake]

Funny a very similar play happened to the Chargers a couple years back, it was ruled a catch and upheld on review.

Show me.

The rule needs to be changed and I think it will be.

How much would you like to wager?

He caught the ball with both hands even changed hands, contact was made by the defender, he then stretched for the goal line, and then he dropped the ball negating everything prior.

FIFY

Had the very play happened to GreenBay you would be screaming catch.

The HELL I would. Fuck Green Bay!

 

[bigdeal701]

Dear God, make it stop. You can't compare two different sports. Just. Stop.

It wasn't a catch. It wasn't a completed catch because he never had any other momentum other than falling after the catch. Because his body was still in motion from the catch, any move made within that momentum does NOT consitute a football move....

It's not rocket science.

Shifting the ball to one hand and stretching for the goal line is a football move, if its not then their is no such thing.

 

[BoBlake]

There is no cut and dry catch/no catch for every situation and there will be judgement calls by the refs/replay officials. You have to give them to room to look at a play from a logical standpoint and say that guy clearly had the ball but lost it after his knee or elbow hit, therefor he is down or is a fumble.

Yeah, no thanks on this one bub.

I like my rules cut-n-dry as much as possible (which the rule, as stands, is). You can shove your referee interpretations up your arse.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Shifting the ball to one hand and stretching for the goal line is a football move, if its not then their is no such thing.

It's not a football move because it occured while the momentum of the catch was taking the WR to the ground. As such, ANY move that occurs during the original momentum of catching the ball (jumping, and then coming down, and falling towards the ground) will not be considered a football move.

The WR has to establish new momentum.

What about this is so hard for people to follow?

Again, it's not rocket science.

 

[bigdeal701]

Happened to Megatron week one and it was a no catch for the same reason. Not a rule I like however.

EVen if it is a reception I doubt the Boys win. Rodgers was on fire in the 4th and problably goes right back down the field.

Granted I had the over so I was hoping it was a catch to get some more points on the boards. Shoulda took the Boys and the over with the damn teaser

Oh I'm not saying Dallas wins if the catch was called a catch. I'm also not saying its the reason they lost, its a dumb rule that needs to change. If a receiver catches a ball with both feet down and changes hands the is hits the ground, the ground then should not determine if he caught it or not. He caught the ball at the 6 yard line, the ball came lose at the 6 inch line, he controlled the ball for 5 plus yards will taking three steps, so what if he was off balance.

 

[bigdeal701]

It's not a football move because it occured while the momentum of the catch was taking the WR to the ground. As such, ANY move that occurs during the original momentum of catching the ball (jumping, and then coming down, and falling towards the ground) will not be considered a football move.

The WR has to establish new momentum.

What about this is so hard for people to follow?

Again, it's not rocket science.

If you watch the play the wide receiver was tripped by the defender after he had made a step. Sorry people who have played in the NFL for many years have even said this was a catch. Including GreenBays own Brett Farve and several others.

 

[Cincyfan78]

If you watch the play the wide receiver was tripped by the defender after he had made a step. Sorry people who have played in the NFL for many years have even said this was a catch. Including GreenBays own Brett Farve and several others.

It doesn't matter...it was still part of the catch.

As it's been explained ad-nauseum since...the WR, even after the contact, still must maintain posession of the ball all the way through the catch in order to estblish possession.

In the end, though, the Boys were up, and they lost...this play hurt, but isn't the reason they lost.

 

[BoBlake]

Sorry people who have played in the NFL for many years have even said this was a catch. Including GreenBays own Brett Farve and several others.

Those opinions and $0.10 will get you a gumball.

And if you watch the play, you'll notice that it wasn't a clean catch either. The ball was bobbled for 1-2 of those "3" steps (assuming you count the toe tap as a step).

 

[R.J. MacReady]

The real focal point of the rule should be full ball control before the receiver hits the ground and make allowances for that when the receiver does.

I don't think the spirit of the rule ever intended to have this specific catch to be seen as incomplete.