ESPN working hard to convince people

[Cincyfan78]

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).

Exactly...there are guys who played, and still play, that get rules wrong all the time!

Remember when McNabb had no idea you could have a tie in the NFL a few years back when Phi/Cin tied?

Classic.

 

[bigdeal701]

 

[R.J. MacReady]

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).

The ball was in 1000% in Dez's control before the ball hits the ground. That has never been is dispute.

 

[bigdeal701]

There was not enough physical evidence the ball ever hit the ground. These pics show Dez's hand under the ball, it poped up and he rolled over and caught it. It was ruled a catch on the field by a ref that was right there.

 

[Cincyfan78]

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.

If it didn't, then why do they say that the momentum from the catch must be broken before a 'football move' can be made?

They wanted to eliminate the momentum itself creating the appearance of a 'move'.

Again, the rule is fine the way it is because it rarely happens overall. To change it would invite even more issues overall. You could easily say catch, two feet, and then it's a catch, but then that would mean every incompletion right now where the WR catches the ball clearly, has 2 feet down, and then for some reason drops the ball (or is lit up like a Christmas tree on a hit) and the ball goes to the ground, it's a fumble. I don't think anyone really wants that.

The rule isn't perfect, but it's not nearly as bad as people are making it to be.

 

[gohusk]

LOL. 4 frames? How did the ball bounce up? His arm didn't do that. It wasn't a catch. If he wanted to be Clark Kent it would have been 1st and goal and Dallas would have most likely got the 7 anyway, burning clock on top of it. Instead he wanted to be Superman and it blew up in his face.

 

[BoBlake]

The ball was in 1000% in Dez's control before the ball hits the ground. That has never been is dispute.

I agree with that.

That fact, by itself, does not make it a catch though.

The fact is that he didn't have control (as evidenced by the bobbling of the ball) on 1-2 of those steps either.

So we're left with a diving/falling catch where the player has control of the ball for maybe 1 step until it hits the ground (and make NO mistake, the ball 1000% made contact with the field).

10/10 times that's an incomplete pass.

 

[bigdeal701]

LOL. 4 frames? How did the ball bounce up? His arm didn't do that. It wasn't a catch. If he wanted to be Clark Kent it would have been 1st and goal and Dallas would have most likely got the 7 anyway, burning clock on top of it. Instead he wanted to be Superman and it blew up in his face.

So know we are going to blame a player for trying to make a play? Name one player that wouldn't have done the same thing Dez did. Also there is no guarantee they score even after the catch.

 

[bigdeal701]

I agree with that.

That fact, by itself, does not make it a catch though.

The fact is that he didn't have control (as evidenced by the bobbling of the ball) on 1-2 of those steps either.

So we're left with a diving/falling catch where the player has control of the ball for maybe 1 step until it hits the ground (and make NO mistake, the ball 1000% made contact with the field).

10/10 times that's an incomplete pass.

He did not bobble the ball once in that catch. What game were you watching?

 

[BoBlake]

So know we are going to blame a player for trying to make a play?

I'm going to blame a player for not securing the catch on 4th down when you're losing a game with 4 minutes to go, sure.

Even Cris Carter said so (since you like appeals to authority).

 

[gohusk]

So know we are going to blame a player for trying to make a play? Name one player that wouldn't have done the same thing Dez did. Also there is no guarantee they score even after the catch.

What a bunch of ridiculous questions. He needs to know the rules and the situation. That's not a catch. He didn't control it through the ground. With 4th down facing him he should have known that priority #1 was securing the ball. And as far as no guarantee, what percentage do you give of them not at least coming away with 3? Dez blew it, plain and simple. Plenty of receivers would have made a better attempt at securing the ball than he did. His head was up his ass on that one.

 

[gohusk]

He did not bobble the ball once in that catch. What game were you watching?

Of course he didn't. That's because he never actually made the catch. You have to secure it all the way through the ground and he failed to accomplish that.

 

[ducky]

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.

They knew when they made the rule that plays like this would pop up.

But they knew the rarity of this play (and the Calvin Johnson play) would be better than the mess that would be created if they didn't have this rule in place.

You take out this rule and there literally would be zero in the way of consistency in calling plays like this. One ref would view the replay and confirm that Dez had the ball in his hands long enough to be considered possession, another would say not enough evidence to overturn and another would negate the catch because he didn't have possession long enough before the ball is jarred loose by the ground. It would all be a subjective call that would vary from ref to ref in terms of how it would get called.

And that is why this rule is in place. There is no gray area. A falling WR needs to maintain possession of the ball throughout. It is all pretty simple and necessary. People who are calling for a rule change haven't thought it out far enough to realize what they are asking for.

 

[BoBlake]

He did not bobble the ball once in that catch. What game were you watching?

He for sure did not have complete control at the initial part of that catch.

 

[ducky]

He did not bobble the ball once in that catch. What game were you watching?

What game were you watching? He clearly loses control of the ball when it hits the ground. Thus no catch.

 

[bigdeal701]

He for sure did not have complete control at the initial part of that catch.

Wrong.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

They knew when they made the rule that plays like this would pop up.

But they knew the rarity of this play (and the Calvin Johnson play) would be better than the mess that would be created if they didn't have this rule in place.

You take out this rule and there literally would be zero in the way of consistency in calling plays like this. One ref would view the replay and confirm that Dez had the ball in his hands long enough to be considered possession, another would say not enough evidence to overturn and another would negate the catch because he didn't have possession long enough before the ball is jarred loose by the ground. It would all be a subjective call that would vary from ref to ref in terms of how it would get called.

And that is why this rule is in place. There is no gray area. A falling WR needs to maintain possession of the ball throughout. It is all pretty simple and necessary. People who are calling for a rule change haven't thought it out far enough to realize what they are asking for.

Very well put.

 

[Cyder]

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.

I don't like the rule either but I'm not done bitching about losing the bet on the over.

 

[Podunkparte]

The willful ignorance about this whole thing is astounding. 4 frames posted as proof LOL. Wanting to reward players for trying LOL.

The call was right. Get over it.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

Ok guys ..you heard the Seahawk fan. They run the show around here and decide when a discussion needs to end. We better stop before they get upset.