If reaching the ball for the goal line isn't a football move they need to change the rules

[BHF]

sheesh, it was the right call. I knew it in real time, and it sucked. I just got up and walked out of the room so I could curse about the playcall without my 3 year old learning new words.

I've actually started to explain that there are "at home" words and "outside" words to my eighteen month old.

 

[Beengay fudgepackers]

I knew this call was getting overturned in real time. The only reason this is a debate is because he had control of it for a split second, but it looks longer when you watch it in slowmo.

 

[Beengay fudgepackers]

I've actually started to explain that there are "at home" words and "outside" words to my eighteen month old.

Haha! Goodluck with that one...

 

[CarlSr]

That reversal of that catch is just the NFL's way to get the matchup they want.

Dude, had this happened to the Lions and Calvin again, I'd agree. It happened to the Cowboys though, so this is pretty much the greatest rule ever right about now.

 

[Beengay fudgepackers]

fuck this rule, I dont care which team you are a fan of, we are all football fans.

Its simple, if the ground cannot cause a fumble, then why the fuck can it cause an incomplete pass.

Agreed. They need to adjust that rule.

 

[BHF]

Haha! Goodluck with that one...

Yeah, I got real popular at her daycare when she used "goddammit" correctly in context a few months back.

 

[gohusk]

fuck this rule, I dont care which team you are a fan of, we are all football fans.

Its simple, if the ground cannot cause a fumble, then why the fuck can it cause an incomplete pass.

The ground can cause a fumble if the player isn't down by contact (if he trips over his own feet or something).

 

[FlyerFinFan]

Agreed. They need to adjust that rule.

It's all about possession you need it before the ground helps you catch it. Unfortunately no matter how you write the rule it can look stupid at times.

 

[JMR]

fuck this rule, I dont care which team you are a fan of, we are all football fans.

Its simple, if the ground cannot cause a fumble, then why the fuck can it cause an incomplete pass.

Actually, the ground can cause a fumble.

 

[anotheridiot]

how many times did we see the replay of calvin johnson in 2010 against the bears. The call was made because the ball was immediately on the ground. Great athletic catch, ball hand was the first to go to the ground and the ball stayed on the ground. I think its different when the receiver is on his back and the ball is still in his hands.

As far as the ground causing the fumble, would you not have considered Bryant "down" while they were waiting for the completion of the football act? knee was down, butt was down.

I hate the players getting away with traps all the time, but that was one of the best catches in playoff football in a long time.

 

[CarlSr]

Ok by NFL standard Dez had the ball and was tangled up with the Green Bay defender as soon as Dez's elbow hit the ground he should be down by contact. Thats if you believe he had the ball and got both feet down in bounds.

Nobody wants to touch this factoid.

 

[Labgrownmangoat]

Nobody wants to touch this factoid.

That's because it is 100% irrelevant to the ruling.

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.

"Football move" is also largely irrelevant. There is a note in the rules since 2012 saying no "football move" is required. Does nobody actually read the fucking rules? Anyone? Half the announcers/writers certainly don't. Rule 8, Article 3. I suggest people actually look at it before continuing to talk out of their asses. (c) there talks about how no "football move" is required, though the player must have kept the ball long enough to make such a move.

 

[Bunkamania]

I just saw the replay and from what I saw it wasn't a catch per the rules.

I may be wrong but there is something about "maintaining possession of the ball throughout the catch" which he did not do while falling to the ground.

 

[gordontrue]

That's because it is 100% irrelevant to the ruling.

[/FONT]

"Football move" is also largely irrelevant. There is a note in the rules since 2012 saying no "football move" is required. Does nobody actually read the fucking rules? Anyone? Half the announcers/writers certainly don't. Rule 8, Article 3. I suggest people actually look at it before continuing to talk out of their asses. (c) there talks about how no "football move" is required, though the player must have kept the ball long enough to make such a move.

If that's the rule... I still think it was a catch.

In that rule it says if the receiver loses control "before the ball touches the ground"... which Dez didn't. He had complete control of the ball at the time he contacted the ground. From that quoted paragraph alone I don't see how its incomplete.



Like others have said, if the rule truly is interpreted that way than it should change.


The play deserves to go down in NFL lore as one of the greatest playoff catches... not as an example of over-analyzing spotlight-stealing stupid rules.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

I understand the rule. But there should be a great distinction between a ball that touches the ground that is complete control of the receiver (at the time it hits the ground) and a ball that not under the receivers control when it hits the ground.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

That's because it is 100% irrelevant to the ruling.

[/FONT]

"Football move" is also largely irrelevant. There is a note in the rules since 2012 saying no "football move" is required. Does nobody actually read the fucking rules? Anyone? Half the announcers/writers certainly don't. Rule 8, Article 3. I suggest people actually look at it before continuing to talk out of their asses. (c) there talks about how no "football move" is required, though the player must have kept the ball long enough to make such a move.

I suggest you learn what "interpretation " of a rule and "spirit" of the rule is.

And then realize a sports board is the exact place to discuss both.

 

[TKOSpikes]

You know what I find incredible? If Dez didn't have control to the ground, how in holy hell did Cribbs on the miffed punt return?

Two total contradicting scenarios involving the same basis of the rule.

 

[TKOSpikes]

And to be honest, although we all know the ball most likely hit the ground on Dez's catch, nobody actually sees the ball literally touching the ground. Too many body parts in the way. Enough to overturn the call I guess, not IMO, but that's what happened.

But the Cribbs call is MUCH less control, which I think we can all agree on, he was more likely out cold, just as likely as Dez's ball hitting the ground. So again, how is Cribbs' muff called control to the ground? And Dez's reach with the ball not?

 

[gohusk]

Meh. Watching it again it actually wasn't that close as far as the rule goes. Blame the rule all you want but Dez flippin blew it. He could have easily pulled it in for the completion but he wanted the glory.

 

[TKOSpikes]

That's not my point. My point is the two plays with the same rules and different results.

I'm not a Cowboys beggar. Rodgers would have won the game anyway.