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

[TKOSpikes]

A punt returner yet to catch the ball is a defenseless player. Therefore cannot be considered a runner with control. Which is what they ruled. Control and ground-causing fumble.

 

[Inquisitor95]

Inquis. What you are describing is a football move. You're saying Dez made a concious decision to take his right hand off and stretch the ball out with his left.

Yes, to me it was apparent he wanted to make it to the goal line.

There are many other cases where players running the ball try to do the same thing, only to have the ball knocked out short of it. And it cost them a touchdown. The term "football move" is subjective anyway. I can argue he was making one. Someone else will say it wasn't enough.

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

I don't fault Dez Bryant at all for trying to score. That's the name of the game.

When I saw it in real time I thought it was a catch. I have not changed my opinion.

 

[TKOSpikes]

Exactly right, exile. That "rule" punishes players for trying to be great. 1st and goal at the one is not a guaranteed TD. And the fact he didn't caress the ball and go down, and instead ATTEMPTED said great play (which some "correct call backers" are saying), is in fact a decision made by someone who can move the ball from both hands to one and stretch out with it.

 

[TKOSpikes]

And BTW, not even close to Calvin's. He was getting up to celebrate his TD, Dez was trying to reach the goal line. Both were absolute catches and the rule, like the tuck, must be disabled.

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

It was not a catch by definition, and the claim that him 'stretching' for the goal-line constitutes a 'football move' is incorrect per the rules listed in the NFL book.

Here's how Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 reads:

"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." Bryant, clearly lost control of the ball when the ball hit the ground. Thus, this is an incomplete pass. There is zero question about this.

The two bolded parts are in opposition. You're saying the rule states he must maintain control "throughout the process of contacting the ground" and then you say he lost control "WHEN the ball hit the ground."

The ball hitting the ground would be AFTER the "process of contacting the ground," would it not? In other words, he did not lose control of the ball while falling, it was only after the ball hit the ground. This is why people are saying "if the ground can't cause a fumble, how can it cause an incompletion?"

 

[MilkSpiller22]

So ANYONE???? Where is Cribbs' control and football move to have the ground cause the fumble. Where? Because everyone who says to look at the rule, are saying Cribbs caught it, controlled it and had it to the ground.

there are rules to protect the returners, so I would not be surprised if the CATCH rules are different in that the "football move" is not needed...

It is clear that he caught the ball and it is clear that the ground caused the fumble... but he clearly had no time to make any move between the catch and the hit... so that is the only possible answer... That or it was a miss call...

 

[Oldschool739]

It was not a catch by definition, and the claim that him 'stretching' for the goal-line constitutes a 'football move' is incorrect per the rules listed in the NFL book.

Here's how Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 reads:

"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." Bryant, clearly lost control of the ball when the ball hit the ground. Thus, this is an incomplete pass. There is zero question about this.

Now, regarding a football move:

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the rule book. According to the wording of that Article, a catch occurs when a player has secured control of the ball in his hands, he is inbounds and he has maintained "control of the ball long enough … to enable him to perform any act common to the game."

Now, however, the rules also state that the player making a catch, or a move, while falling down will not constitute a 'football move'. So, yes, Bryant did stretch his arms out towards the goal-line; however, he did it while still in the act of catching the ball, and never established 'up right' position while catching the ball. In otherwords, his momentum from jumping caused him to tumble forward, and since he was, in the eyes of the refs, falling down as he was continuing his motion from catching the ball, reaching towards the goal line DOES NOT constitute a 'football move'.

Like it or not, they got the call corrected based on the rules.

He caught the ball and reached out with it, that's a football move....I've seen so many catches over the years when a receiver catches the ball, goes to the ground, the ball comes loose as he jumps up quickly and it is ruled a catch....Or it comes loose and rolls out of bounds and it's also ruled a catch....End zone catches where the ball bobbles but the receiver gets control on his back on the ground, one time it's called a catch, next time did not have control going to the ground....It's preposterous...
The problem is it's inconsistency....They claim many times that it is up to the discretion of the ref, but it should not be because therein lies the problem.....Make it clear, make it consistent but don't leave it up to the field refs discretion, it don't work....

 

[Cincyfan78]

The two bolded parts are in opposition. You're saying the rule states he must maintain control "throughout the process of contacting the ground" and then you say he lost control "WHEN the ball hit the ground."

The ball hitting the ground would be AFTER the "process of contacting the ground," would it not? In other words, he did not lose control of the ball while falling, it was only after the ball hit the ground. This is why people are saying "if the ground can't cause a fumble, how can it cause an incompletion?"

Because the rule states that you must keep control of the ball all the way through the catch to maintain posession of the ball/catch.

Bryant jumps, catches the ball, but must control the ball all the way through the catch. The biggest issue people are using that he had this control is that he made a 'football move' by stretching the ball out towards the goal-line. This is not a football move, per the rules, because he was still falling down from catching the ball, thus he was still in the act of 'catching' the ball even if he did stretch the ball out. The ball came loose, hit the ground, and thus incompletion.

The ground can't cause a fumble because possession has already been established (usually with a run). However, in a pass/catch attempt...possession is not established until the WR catches the ball, and holds on to it THROUGH the catch, including the ground.

The rule may be silly, but the interpretation of it was correct.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Because the rule states that you must keep control of the ball all the way through the catch to maintain posession of the ball/catch.

Bryant jumps, catches the ball, but must control the ball all the way through the catch. The biggest issue people are using that he had this control is that he made a 'football move' by stretching the ball out towards the goal-line. This is not a football move, per the rules, because he was still falling down from catching the ball, thus he was still in the act of 'catching' the ball even if he did stretch the ball out. The ball came loose, hit the ground, and thus incompletion.

The ground can't cause a fumble because possession has already been established (usually with a run). However, in a pass/catch attempt...possession is not established until the WR catches the ball, and holds on to it THROUGH the catch, including the ground.

The rule may be silly, but the interpretation of it was correct.

I don't even think the rule is silly... I just think that because this appeared as a catch and had so much meaning to the game, people are exaggerating...

The rule makes sense, and should not be changed...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

And BTW, not even close to Calvin's. He was getting up to celebrate his TD, Dez was trying to reach the goal line. Both were absolute catches and the rule, like the tuck, must be disabled.

TKO watch the Bryant play one more time and tell me if there was any reasonable chance for Bryant to not fall when he landed... The fact that the momentum brought him down makes the play necessary that he needed to keep control throughout the whole play...

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Because the rule states that you must keep control of the ball all the way through the catch to maintain posession of the ball/catch.

Bryant jumps, catches the ball, but must control the ball all the way through the catch. The biggest issue people are using that he had this control is that he made a 'football move' by stretching the ball out towards the goal-line. This is not a football move, per the rules, because he was still falling down from catching the ball, thus he was still in the act of 'catching' the ball even if he did stretch the ball out. The ball came loose, hit the ground, and thus incompletion.

Nah, that's not what you said earlier. You said the ball came out after striking the ground, and that's what I recall seeing. The ball did not come loose while he was falling.

I sincerely believe that he had control of the ball in his left hand as he was falling and reaching for the goal line. We see players all the time handling the ball in one hand; Odell Beckham Jr. can catch the ball with three fingers and maintain control.

 

[CarlSr]

Mike Pereira just admitted that a "football move" is a subjective call, not an objective one. So in other words, the refs actually could have gone either way with the call, and the league could have supported their decision either way. So much for this being as black and white as some stated it was.

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

I don't even think the rule is silly... I just think that because this appeared as a catch and had so much meaning to the game, people are exaggerating...

The rule makes sense, and should not be changed...

But you're a yankee fan! Of COURSE it's going to make sense to you!

 

[CarlSr]

TKO watch the Bryant play one more time and tell me if there was any reasonable chance for Bryant to not fall when he landed... The fact that the momentum brought him down makes the play necessary that he needed to keep control throughout the whole play...

Well momentum and the leg of Shields was bringing Bryant down as he tripped on it before he lunged on his 3rd step.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Nah, that's not what you said earlier. You said the ball came out after striking the ground, and that's what I recall seeing. The ball did not come loose while he was falling.

I sincerely believe that he had control of the ball in his left hand as he was falling and reaching for the goal line. We see players all the time handling the ball in one hand; Odell Beckham Jr. can catch the ball with three fingers and maintain control.

He did have the ball, and he did reach towards the goal-line, but because he was still falling from the act of catching the ball, this does not constitute a football move, and he MUST maintain control of the ball when he hits the ground, and when the ball hits the ground. The ball hits the ground, and comes loose, and it's an incompletion. They got the call correct.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Well momentum and the leg of Shields was bringing Bryant down as he tripped on it before he lunged on his 3rd step.

Key phrase there...because the momentum of the catch, and subsequent fall, Bryant had to maintain possession of the ball to make it a catch. Simply reaching out for the goal-line does not constitute a football move because he was still in the continuous act of making the catch.

 

[NEhomer]

He needed the ground to gain control of the ball. That's been a no no for years.

 

[Southieinnc]

You guys are missing the original poster's point: it may be the right CALL, but the RULES are bad and need to be changed.

You got it!

That was a catch and a football move. Once you make the catch and extend the ball to the goal-line, it should be over. He made the catch, extended the ball to the line and scored a TD. after that, it should not matter.

Rule is wrong - fix it!!!!!

 

[CarlSr]

Key phrase there...because the momentum of the catch, and subsequent fall, Bryant had to maintain possession of the ball to make it a catch. Simply reaching out for the goal-line does not constitute a football move because he was still in the continuous act of making the catch.

I was actually being a smart ass about the momentum bit.



The end of the play was actually subjective in regards to it being a football move or not, according to Pereira. Basically the refs were covered no matter what call they made and the league was in a position to support it either way.