Dallas catch reversal

The ball came loose after he took three steps and made a football move to the goal line... Possession was established
 
Possession isn't established until you complete the catch. I believe from the point he first touched the ball until he fell, he was still in the process of catching the ball and establishing possession, regardless of how many steps he took. It wasn't like he caught the ball, made a move and tripped; it was all one prolonged motion. Therefore, he needed to complete the catch through the fall which he didn't. I rule "No catch."
 
johncu said:
Questions for the people that think it should have been called a catch:

1) Did you watch the replay that showed the ball hitting the ground and moving?

2) Are you a Cowboys fan?

I have no idea how anyone could argue this call. It sucks, because he made a great play, but the ball clearly bounced off the ground and caused him to lose control.

The Calvin catch was slightly different, IMO, because it almost looked like he hit the ground and then started to get up and run to celebrate, with the ball coming loose during the transition between those two motions. By rule, that one should have also not been a catch, because Calvin really should have tucked and secured the ball before trying to jump back up.
Click to expand...

Not a Dallas fan, did watch all of the replays.

It did hit the ground and move but by the time that happened he already had possession - IE ball control and 2 feet down. He was falling but he had controlled the ball, enough that he deliberately put it in his left hand and extended for the goal line. I don't see how you watch the video and not come to the same conclusion. He clearly and cleanly possessed the ball and moved toward the goal line. If this happened at mid field and the ball came all the way out it would be a catch/completion then a fumble and no one would argue with it.

I'm not entirely convinced the play was called correctly according to the rule as is, but the rule is dumb. We're essentially at "The ball cannot move or wiggle until WR hands it to ref after play".
 
We are detracting from the game with this over analysis on possession plays. Common sense interpretation of the rules loses out to making TV the king of the event. A common sense understanding of football rules says he caught the ball. Ref on the field made a good call. Micro management through rules and slow motion replay says the replay guy probably got it right, technically. Keep the rules simple, use replay to correct obvious mistakes - which means show the replay at game speed from each angle shot you have. If it is an obvious mistake the replay ref will see it in real time. If he doesn't see an error, let the call stand. Deciding playoff winners with lengthy analysis of slow motion replays, defended by verbose interpretation of the rules, just makes the broadcast of the game more important than the game itself - which TV types and league officials are more than happy about.
 
You must make a football move with possession or possess it throughout contact with the ground. He never made a football move. He was simply stumbling while falling to the ground and the ball came loose when it hit the ground. Simple as that.
 
He transferred the ball from two hands to one and was reaching out with it in his left hand towards the goal line. Qualifies as a football move to me, even if it was ugly. If the ball doesn't hit the ground it never comes out.

That said, Dez's reaction to the play(or lack thereof) makes me think that in the moment even he wasn't sure if it was good or not.
 
declinometer said:
You must make a football move with possession or possess it throughout contact with the ground. He never made a football move. He was simply stumbling while falling to the ground and the ball came loose when it hit the ground. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

What is the definition of a football move? To me, securing the ball, moving it to his left hand, and then extending towards the goal line is a football move, whatever the deuce that is.
 
He had no control after he caught the ball where his body went. As he approached the ground the ball clearly popped out of his hands when the ball hit the ground. Incomplete!
 
WreckRod said:
What is the definition of a football move? To me, securing the ball, moving it to his left hand, and then extending towards the goal line is a football move, whatever the deuce that is.
Click to expand...

Falling after leaping is NOT a football move.
Further, if the ball had not hit the ground it would have been a catch.
 
I doesn't matter if he had taken 10 steps; if you haven't secured the ball (and he hadn't), you haven't yet made the catch. He did secure the ball after he'd already dove, at which point it touched the ground. It's no different than diving for a catch and having the ball dislodged when your hands hit the ground.
 
WreckRod said:
What is the definition of a football move? To me, securing the ball, moving it to his left hand, and then extending towards the goal line is a football move, whatever the deuce that is.
Click to expand...

At what point did he secure the ball? Watch the replay, he doesn't have possession until he's falling as the CB dislodged his original grasp of the ball.
 
WreckRod said:
We're essentially at "The ball cannot move or wiggle until WR hands it to ref after play".
Click to expand...

I don't get why that is bad. I don't get why the rule is dumb.

I respect and agree with the analysis that makes the point that this rule is the least controversial way to decide catch or not.

In the old days, it was very clear. The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause an incompletion. You always had to maintain control of a catch all the way to the ground. This rule is old school. and it is much less arbitrary than the alternatives.
 
The receiver should have been more concerned about securing the ball than scoring a TD on a fourth down play but this is Dez Bryant we are talking about.
 
dallas got lucky vs Detroit via phantom rule.

and "maybe" unlucky vs the Packers....maybe, I think by rule they got it right...the rule sucks. It kept detriot out of the playoffs one year due to calvin catch etc.

so either way, its a wash.
 
Im glad this dumpster fire NFL season is almost over.. I just hope Brady stops the seachickens from winning it all..

continuing my search for hockey team. f the nfl.
 
one thing is for sure about the incomplete pass

if you think it was not a catch then Justin Thomas certainly "fumbled" vs UGag. Because people were moving and no whistle had blown. So, I guess that was just an easy call that the refs got right. The absurdity of the two calls is the same IMO.

For 130 years men played football and that was an incredible catch and then the NFL got instant replay and now guys think it wasn't a catch.

And Thomas fumble was not a fumble but that was the correct call according to the rule that one wishes to argue.
 
Re: one thing is for sure about the incomplete pass

thwg said:
if you think it was not a catch then Justin Thomas certainly "fumbled" vs UGag. Because people were moving and no whistle had blown. So, I guess that was just an easy call that the refs got right. The absurdity of the two calls is the same IMO.

For 130 years men played football and that was an incredible catch and then the NFL got instant replay and now guys think it wasn't a caTch.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. That would not have been a catch for most of the years of football. No way, no how.

Second, "people were moving and no whistle had blown"? Where is "people were moving" in the rule Book?
 
Re: one thing is for sure about the incomplete pass

thwg said:
if you think it was not a catch then Justin Thomas certainly "fumbled" vs UGag. Because people were moving and no whistle had blown. So, I guess that was just an easy call that the refs got right. The absurdity of the two calls is the same IMO.

For 130 years men played football and that was an incredible catch and then the NFL got instant replay and now guys think it wasn't a catch.

And Thomas fumble was not a fumble but that was the correct call according to the rule that one wishes to argue.
Click to expand...

Sorry but getting ready to say a bad word here..........
Idiotic!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top