Dallas catch reversal

Re: my take as a person with a financial interest at stake

rghoae said:
1) Calvin's catch was more of a catch than Bryant's

2) Calvin's catch wasn't a catch by rules, so it wasn't a catch by definition.

3) Calvin's catch was such a non-catch that the NFL uses it to explain this rule when training the refs.

4) Therefore Bryant's "catch" wasn't even close to a catch.

Maybe the rule should be changed. I would like to hear a change which wouldn't make things worse. That being said' maybe it would be easier if WRs learnt not to reach out for the EZ when they got the 1st down on the 1 yard line instead.



If there is any issue here, it is the players who stretch out for a TD when they are within feet of the EZ and have just converted a 1st down.
Click to expand...

By saying that he stretched out for the EZ, you are, by rule, making it a catch. Either he stretched out for the end zone, making a football move common to the game and thus had caught the ball and fumbled, OR he did not stretch out, was on his way to the ground and the ball came lose. You can't have it both ways.
 
Re: my take as a person with a financial interest at stake

NatiJacket said:
By saying that he stretched out for the EZ, you are, by rule, making it a catch. Either he stretched out for the end zone, making a football move common to the game and thus had caught the ball and fumbled, OR he did not stretch out, was on his way to the ground and the ball came lose. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

He did not maintain possession of the football while making the football move. Reached out, made contact with ground, lost ball control.
 
Here's my take -

The play on the field was ruled a catch. That is key. I couldn't tell on replay whether it was a catch. There certainly isn't "incontrovertible" evidence that it wasn't a catch. They shouldn't have reversed the call, regardless of whether it was actually a catch, since you can't be certain one way or the other.
 
Legal Jacket said:
Here's my take -

The play on the field was ruled a catch. That is key. I couldn't tell on replay whether it was a catch. There certainly isn't "incontrovertible" evidence that it wasn't a catch. They shouldn't have reversed the call, regardless of whether it was actually a catch, since you can't be certain one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Not true, The video clearly shows it wasn't a catch per the NFL's goofy rule. So the call on the field was overturned.
 
andrew said:
If you didn't see the ball move then I'm not sure what replay you were watching. It literally popped out of his hands and he had to catch it again.
Click to expand...

I really didn't watch a öööö thing. Just glad the Cowboys lost, and figured I had as much knowledge of the play without seeing it as a guy who doesn't know the difference between soccer and football.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top