Dez's "catch" yesterday

[nyjunc]

He wasn't going out of bounds so that's a non-issue. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with anyone about it I'll just say this, I watched it multiple times on my 70 inch HDTV and no one on the planet will ever convince me that the ball CLEARLY hit the ground. :idk:

I know he wasn't going OOB, just bringing up a different yet similar play they didn't overturn a few years ago.

you can feel how you want to feel. It looked clear to me like it hit the ground and that's why it popped up.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/20150...ameinfo|contentId:0ap3000000456759&tab=videos

 

[NY8123]

The question on this catch wasn't the possession to complete a catch. The question here is did Dez complete a football move which constitutes a catch and then a fumble when he hit the ground, which we know that the ground cannot cause a fumble.

To me Dez demonstrated a football move so the whole "completing a catch argument is moot", this should have been a catch and fumble that was recovered by advancing into the endzone which by rule is not allowed and the ball would have been spotted on the 1 yard line.

The catch in the Super Bowl was nothing like this catch at all, the rule says the ball may move slightly as long as possession is maintained throughout the process of the catch. Dez clearly lost possession during this catch, the ball is in the air free of his hands and then he recovers it in the endzone. This ball should have been a catch and fumble recovery, the ref thought there was no football move and if that is the case by rule this is not a catch if the ball touches the ground and moves.

[video]https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/11B4A2E5EC1166165478633308160_3c9d192fd86.1.4.6466882935833279297.mp4[/video]

 

[nyjunc]

The question on this catch wasn't the possession to complete a catch. The question here is did Dez complete a football move which constitutes a catch and then a fumble when he hit the ground, which we know that the ground cannot cause a fumble.

To me Dez demonstrated a football move so the whole "completing a catch argument is moot", this should have been a catch and fumble that was recovered by advancing into the endzone which by rule is not allowed and the ball would have been spotted on the 1 yard line.

The catch in the Super Bowl was nothing like this catch at all, the rule says the ball may move slightly as long as possession is maintained throughout the process of the catch. Dez clearly lost possession during this catch, the ball is in the air free of his hands and then he recovers it in the endzone. This ball should have been a catch and fumble recovery, the ref thought there was no football move and if that is the case by rule this is not a catch if the ball touches the ground and moves.

the ball could not move on OOB play, I have seen it called like that a million times. I think the rules have been modified since then.

was Dez's move a football move? you can interpret it that way but by the book this was the correct call.

 

[The New Guy]

The question on this catch wasn't the possession to complete a catch. The question here is did Dez complete a football move which constitutes a catch and then a fumble when he hit the ground, which we know that the ground cannot cause a fumble.

To me Dez demonstrated a football move so the whole "completing a catch argument is moot", this should have been a catch and fumble that was recovered by advancing into the endzone which by rule is not allowed and the ball would have been spotted on the 1 yard line.

The catch in the Super Bowl was nothing like this catch at all, the rule says the ball may move slightly as long as possession is maintained throughout the process of the catch. Dez clearly lost possession during this catch, the ball is in the air free of his hands and then he recovers it in the endzone. This ball should have been a catch and fumble recovery, the ref thought there was no football move and if that is the case by rule this is not a catch if the ball touches the ground and moves.

[video]https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/11B4A2E5EC1166165478633308160_3c9d192fd86.1.4.6466882935833279297.mp4[/video]

I think it is debatable. To me, his legs are buckling and he is falling to the ground when he catches it. It is tough for me to call that a football move, but it is close.

the ball could not move on OOB play, I have seen it called like that a million times. I think the rules have been modified since then.

4 years later, and you still don't understand the rule.

 

[NY8123]

the ball could not move on OOB play, I have seen it called like that a million times. I think the rules have been modified since then.

was Dez's move a football move? you can interpret it that way but by the book this was the correct call.

But it can under rule, it all depends on the amount of movement of the ball. The rulebook defines what possession is and then defines a catch based upon possession and under the possession rules a "slight" movement is allowed if control is still demonstrated. Dez clearly did not have control all the way through the catch and therefor if there was no football move it couldn't be a catch, unless the ball never touched the ground, which is impossible to tell from any angle I viewed and if you had to make me choose whether it did or didn't touch the ground I'd say yes it did, nullifying that catch and a correct call.

The question is whether or not three feel down with two steps and what appears to be a dive is a football move? It was called a catch on the field and given that any overturn is supposed to be "irrefutable" I'd say they got this one wrong. If it had been ruled incomplete and upheld I'd say they got it right. It was a close call either way you call it and it determined the game. 6" more and this conversation would be moot since the ball would have broken the plane and ended the play. It truly is a game of inches.

 

[nyjunc]

I think it is debatable. To me, his legs are buckling and he is falling to the ground when he catches it. It is tough for me to call that a football move, but it is close.



4 years later, and you still don't understand the rule.

I do understand it and I know it. Bad call but again I think NYG would have won anyway.

 

[MarinoEqualsGod]

The ball can hit the ground, and even move as long as the receiver displays possession throughout the process of hitting the ground. It is clear that the ball squirts out when it hits the ground which is a loss of possession.

But there has to first be definitive evidence that the ball did in fact hit the ground. There is NO EVIDENCE that it did, as the bottom of the ball is blocked by his forearm. There is an assumption that it did, but I have yet to see a replay with the ball visually touching the ground. After Dez got tackled at the one foot line, the ball was fumbled forward, which he recovered. By rule, I believe Dez can't be the one to recover his own fumble forward, so it should have gone back to the one foot line.

I would be absolutely sick if I were a Cowboy fan right now. I went to college with Tony Romo and feel terrible for him. He deserves better than this. One of the truly first class guys in the NFL.

 

[dlockz]

I do understand it and I know it. Bad call but again I think NYG would have won anyway.

They could have and they also could have lost it, It was a close game just like the previosy affair

 

[Awsi Dooger]

I agree with Unchained. I never saw evidence the ball actually hit the ground. The call worked in my favor, since I had Packers -4.5. But I was astonished they overturned it, given the replays we saw. The ball popped into the air briefly. That can be caused by forearm and wrist impacting the ground with the ball resting on top of them. That appeared to be the case to me.

IMO, when the football is very low to the ground officials and replay crews make more mistakes than in any other facet of the game. Invariably they go out of their way to rule the pass incomplete, giving that aspect absurd weight. Commentators contribute to it. Every time the ball moves slightly they assert it hit the ground. Drives me nuts all season every season, college and pro. This is merely the latest example.

It seemed like Bryant was penalized for not extending the more more emphatically. If he did that, the officials apparently would have ruled it a football move. But consider the potential if he had lunged for the goal line: There's greater chance for the ball to slip out of his hand. Given that angle, the ball easily could have gone out of bounds just beyond the pile on. That's a touchback.

Stupid rule. The old days like Golden Richards' Super Bowl touchdown catch gave the receiver too much leeway. Now it's the opposite.

 

[Buddy]

But there has to first be definitive evidence that the ball did in fact hit the ground. There is NO EVIDENCE that it did, as the bottom of the ball is blocked by his forearm. There is an assumption that it did, but I have yet to see a replay with the ball visually touching the ground. After Dez got tackled at the one foot line, the ball was fumbled forward, which he recovered. By rule, I believe Dez can't be the one to recover his own fumble forward, so it should have gone back to the one foot line.

I would be absolutely sick if I were a Cowboy fan right now. I went to college with Tony Romo and feel terrible for him. He deserves better than this. One of the truly first class guys in the NFL.

I was thinking the same thing. I don't really care about either team but I hate to see any game, especially playoffs, decided by a bad call. There was no definitive proof the ball touched the ground. He never went out of bounds so regardless of how many times the ball flipped in the air, if it didn't touch the ground it's a catch. Whatever the call on the field was should have stood because the replay was inconclusive, imo. Bad call.

 

[nyjunc]

It looked clear as day that the ball touched the ground to me and he lost control for a second b/c of it. I don't love the rule,. I think stretching for the goalline demonstrated he had complete control but the rule is the rule and they made the correct call.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

After further review... it was a catch. Not sure how you can take that away from him. Someone here just admitted that it was actually was a catch in their rebuttal of saying it was not by stating that he reached for the goal line; clearly a football move after getting two feet down. Making a football move negates the debatable factor of whether or not the ball touched the ground.