Posted on 01/11/2015 1:13:42 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
I did, and yes it’s quite clear that it was an incomplete pass.
How about the worst call in NFL history?
http://deadspin.com/the-nfls-rules-are-dumb-1678940524
I don’t like the Dallas Cowboys, I don’t like the NFL, but whatever rules state that isn’t a catch are stupid. He had enough control to make the decision to stretch for the endzone. This is why I don’t watch the NFL.
http://deadspin.com/the-nfls-rules-are-dumb-1678940524
The rule was written by Gruber.
With Dez in man to man, that is not a risky play, as he showed. The Refs overturned it though.
He took two steps before falling.
It’s easy to say the rule is bad, the harder part is figuring out what it should be changed TO. There’s been an ongoing debate on this rule for a long time, here’s a bit from Peter King on why they keep not changing it:
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/12/nfl-playoffs-cowboys-packers-dez-bryant-replay-catch-peyton-manning-retirement/
“Maybe there will be enough momentum for a revolutionary change—for a catch to be catch as soon as a receiver gets two feet down and possesses the ball clearly. The problem with that in the past, as another source said Sunday, is “the cheap fumble.” Think of what happens when a pass, a catch by a receiver, a thudding hit by a defender and a fumble all occur at lightning speed. Did the receiver actually have possession before getting whacked and losing control of the ball? I can recall Jeff Fisher and Rich McKay, the Competition Committee co-chairs, explaining the debate over the rule at one recent meeting and saying, basically, We all agree we don’t love this current rule. We just don’t have a better one. It’s not an easy problem to solve.”
Add in the fact that a lot of those “cheap fumbles” happen because the receiver was knocked out and it’s really hard to hold a ball when unconscious, and the league is trying to get the KOs and their subsequent concussions out of the game. I just don’t see the league putting the rules in a position that basically encourages the KO fumble.
But that's not the rule. If you leaver your feet as part of the catch, you must maintain possession all the way. As he rolls over, the ball touches the ground, so the subsequent bobble means that he did not maintain control.
The Cowboys were the beneficiaries of a similar call in their December game against the Redskins, when RG3 "fumbled" the ball through the endzone because it came loose in his hands and despite regaining control heading into the endzone, the ball came out when he hit the ground, so he didn't establish control as per the rulebook.
The reversal on replay was 100% the correct call. You have an issue with the rule, not the officiating.
This was clearly a catch. He stretched for the endzone showing he had control.
But not by the rules. Which again brings up the question of what do you change the rules TO? Knowing that there are similar plays that the league really doesn’t want to be catches (largely because they don’t want them to be fumbles), how do you tweak the rule to make that a catch but keep the cheap fumbles out.
No I don’t but it does seem that the rule was written by lawyers to be interpreted by lawyers.
The ref that was 5’ from the play made the correct call and (I did not spent hours last night watching the analysis of this play on tv) but what I did see was of the same opinion that he had possession and it was not a fumble nor incomplete pass.
So you mean to tell me that Butch Johnson’s acrobatic TD catch in Super Bowl XII was a catch, and Dez’s wasn’t?
LOLOL, if Bryant’s knee had hit before the ball reached the ground, then it would be a fumble, perhaps. As his knee did not hit, the ball coming loose upon striking the ground is an incomplete pass. Period. Whine all you want, it is in the books now. LOL
The rule is quite clear, and there's no "lawyering" necessary to correctly rule incomplete catch. Don't blame the referee for applying the rule as it's written. (And as noted, the Cowboys have benefitted from this rule in the past.)
I didn't see it live and I don't have a dog in the fight, but I've seen the replay and I know the rule, and I immediately knew it was no catch.
The number of steps is not relevant, the possession of the ball during those steps is. He did not retain possession when he hit the ground and the ball contacted the ground. All his steps before gaining possession are irrelevant.
The rule kind of was written by lawyers. Check my link above. All NFL rules are the result of the league trying to make certain plays have certain results. Which is very legalese. In this case there are certain plays they really don’t want to be catches because they really don’t want the instant fumbles that come after them. The ironic part here is that this rule was written to help the offense, and most of the time it does, it prevents the instant (”cheap”) catch-fumble-turnover that they wanted to get rid of, and 99% of the time this rule is enforced it’s good for the offense because it turns a fumble into an incomplete. Yesterday was that 1% (although, arguably, it still hit the goal because if that was a catch that was also a fumble, though he recovered to no harm on that one).
Aaaaaah, not familiar with Butch’s catch. Was it or was it not a catch?
Quite frankly gator, I don’t give a damn. I just hate the replay causing problems with the game. The coach for GB would have never called for a review if he had not seem the replay on the screen. He was desperate, it was a gamble on his part and he won, not based on talent but on legalese. It is the only reason his team won the game.
I agree, I would just rather see replay go away and take my chances, and just know over a period of time, the bad calls all wash each other out anyway. It’s really annoying when you’re unsure if you can really celebrate a great play knowing you have to wait five minutes to find out if it stands up or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
