POLL: Did Dez Bryant make the catch?

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by heelmanwilm:
@bluetoe

This from the nfl vp of officiating

Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete.
4:21pm - 11 Jan 15
Posted from Rivals Mobile

you need to pore over my post once again, as I'm sure you did the first time. Not the last one, the one before that. Among other things, it will caution you in so many words to not take the word of officials trying to rationalize away a blown game-changing call in a hugely important game. If you look at the video in slow-motion as I did and as I'm very sure the review officials did, you can see that there were three steps taken, the last one being a lunge for the end zone. You're trying to tell me that had the receiver caught the ball and in two clean steps lunged the ball across the goal line, and landed in the end zone with the ball coming out on contact, that they would not signal a TD? Wrong. They would only not signal a TD if there was a question of the ball having not been caught; and a 'football move' makes it a catch. The lunge for the goal line is most definitely a football move. What you and others are apparently missing and what I was explaining is that there is not an interminable period of waiting for ground contact to see if the pass is complete. A pass can be complete and then there is ground contact and the ball can do whatever. There is sometimes ground contact when the pass is already deemed complete and it makes no difference if the ball comes out. That was the case with that play. The reversal was wrong.

The problem was that, as someone else said, Bryant's athleticism in getting himself in position to catch the ball and then lunge for the goal line created an appearance of being out of control.

 

[st8grad93]

Article 3
Completed or Intercepted Pass.
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c)
maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and
(b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

He did A. He did B. He did not do C. He made no "act common to the game". Falling forward after jumping high in the air while running very fast is a result of physics and not any act committed by Bryant.

 

[heelmanwilm]

You're wrong bluetoe. When a player is "going to the ground" during the catch the catch is not a catch unless he maintains control throughout. It was never at any time a catch prior to him hitting the ground.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[heelmanwilm]

And he did not take three steps. He took one and tried to take two more but didnt succeed as he was "going to the ground" which is why the "going to the ground" catch rule is applied.
If the ball doesnt pop out its a catch.
And the officials and nfl had no prob admitting their mistake last week in missing def holding. So to imply they're suddenly covering themselves this week is ridiculous. They all say the rule was properly interpreted. You dont.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Tru Blu Tar Heel]

Be caught the damn ball in every way except by the NFL rule. Look for that rule to die this off-season.

 

[Tru Blu Tar Heel]

Originally posted by TarHeelMark:
The "football move" is debatable. One could argue that he was still in the process of making the catch and falling down; that he wasn't really upright and running but still falling.

Dez tucked it then extended it in the other arm. There's no doubt that he caught and possessed it.

 

[st8grad93]

Originally posted by Tru Blu Tar Heel:

Originally posted by TarHeelMark:
The "football move" is debatable. One could argue that he was still in the process of making the catch and falling down; that he wasn't really upright and running but still falling.

Dez tucked it then extended it in the other arm. There's no doubt that he caught and possessed it.

This is part "A" of the rule that also has parts "B" and "C". All three must be met for it to be a catch. He did not meet part "C".

 

[Raising Heel]

 

[mikeirbyusa]

Originally posted by Raising Heel:

Good one!

 

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by st8grad93:



Article 3
Completed or Intercepted Pass.
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c)
maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and
(b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

He did A. He did B. He did not do C. He made no "act common to the game". Falling forward after jumping high in the air while running very fast is a result of physics and not any act committed by Bryant.

he did do (c). Watching it at full speed it might be hard to tell but in slow motion you can easily see his leg flex as he uses it to drive his body forward toward the end zone, and at the same time extends the football forward. That is unquestionably a football move and not a falling down one, although of course his impetus was still carrying him toward the ground simultaneously. The ground obviously met him more abruptly than if he had been on a higher horizontal plane, but his being already close to the ground does not and should not somehow distort the realization of a football move. That move unquestionably got him and the ball closer to the goal line than if he had simply fallen down. That the ball came out was in fact the direct result of making that football move, which by itself is all the proof one needs. The rule does not say you have to be in any particular position when making the football move common to the game, and it doesn't say that the result has to be of any significance. It's just a way of distinguishing the point at which a receiver becomes a runner or not. He does not actually have to run to be considered a runner, he just has to have made that distinction with a football move. The ball then coming out becomes a fumble rather than an incomplete pass, which is exactly what happened.

I know we will continue to disagree, but I wonder have you had the benefit of watching it in slow motion? If you have, have you not seen the third step leg drive I'm relating?

 

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by heelmanwilm:
You're wrong bluetoe. When a player is "going to the ground" during the catch the catch is not a catch unless he maintains control throughout. It was never at any time a catch prior to him hitting the ground.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I think you just don't understand the rule and the distinctions in place to define a catch. Most often, when a player makes a catch in mid-air, he comes down on his two feet, usually one after another but not necessarily that way. His feet are considered part of his body, so all he then has to do is maintain possession long enough before losing the football to have been deemed to have made a football move, that is, something a runner might do. If he makes that football move and then the ball comes out he's a runner and he just fumbled. If he doesn't make a football move before the ball comes out it's an incomplete pass. There are times when a receiver goes up and does not come down on his two feet but rather hits the ground with his body. He has to hang on to the ball then or it's an incomplete pass period. But Bryant did come down on his two feet, and he then made a football move involving a third step. A step is just a foot contacting the ground. That he used his third step to make a football move before contacting the ground with his body made him a runner. The only question is not of him hitting the ground...it's of whether a football move was made first. Think about this. Suppose the play had unfolded a litle bit differently, and Bryant was able to make exactly the same move he did but far enough above the ground that his lunge for the end zone was not only more apparent but successful in breaking the plane before he landed with the ball extended into the end zone and with it coming out on contact. A TD would have been signalled and no one in the world not wearing a green jersey would have questioned it. There is no qualitative difference between the two scenarios, he was just closer to the ground in the actual one making it harder to discern the lunge toward the end zone.

 

[heelmanwilm]

No, if he had broken the plane of the goal it would NOT have been a td. The rules make a distinction between a receiver making a catch and a runner. Both the current and former director of officials, who know the rule better than anyone, say there was not a fb move made adequate to call it a catch. Case closed. Feel free to have last word as thats mine.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by heelmanwilm:
No, if he had broken the plane of the goal it would NOT have been a td. The rules make a distinction between a receiver making a catch and a runner. Both the current and former director of officials, who know the rule better than anyone, say there was not a fb move made adequate to call it a catch. Case closed. Feel free to have last word as thats mine.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

and that's exactly what I've been trying to impress on you over and over to no avail, and now you're telling me? Fine with me. Ignorance is bliss I guess. At least now you're acknowledging the importance of the football move. Its 'adequacy' is not supposed to be a consideration as I also said. It's a football move or it isn't. BTW, I know you don't care for these exchanges but they're actually fun to me and having fun is all I'm doing. You're welcome to your opinion, as misguided as it may be.

I just like arguing my POV.

BTW, yes it would be called a TD, and by those same officials you mention who as I alluded to probably aren't rocket surgeons..

 

[Heels in Space]

Have to agree with heelman here, even though I hate the way the rule works out in this particular situation.

If a receiver, standing five yards deep in the endzone jumps and makes a clean catch in the air, he still has to either land on his feet or maintain possession through the act of going to the ground before it is a catch (and therefore a TD). Likewise, even if Bryant had broken the plane, he still has to maintain possession through the act of going to the ground before it's a TD.

The only exception to that would be if, as bluetoe thinks, he wasn't "going to the ground" and instead made a football move. I guess this is debatable, but I've always understood that to be a receiver who has landed on his feet and makes a deliberate "running" move. It looked to me like, even though Bryant took two or three steps, he never had his balance and was therefore going to the ground the whole time.

Think of it this way. If Bryant had been hit (after making the catch but before he hit the ground) and the ball came loose, should it have been a fumble or an incompletion? To me, it clearly would have been an incompletion, which means the catch was not completed.

 

[Old_School59]

Late to the question, but yes Dez made the catch. Water under the bridge now. Seattle will win the Super Bowl.

 

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by Heels in Space:

Have to agree with heelman here, even though I hate the way the rule works out in this particular situation.

If a receiver, standing five yards deep in the endzone jumps and makes a clean catch in the air, he still has to either land on his feet or maintain possession through the act of going to the ground before it is a catch (and therefore a TD). Likewise, even if Bryant had broken the plane, he still has to maintain possession through the act of going to the ground before it's a TD.

The only exception to that would be if, as bluetoe thinks, he wasn't "going to the ground" and instead made a football move. I guess this is debatable, but I've always understood that to be a receiver who has landed on his feet and makes a deliberate "running" move. It looked to me like, even though Bryant took two or three steps, he never had his balance and was therefore going to the ground the whole time.

Think of it this way. If Bryant had been hit (after making the catch but before he hit the ground) and the ball came loose, should it have been a fumble or an incompletion? To me, it clearly would have been an incompletion, which means the catch was not completed.

it does not have to be a deliberate running move. It has to be a deliberate move that a runner might make (runner since that is what a receiver becomes when he has caught a pass)....that is, a football move or a move common to the game. That's precisely why it's phrased this way and not as a 'running move'. That could be a lunge as I have pointed out or it could be a lateral as someone else did. It could be a lot of things.

Balance has nothing to do with it, its control of the ball that's in question, and whether the receiver has become a runner by successfully catching the ball. It isn't a perception thing. And the rule does not say a football move can't made while the receiver is returning to the ground. It says that control of the ball must be maintained through the catching process. The catching process of a pass made within the field of play ends, by definition, when a football move is made.

Your last paragraph actually pertains to nothing relevant, as far as I can tell. Of course that (your example) would be an incompletion.
This post was edited on 1/14 2:34 PM by bluetoe

 

[Heels in Space]

Originally posted by bluetoe:
it does not have to be a deliberate running move. It has to be a deliberate move that a runner might make (runner since that is what a receiver becomes when he has caught a pass)....that is, a football move or a move common to the game. That's precisely why it's phrased this way and not as a 'running move'. That could be a lunge as I have pointed out or it could be a lateral as someone else did. It could be a lot of things.

Balance has nothing to do with it, its control of the ball that's in question, and whether the receiver has become a runner by successfully catching the ball. It isn't a perception thing. And the rule does not say a football move can't made while the receiver is returning to the ground. It says that control of the ball must be maintained through the catching process. The catching process of a pass made within the field of play ends, by definition, when a football move is made.

Your last paragraph actually pertains to nothing relevant, as far as I can tell. Of course that (your example) would be an incompletion.

This post was edited on 1/14 2:34 PM by bluetoe

This question all turns on whether Bryant was "going to the ground" while making the catch. A "football move" can't make it a catch if the receiver is going to the ground. Those are two separate rules.

The general rule is found in Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, which provides that:



A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to

perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it,

advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Bryant's catch probably satisfies this rule, and if this were the only rule, it would have been a catch. But Item 1 creates an exception to the general rule:

"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."

So even if he gets two feet down and makes a football move (like reaching for the goal line), if he's going to the ground the whole time, he has to maintain possession throughout the process of contacting the ground. Bright line rule.

This is why Bryant's balance is crucial. If you watch the play at full speed, it's clear he's going to the ground the whole time. He never had control of his balance to remain upright like a runner. If he did, Article 3 would apply. But because he was going down the whole time, Item 1 applies.

Bottom line is, to say this was a catch under the current rules, you have to argue that Bryant wasn't "go[ing] to the ground in the act of catching [the] pass." To me, it certainly looks like he was. He didn't maintain possession throughout contact with the ground. No catch.

 

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by Heels in Space:

Originally posted by bluetoe:
it does not have to be a deliberate running move. It has to be a deliberate move that a runner might make (runner since that is what a receiver becomes when he has caught a pass)....that is, a football move or a move common to the game. That's precisely why it's phrased this way and not as a 'running move'. That could be a lunge as I have pointed out or it could be a lateral as someone else did. It could be a lot of things.

Balance has nothing to do with it, its control of the ball that's in question, and whether the receiver has become a runner by successfully catching the ball. It isn't a perception thing. And the rule does not say a football move can't made while the receiver is returning to the ground. It says that control of the ball must be maintained through the catching process. The catching process of a pass made within the field of play ends, by definition, when a football move is made.

Your last paragraph actually pertains to nothing relevant, as far as I can tell. Of course that (your example) would be an incompletion.

This post was edited on 1/14 2:34 PM by bluetoe

This question all turns on whether Bryant was "going to the ground" while making the catch. A "football move" can't make it a catch if the receiver is going to the ground. Those are two separate rules.

The general rule is found in Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, which provides that:



A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to

perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it,

advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Bryant's catch probably satisfies this rule, and if this were the only rule, it would have been a catch. But Item 1 creates an exception to the general rule:

"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."

So even if he gets two feet down and makes a football move (like reaching for the goal line), if he's going to the ground the whole time, he has to maintain possession throughout the process of contacting the ground. Bright line rule.

This is why Bryant's balance is crucial. If you watch the play at full speed, it's clear he's going to the ground the whole time. He never had control of his balance to remain upright like a runner. If he did, Article 3 would apply. But because he was going down the whole time, Item 1 applies.

Bottom line is, to say this was a catch under the current rules, you have to argue that Bryant wasn't "go[ing] to the ground in the act of catching [the] pass." To me, it certainly looks like he was. He didn't maintain possession throughout contact with the ground. No catch.

if he has made a football move, he is no longer 'in the act of catching a pass'. He has in fact by definition caught it. Ensuing ground contact is then made as a runner.

 

[Heels in Space]

Originally posted by bluetoe:
if he has made a football move, he is no longer 'in the act of catching a pass'. He has in fact by definition caught it. Ensuing ground contact is then made as a runner.

I guess that's a possible interpretation. I still think, though, that the intent of the rule is that if you're going to the ground while in the process of making the catch, as Bryant was, you have to maintain possession through contact with the ground, regardless of what you do on the way down. Either way, it was a close call.

 

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by Heels in Space:

Originally posted by bluetoe:
if he has made a football move, he is no longer 'in the act of catching a pass'. He has in fact by definition caught it. Ensuing ground contact is then made as a runner.

I guess that's a possible interpretation. I still think, though, that the intent of the rule is that if you're going to the ground while in the process of making the catch, as Bryant was, you have to maintain possession through contact with the ground, regardless of what you do on the way down. Either way, it was a close call.

if you go back to my earlier posts here, I point out that they have alowed two ideas to meld without making any distinctions that might help in this situation. But keep in mind that if you hold the original intent of the 'ball control through contact with the ground' concept alone, it was meant to clarify cases where the body other than the two feet was what contacted the ground when coming down. As it stands though, the actual wording of the rule(s) in question make Bryant's loss of the ball a fumble, unless you just insist that he made no football move.

I was pointing out to friends that when a catch is made and the receiver is going out of bounds, sometimes they'll watch him take another several steps out of bounds before hitting the ground, and then they'll watch him slide another six or seven feet on his back before he finally stops and holds the ball up. And only then will they signal a catch. That's ridiculous. Out of bounds is out of play, and if the receiver has the ball in control, the play should be over as a completed pass as soon as the ball passes over the sideline regardless of what happens after that.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

"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."

This settles it. He was going to the ground throughout...there can be no argument on that. He made no football move except to fall down. I've seen the exact same call on passes going out of bounds. The player catches the ball and gets both feet down as he goes out but contact with the ground jars the ball loose. If the "it's a catch" interpretation holds true then that should be a catch and a fumble out of bounds...I've NEVER seen it called that way.

This post was edited on 1/15 12:40 PM by tarheelbybirth

 

[Heels in Space]

Originally posted by bluetoe:
if you go back to my earlier posts here, I point out that they have alowed two ideas to meld without making any distinctions that might help in this situation. But keep in mind that if you hold the original intent of the 'ball control through contact with the ground' concept alone, it was meant to clarify cases where the body other than the two feet was what contacted the ground when coming down. As it stands though, the actual wording of the rule(s) in question make Bryant's loss of the ball a fumble, unless you just insist that he made no football move.

I was pointing out to friends that when a catch is made and the receiver is going out of bounds, sometimes they'll watch him take another several steps out of bounds before hitting the ground, and then they'll watch him slide another six or seven feet on his back before he finally stops and holds the ball up. And only then will they signal a catch. That's ridiculous. Out of bounds is out of play, and if the receiver has the ball in control, the play should be over as a completed pass as soon as the ball passes over the sideline regardless of what happens after that.

I agree that the confusion stems from the fact that the rule is unclear as to whether a player can make a football move while going to the ground or whether the two ideas are mutually exclusive. It's also unclear whether reaching for an extra yard is "a move common to the game" as envisioned by the rules.

Also keep in mind, the rules say you don't actually have to make a football move, you just have to control the ball long enough to do so. So if you theoretically can make a football move before you hit the ground, does the "maintain possession" rule ever apply?

Someone should do a masters thesis on this.

 

[gunslingerdick]

This thread is getting on my nerves. I mean, how much can we dissect this one play? I thought it should have been a catch based on what I believed to be a catch and a "football move" before he went to the ground. But whatever. Who cares? It's over.

Go AFC!

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Falling down is not a football move. Shoulda secured the ball. Football 101.

 

[gteeitup]

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:
Falling down is not a football move. Shoulda secured the ball. Football 101.

is reaching or stretching for the goal line after switching the ball to your hand a "football move common to the game"?

is "common" based on the individual or a general group of players?...if you watch that dude play, that was pretty common.

 

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by Heels in Space:

Originally posted by bluetoe:
if you go back to my earlier posts here, I point out that they have alowed two ideas to meld without making any distinctions that might help in this situation. But keep in mind that if you hold the original intent of the 'ball control through contact with the ground' concept alone, it was meant to clarify cases where the body other than the two feet was what contacted the ground when coming down. As it stands though, the actual wording of the rule(s) in question make Bryant's loss of the ball a fumble, unless you just insist that he made no football move.

I was pointing out to friends that when a catch is made and the receiver is going out of bounds, sometimes they'll watch him take another several steps out of bounds before hitting the ground, and then they'll watch him slide another six or seven feet on his back before he finally stops and holds the ball up. And only then will they signal a catch. That's ridiculous. Out of bounds is out of play, and if the receiver has the ball in control, the play should be over as a completed pass as soon as the ball passes over the sideline regardless of what happens after that.

I agree that the confusion stems from the fact that the rule is unclear as to whether a player can make a football move while going to the ground or whether the two ideas are mutually exclusive. It's also unclear whether reaching for an extra yard is "a move common to the game" as envisioned by the rules.

______if there is anything that represents a move common to the game, it would be reaching....and in this case not just reaching but at the same time lunging........for the end zone, particularly when the body has to be contorted in order to do so. Remember, the football move idea is there solely to act as an indication that the catch has been made (you wouldn't lunge for the end zone or turn upfield or try to lateral if you didn't have the ball). So said move doesn't have to be a dance routine.




Also keep in mind, the rules say you don't actually have to make a football move, you just have to control the ball long enough to do so. So if you theoretically can make a football move before you hit the ground, does the "maintain possession" rule ever apply?

_______I believe you have misunderstood this semantically. The football move is to be made; the 'long enough' is derived from that




Someone should do a masters thesis on this.

_____I think we have

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Originally posted by gteeitup: is reaching or stretching for the goal line after switching the ball to your hand a "football move common to the game"?

is "common" based on the individual or a general group of players?...if you watch that dude play, that was pretty common.

I don't see him "switching hands"...he has it in both hands and pushes it into his left as he's falling. I don't really see him stretching for the goal line as it would commonly be done. This is stretching for the goal line:

And even here, he would have to maintain control if he was falling after catching it. If this guy caught the ball in the air, hits the ground, and knocks the ball loose...it's an incomplete pass. It's the way it's always been called since the rule was instituted...even bluetoe admits it on out of bounds plays. They got the call right based on the rules and interpretations as they exist.

 

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:
Falling down is not a football move. Shoulda secured the ball. Football 101.

always good to get a late contribution from someone trying to figure out which end of the football is up and which is down. But now we know.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

And you admitted that securing the ball while going out of bounds was necessary for it to be called a catch but then apparently maintained that the rules should be interpreted differently for Bryant.


I was pointing out to friends that when a catch is made and the receiver is going out of bounds, sometimes they'll watch him take another several steps out of bounds before hitting the ground, and then they'll watch him slide another six or seven feet on his back before he finally stops and holds the ball up. And only then will they signal a catch.


That you don't like the rule is pretty much immaterial

So neither consistency nor knowing which end of a football is "up" is in your repertoire.


This post was edited on 1/15 3:23 PM by tarheelbybirth

 

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:
And you admitted that securing the ball while going out of bounds was necessary for it to be called a catch but then apparently maintained that the rules should be interpreted differently for Bryant.


I was pointing out to friends that when a catch is made and the receiver is going out of bounds, sometimes they'll watch him take another several steps out of bounds before hitting the ground, and then they'll watch him slide another six or seven feet on his back before he finally stops and holds the ball up. And only then will they signal a catch.


That you don't like the rule is pretty much immaterial

So neither consistency nor knowing which end of a football is "up" is in your repertoire.


This post was edited on 1/15 3:23 PM by tarheelbybirth

that you don't understand what's been said is also immaterial, apparently

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Oh, I understand perfectly.

 

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:
Oh, I understand perfectly.

of course, why else would you post an emoticon instead of an explanation.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Those of u that think the rule should be changed- what should it be changed to?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Originally posted by bluetoe:

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:
Oh, I understand perfectly.

of course, why else would you post an emoticon instead of an explanation.

Ummm...I posted what you actually said. I really don't need to explain it. Not sure why you felt the need to be a douche but I'm done. Thanks.



This post was edited on 1/15 5:00 PM by tarheelbybirth

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Originally posted by heelmanwilm:
Those of u that think the rule should be changed- what should it be changed to?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I'm not sure you can change it. There has to be some kind of demarcation between a catch and an incomplete pass. What's undoubtedly true is if the situation was reversed and it was a GB player making that play, the Dallas folks would be arguing the other side of the coin.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:
Falling down is not a football move. Shoulda secured the ball. Football 101.

lol

Do you practice being a condescending ass or does it come natural to you?

 

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:

Originally posted by gteeitup: is reaching or stretching for the goal line after switching the ball to your hand a "football move common to the game"?

is "common" based on the individual or a general group of players?...if you watch that dude play, that was pretty common.

I don't see him "switching hands"...he has it in both hands and pushes it into his left as he's falling. I don't really see him stretching for the goal line as it would commonly be done. This is stretching for the goal line:

And even here, he would have to maintain control if he was falling after catching it. If this guy caught the ball in the air, hits the ground, and knocks the ball loose...it's an incomplete pass. It's the way it's always been called since the rule was instituted...even bluetoe admits it on out of bounds plays. They got the call right based on the rules and interpretations as they exist.

I admit that you apparently don't understand the obvious difference between out of bounds (where a football move is completely immaterial) and a live ball in the field of play. Or which end of a football is up. And I admit that you have done nothing to substantiate your uninformed and worthless opinion. I admit that you're taking a quote out of context and characterizing it as other than it was intended because that's the only way you can appear to have some point. I admit that you're just being you.

 

[Heels in Space]

Originally posted by bluetoe:
_______I believe you have misunderstood this semantically. The football move is to be made; the 'long enough' is derived from that

Nope. The rule actually says this: "Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act [common to the game], provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so."

So if a lunge while falling down is such a move, wouldn't virtually every player who's going to the ground have control of the ball long enough to do that, regardless of whether he does it or not? This is why I think the "football move" rule and "going to the ground" rule are mutually exclusive. If you're going to the ground, the latter applies.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:
Falling down is not a football move. Shoulda secured the ball. Football 101.

lol

Do you practice being a condescending ass or does it come natural to you?

Wow...the thin skins are out in force. To whom exactly was I being condescending? Dez Bryant? I doubt he cares. My post wasn't directed toward you or anyone else so that's out. So I'll resist the urge to actually BE condescending and let it pass.

Had Bryant concentrated on catching the ball and tucking it away, none of this would have mattered. He had the first down and the ball would have been on the 1-yard line at worst. If he wasn't touched he could have rolled into the end zone. Sometimes players try to do too much...think the RB who struggles for an extra yard and ends up fumbling the ball. Bryant's a great player and those are likely the guys who push it most. Most of the time it works and they make the great plays but sometimes it costs them...this is one of those times.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Originally posted by Heels in Space:Nope. The rule actually says this: "Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act [common to the game], provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so."

So if a lunge while falling down is such a move, wouldn't virtually every player who's going to the ground have control of the ball long enough to do that, regardless of whether he does it or not? This is why I think the "football move" rule and "going to the ground" rule are mutually exclusive. If you're going to the ground, the latter applies.

And that means putting a clock on them...after they decide how much time it takes to perform a "football move". Maybe that would be less subjective but it sure sounds weird. If a guy goes up for the ball and gets undercut flipping through the air, losing the ball when he hits the ground...did he maintain control long enough to perform a football move had he caught it on the run?