POLL: Did Dez Bryant make the catch?

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by 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.

I see where you're coming from. That just means that sometimes a player can't make a move because he's wrapped up or whatever, and in that case common sense is applied and a reasonable amount of time possessing the ball that represents what a football move might take is a suitable substitute. It has nothing to do with coming down of course and you've seen a million times a receiver who is immediately wrapped when the ball hits his hands. If he hangs on for a two count it's a catch. But to address your question, your argument now falls prey to your earlier one. If the player simply falls to the ground no amount of time in doing so matters, because contact with the ground has to be accounted for regardless. The falling to the ground rule just says, as you pointed out, 'in the act of catching the ball'. If a football move is made however, no amount of time matters then either because the catch has been made by virtue of that move regardless of how long it takes or doesn't take. Remember also I never said Bryant wasn't going to the ground...he definitely was under the going to the ground rule until he planted his third step and made the lunge for the goal line. His continuation generally downward at that point is nowhere in the rules a factor because at that point he had become a runner.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Originally posted by bluetoe: 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.

If a football move is performed prior to going out of bounds then what happens afterwards is immaterial - hell, you can even throw the ball to the ground to protect yourself (you knew that, right?). If you catch the ball while falling out of bounds, control must be maintained through the catch...which is EXACTLY what you were talking about and EXACTLY the same situation as Bryant. So it's really EXACTLY the same thing. Feel free to continue with the personal attacks, though. I find you amusing.

 

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:

Originally posted by bluetoe: 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.

If a football move is performed prior to going out of bounds then what happens afterwards is immaterial - hell, you can even throw the ball to the ground to protect yourself (you knew that, right?). If you catch the ball while falling out of bounds, control must be maintained through the catch...which is EXACTLY what you were talking about and EXACTLY the same situation as Bryant. So it's really EXACTLY the same thing. Feel free to continue with the personal attacks, though. I find you amusing.

your argument is almost too idiotic to bother countering, but if you'll somehow demonstrate knowing that OOB is not the field of play, and that nothing has been said about making a football move before going out of bounds, I promise to continue allowing you to use me as a vehicle for making an ass of yourself

 

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by 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?

My God. You really don't know which end of a football is up. This is like watching a game with my girlfriend. Just STFU already and go make me a sandwich.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Originally posted by bluetoe:
...he definitely was under the going to the ground rule until he planted his third step and made the lunge for the goal line. His continuation generally downward at that point is nowhere in the rules a factor because at that point he had become a runner.

He only takes two steps. Coming down on his left foot isn't a step. He lands on his left, steps to his right, steps back to his left...on the ground. Two steps.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Originally posted by 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.

Smart move.

Again, I have no dog in this fight. I find allegiances to professional teams inane. I simply stated that I thought Dez made a football move after catching the ball, moving it from one hand to the other and reaching for the end zone.

You disagree? Cool. That means nothing to me.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Originally posted by bluetoe:
your argument is almost too idiotic to bother countering, but if you'll somehow demonstrate knowing that OOB is not the field of play, and that nothing has been said about making a football move before going out of bounds, I promise to continue allowing you to use me as a vehicle for making an ass of yourself

OOB has no bearing on whether it's a catch or not where maintaining possession is concerned. I'm not sure why you think it does. The only things that matter are two feet in-bounds and maintain control through the catch. That you think sliding six feet and then holding the ball up to demonstrate control is "ridiculous" shows a patent misunderstanding of the game. A player catching a ball in the end zone while going to the ground would be subject to the same rule...establish that he's in bounds - either by getting two feet down or going to ground while in-bounds and demonstrate control through the catch and...now follow closely here because this is kind of important...it doesn't matter if the receiver ultimately goes out of bounds or stays in-bounds. Calvin Johnson never went out of bounds on the play that gave us the "Calvin Johnson rule" but if he had the ruling would have been exactly the same. If Bryant had come down out of bounds on his play, the ruling would have been exactly the same.

You want to play that once a receiver breaks the plane of the sideline the play is dead and he no longer has to possess the ball through the catch...that's idiotic. Whether in bounds...out of bounds...in the middle of the field...in the end zone...a receiver going to the ground MUST maintain possession through the catch for it to be a completion. And a ref is going to make sure that this occurs before signaling a catch. A player going down in the middle of the field and sliding six feet is STILL going to show the ball to the official to establish that possession was maintained. There's nothing magical or even different about the sidelines in regard to that aspect of making a catch.

I'm surprised you don't understand that.




This post was edited on 1/15 10:05 PM by tarheelbybirth

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Originally posted by gunslingerdick: Smart move.

Really? Why?

Again, I have no dog in this fight.

Yet you felt the need to resort to childish name calling for a post that wasn't directed at you and had nothing to do with you? Why?

 

[bluetoe]

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:

Originally posted by bluetoe:
your argument is almost too idiotic to bother countering, but if you'll somehow demonstrate knowing that OOB is not the field of play, and that nothing has been said about making a football move before going out of bounds, I promise to continue allowing you to use me as a vehicle for making an ass of yourself

OOB has no bearing on whether it's a catch or not. I'm not sure why you think it does. The only things that matter are two feet in-bounds and maintain control through the catch. That you think sliding six feet and then holding the ball up to demonstrate control is "ridiculous" shows a patent misunderstanding of the game. A player catching a ball in the end zone while going to the ground would be subject to the same rule...get two feet in bounds and demonstrate control through the catch and...now follow closely here because this is kind of important...it doesn't matter if the receiver ultimately goes out of bounds or stays in-bounds. Calvin Johnson never went out of bounds on the play that gave us the "Calvin Johnson rule" but if he had the ruling would have been exactly the same. If Bryant had come down out of bounds on his play, the ruling would have been exactly the same.

What I'm not sure of is why you continue to try to work your little OOB strawman when it's obvious that you don't know shit from Shinola. Just give it up and if you insist on working this out-of-context quote that you purposely mischaracterized and that has nothing to do with any argument anyone has made other than you, at least try to not be the only adult male within sniffing distance of this board who doesn't realize that out of bounds where plays die instantly is very different from the field of play where they don't and where a football move can be made to substantiate a catch and even put points on the board. Now listen carefully and try to follow because this is kind of important......that's what we were discussing here, remember?

Good Lord, imitating you almost makes my skin crawl. Being you must purely suck.

 

[mikeirbyusa]

Y'all need to meet somewhere face-face and discuss this over a good meal.

To some, it will always be a catch, count me in there. To some he didn't completely do everything the rule states. And yet he did. It was a badly blown call, happens every year.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Originally posted by bluetoe:

.....at least try to not be the only adult male within sniffing distance of this board who doesn't realize that out of bounds where plays die instantly is very different from the field of play where they don't and where a football move can be made to substantiate a catch and even put points on the board.

I'll type slowly...try to keep up. If a player is going to the ground in the act of catching the ball, he must maintain possession through the catch. Read that again...more slowly. One more time...sloooowwwweeeerrrrr. Please note that it says nothing about the player landing in bounds or out. Do you know why?

Because it doesn't matter. For the act of maintaining the catch to be relevant, he must have already established a catch in the field of play...that's a SEPARATE action. In the middle of the field, it's obvious. Going to the sidelines, two feet must be in. Once that action has been established...they both become exactly the same play. Crossing the sidelines now means absolutely nothing in terms of maintaining control of the ball. That player is judged EXACTLY the same as a player in the middle of the field. Does he maintain possession through the catch? Period.

As for Bryant, he was going to the ground in the act of catching the ball. He took two steps - not three - as he went down. He didn't "switch hands". He caught it with both hands and put his right hand out - taking it off the ball - to try and protect himself as he fell. He lunged forward as he fell as ANY receiver might ANYWHERE on the field. Get the first down. Get an extra foot. If that were to be regarded as a football move it would have been the very first time for such a judgement. The ball hit the ground as he went down and popped free. He didn't maintain possession through the catch. Incomplete pass.


The Calvin Johnson play was a much closer call than this one.



This post was edited on 1/16 8:42 AM by tarheelbybirth

 

[gunslingerdick]

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:

Originally posted by gunslingerdick: Smart move.

Really? Why?

Again, I have no dog in this fight.

Yet you felt the need to resort to childish name calling for a post that wasn't directed at you and had nothing to do with you? Why?

Name calling? Are you reading the same thread I am. Because this is like the 3rd time when you've posted something that's completely inaccurate. I think something might be wrong with your internet. You might want to check with your provider.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Originally posted by mikeirbyusa:
Y'all need to meet somewhere face-face and discuss this over a good meal.

I agree. Meal or not, I think we all need to meet up and just hash some things out in person. But here's the deal, it would have to be convenient to me. I'm not wasting 2-3 hours in the car to verify my opinion of some of the posters here.

 

[coolwaterunc]

I'll come if the food is good.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:

Originally posted by gunslingerdick: Smart move.

Really? Why?

Again, I have no dog in this fight.

Yet you felt the need to resort to childish name calling for a post that wasn't directed at you and had nothing to do with you? Why?

Name calling? Are you reading the same thread I am. Because this is like the 3rd time when you've posted something that's completely inaccurate. I think something might be wrong with your internet. You might want to check with your provider.

Inaccurate?

Originally posted by gunslingerdick: lol

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

I'm sure you have a different name for it.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:

Originally posted by gunslingerdick: Smart move.

Really? Why?

Again, I have no dog in this fight.

Yet you felt the need to resort to childish name calling for a post that wasn't directed at you and had nothing to do with you? Why?

Name calling? Are you reading the same thread I am. Because this is like the 3rd time when you've posted something that's completely inaccurate. I think something might be wrong with your internet. You might want to check with your provider.

Inaccurate?

Originally posted by gunslingerdick: lol

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

I'm sure you have a different name for it.

I do indeed - fact stating.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:

I do indeed - fact stating.

Ahh...then you might be able to explain to whom I was being condescending? It wasn't you. The post wasn't directed at anyone. It was an observation on the play. I'm not even sure how you get condescending out of it. How about pointing it out, if you don't mind.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:

I do indeed - fact stating.

Ahh...then you might be able to explain to whom I was being condescending? It wasn't you. The post wasn't directed at anyone. It was an observation on the play. I'm not even sure how you get condescending out of it. How about pointing it out, if you don't mind.

You curtly quipped, "that's football 101" as if my judgement and understanding of the game of football was elementary.

If that's not what you meant, then I apologize. But I'm basing that characterization of your post off of my previous exchanges with you.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

It was absolutely not directed at you, gsd. But when I went back and looked at your previous post I can see where you were coming from. My humblest apologies...I'm trying really hard to be good in this incarnation and let things slide.



But you know me.

 

[BillyL]

Originally posted by coolwaterunc:

I'll come if the food and DRINK is good.

I'm now all in . .

 

[mikeirbyusa]

Originally posted by BillyL:

Originally posted by coolwaterunc:

I'll come if the food and DRINK is good.

I'm now all in . .

ME TOO! .............................................. so long as theres no Crystal Pepsi invvolved!