OT, Thank you Packers

[nimzovich]

I love the people saying that the refs should have let the call stand despite the clearly written rule and clear evidence that it was not a catch. The term I'm looking for here is "career limiting move".

Completely disagree. this is 100% judgment because it is not APPLICATION of a rule, but INTERPRETATION of part of a rule that preceded the application. The rule states he must be able to make a football move, and it is judgment whether or not he made a football move. Did he lunge forward and try to extend the ball over the goal line?

If he did, it was a football move, and therefore the catch was completed and he no longer needs control when he hits the ground.

If he didnt make a football move, and that is how the refs eventually JUDGED his actions, then it was not a catch. If you can watch that play and think it is CLEAR either way, you have spectacular eyesight.

 

[Excalibur]

If it was so clear that it was not a catch than why was it first determined a catch?

Yep, why have replay at all? It was called a catch because the official didn't see the ball come loose.

 

[donyell34]

Some of you guys are off your rocker and very biased; it was clear it wasn't a catch ; oh really ; clear to who? That was a catch and you're dislike for the cowboys and Jerry Jones and the big guy Chris Christie and Texas and NewJersey are clouding your judgement. ♡

 

[mauconnfan]

Poor Lions? Lol, just like the Cowboys this week they had opportunities to win and they came up small. Neither team has anyone to blame but themselves, but saying the refs screwed the Lions but not the Cowboys just reeks of bias.

Sorry bias is you believing I have a bias (well I do I hate the Cowboys) but I watched both games. I one game they go the call wrong and admitted it, actually apologizing to the Lions. Yesterday's call they got right , unless of course you have that apology they are sending to Jerry?

 

[mauconnfan]

Some of you guys are off your rocker and very biased; it was clear it wasn't a catch ; oh really ; clear to who? That was a catch and you're dislike for the cowboys and Jerry Jones and the big guy Chris Christie and Texas and NewJersey are clouding your judgement. ♡

It was a catch yell, but NOT by the rules. The rule blows I agree, Dez caught it but you can't change the rules until they officially do so. They got it right.

 

[SixRings]

Yep, why have replay at all? It was called a catch because the official didn't see the ball come loose.

I agree with the replay. My point, which you missed, is that it was not SO CLEAR as you made it sound in your post.

 

[AtlHusky]

It was clearly not a catch according to the 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."

Did Dez go to the ground in the act of making the catch? Absolutely, without a doubt.
Did he maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground? No, without a doubt.

There is no bias here, it wasn't a catch and to argue otherwise indicates lack of understanding of the rules as they are written. A football move doesn't factor into this rule, so stretching the ball is meaningless. Well, except for the fact that if he tucked it on the way to the ground instead of stretching it, it's likely first and goal from the two yard line.

 

[SixRings]

It was clearly not a catch according to the 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."

Did Dez go to the ground in the act of making the catch? Absolutely, without a doubt.
Did he maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground? No, without a doubt.

There is no bias here, it wasn't a catch and to argue otherwise indicates lack of understanding of the rules as they are written. A football move doesn't factor into this rule, so stretching the ball is meaningless. Well, except for the fact that if he tucked it on the way to the ground instead of stretching it, it's likely first and goal from the two yard line.

I disagree. He did not go to the ground in the act of making the catch. I think he had possession during the two steps he took, made a "football move" to reach for the end zone and the ground caused the fumble. You can argue he did not have possession during those steps but to me he was past the point of still coming down with the ball. Say what you will. I've moved on.

 

[Excalibur]

He did not go to the ground in the act of making the catch.

I think people don't understand what this means, and what referees are told it means. There's not an official in the league that wants to keep his job that would agree with this statement. The problem is that the rule, both as written and enforced, doesn't take into account what today's athletes are capable of.

 

[AtlHusky]

I disagree. He did not go to the ground in the act of making the catch. I think he had possession during the two steps he took, made a "football move" to reach for the end zone and the ground caused the fumble. You can argue he did not have possession during those steps but to me he was past the point of still coming down with the ball. Say what you will. I've moved on.

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Watch the play again and tell me he could have kept his feet and not fallen to the ground if he wanted to. If he could have, he would have gone into the end zone standing up. Since he involuntarily went to the ground, the two (momentum) steps are not considered a football move, nor does a football move factor into the ruling on this play.

 

[puppygenius]

There IS a football God!

 

[selles]

It was clearly not a catch according to the 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."

Did Dez go to the ground in the act of making the catch? Absolutely, without a doubt.
Did he maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground? No, without a doubt.

There is no bias here, it wasn't a catch and to argue otherwise indicates lack of understanding of the rules as they are written. A football move doesn't factor into this rule, so stretching the ball is meaningless. Well, except for the fact that if he tucked it on the way to the ground instead of stretching it, it's likely first and goal from the two yard line.

That makes sense, except here's what the referee told reporters after the game:

"In our judgment, he maintained possession but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game."

If a football move doesn't factor into the 'going to the ground' rule, why did he say that?

In the main section of the rule, an 'act common to the game' results in a completion, then there's this separate section you quoted which talks about 'going to the ground'. I think there's a lot of confusion about whether an 'act common to the game' occurring while 'going to the ground' can result in a completed catch such that what happens when you hit the ground becomes irrelevant.

 

[k9fanatic]

That was a catch and you're dislike for the cowboys and Jerry Jones and the big guy Chris Christie and Texas and NewJersey are clouding your judgement. ♡

In all fairness, there is a whole lot to dislike there

 

[AtlHusky]

That makes sense, except here's what the referee told reporters after the game:

"In our judgment, he maintained possession but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game."

If a football move doesn't factor into the 'going to the ground' rule, why did he say that?

In the main section of the rule, an 'act common to the game' results in a completion, then there's this separate section you quoted which talks about 'going to the ground'. I think there's a lot of confusion about whether an 'act common to the game' occurring while 'going to the ground' can result in a completed catch such that what happens when you hit the ground becomes irrelevant.

Hard to know why the ref said it like that, but if he had just said "In our judgment, he maintained possession but continued to fall", it would have meant the same thing, because if Dez is falling, and actually does fall as we all saw, he can't make a football move that would matter.

By rule, if you fall while making a catch, you have to maintain full control of the ball through the fall, football move (or common act to the game) or no football move. It's clear from the replay that he didn't maintain full control of the ball through the fall, and therefore the correct call by the rules is incomplete pass..

 

[Smp7598]

Watching football for over 40 years, I don't know what a catch is anymore! Fantasy football and betting on the games keep the nfl revalant! Handful of good games!

 

[TheChamps990411]

It was a catch yell, but NOT by the rules. The rule blows I agree, Dez caught it but you can't change the rules until they officially do so. They got it right.

I disagree. It was a catch. He caught it on his first step, secured the ball took two steps,made contact with the defender,hit the ground with his right elbow,reached with his left, upon contact with the ground he lost control. The reason it was ruled incomplete was because the ref made a JUDGEMENT CALL on whether he made a football move or not. Ive been watching football for 30 years and i and many like me know a catch when i see one. You said it yourself you "hate the cowboys" so you do in fact have a bias so your opinion is biased.

 

[AtlHusky]

He caught it on his first step, secured the ball took two steps,made contact with the defender,hit the ground with his right elbow,reached with his left, upon contact with the ground he lost control. The reason it was ruled incomplete was because the ref made a JUDGEMENT CALL on whether he made a football move or not.

The judgement that the ref made was that the steps Dez took were not controlled, but instead he was stumbling to a fall, and the steps were momentum driven. I agree with that because that's exactly how my eyes see it. The pass is incomplete by rule because the catch, and there is no doubt he made the catch, was not controlled through the fall.

 

[GlastonTim]

It was a catch until the ball hit the ground and popped out, then it became incomplete. Not that difficult .

 

[mauconnfan]

I disagree. It was a catch. He caught it on his first step, secured the ball took two steps,made contact with the defender,hit the ground with his right elbow,reached with his left, upon contact with the ground he lost control. The reason it was ruled incomplete was because the ref made a JUDGEMENT CALL on whether he made a football move or not. Ive been watching football for 30 years and i and many like me know a catch when i see one. You said it yourself you "hate the cowboys" so you do in fact have a bias so your opinion is biased.

I've been watching football for 50 years and know a catch when I see one also but neither of us have an opinion that matters. It was a catch but not according to the "rule", it's really more simple than most are making it. My 20 years more of watching win. Next

 

[TheChamps990411]

The judgement that the ref made was that the steps Dez took were not controlled, but instead he was stumbling to a fall, and the steps were momentum driven. I agree with that because that's exactly how my eyes see it. The pass is incomplete by rule because the catch, and there is no doubt he made the catch, was not controlled through the fall.

Your explanation is as horrible as the refs. Thanks!

 

[TheChamps990411]

I've been watching football for 50 years and know a catch when I see one also but neither of us have an opinion that matters. It was a catch but not according to the "rule", it's really more simple than most are making it. My 20 years more of watching win. Next

Lol!

 

[AtlHusky]

Your explanation is as horrible as the refs. Thanks!

Accurate? ☑

Clear and concise? ☑ - provided you understand English

Horrible? ☑ - I can live with that...I think that play should be ruled a catch

But I'm floored by many in the mainstream (including many that are paid to talk about football and sports in general) that don't seem to understand why it was ruled incomplete, and is the right call by rule. I even heard some numbskull say yesterday that the rule doesn't account for someone of Bryant's athletic ability. Really? Dez was contacted by the defender while initially going up for the ball and then again on the way down, never established balance so that a "football move" could be made, and was falling to the ground. Sure the initial securing of the ball was extremely athletic, but the call was made as it was because Dez wasn't able to maintain his balance upon coming down and ultimately fell to the ground, causing the ball to come loose. It doesn't take a supreme athlete to fall and loose control of the ball. However, a smart athlete tucks the ball away so his team can then have first and goal from the 2.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

Accurate? ☑

Clear and concise? ☑ - provided you understand English

Horrible? ☑ - I can live with that...I think that play should be ruled a catch

But I'm floored by many in the mainstream (including many that are paid to talk about football and sports in general) that don't seem to understand why it was ruled incomplete, and is the right call by rule. I even heard some numbskull say yesterday that the rule doesn't account for someone of Bryant's athletic ability. Really? Dez was contacted by the defender while initially going up for the ball and then again on the way down, never established balance so that a "football move" could be made, and was falling to the ground. Sure the initial securing of the ball was extremely athletic, but the call was made as it was because Dez wasn't able to maintain his balance upon coming down and ultimately fell to the ground, causing the ball to come loose. It doesn't take a supreme athlete to fall and loose control of the ball. However, a smart athlete tucks the ball away so his team can then have first and goal from the 2.

I think we can add "look how many steps he took" to that list. It doesn't matter. You can take steps while falling to the ground.

 

[Deadrody]

If he catches the ball and makes a "football move", then it's a catch, and the "ground causes a fumble" rule applies. Steps would be a football move. The possession to the ground rule only applies when you just get two feet in.

However, while I initially thought it was a catch, what I see on replay is that he bobbles the ball while making the steps....didn't have possession, then he solidifies his hold, but at that point is going to the ground. That is why I think the call went the way it did.

You are flat out insane if you believe that. He caught the ball, had obvious control, switched hands, took THREE steps and lunged for the goal line. The ball was never once for a second out of his control until the ground caused a fumble that it - by rule - cannot.

As with the call the previous week, I know what a football play is when I see it, the attorney-speak wording of the rule notwithstanding. When the QB throws the ball into the defender's back, that's not DPI. And when a receiver catches a ball, takes three steps and lunges for the endzone - THAT is a catch.

 

[mauconnfan]

He didn't "take 3 steps" he was able to try to retain possession and fall in bounds with 2 "steps", not a football move. He didn't retain possession through the fall, not the supposed "steps". Sucks, but right call. Again if it was wrong like the week prior with Detroit they would have apologized to the Cowboys but unless I missed something it hasn't happened?

 

[WhereistheDove?]

You are flat out insane if you believe that. He caught the ball, had obvious control, switched hands, took THREE steps and lunged for the goal line. The ball was never once for a second out of his control until the ground caused a fumble that it - by rule - cannot.

As with the call the previous week, I know what a football play is when I see it, the attorney-speak wording of the rule notwithstanding. When the QB throws the ball into the defender's back, that's not DPI. And when a receiver catches a ball, takes three steps and lunges for the endzone - THAT is a catch.

You're just plain wrong here and it was absolutely the right call. He may have been fighting to get as many yards as possible while in the act of falling to the ground but he was still falling to the ground as part of the catch and the rule states that he had to retain possession, which he didn't. It was 100% the right call, regardless of how you or anyone else feels about the rule.

 

[AtlHusky]

I think we can add "look how many steps he took" to that list.

I didn't include that in the list since it doesn't factor into the eventually correct call and obviously clouds people's judgement regarding what is the correct call by rule.

You can take steps while falling to the ground.

Yes you can, and you get credit for the yards gained in those steps, but it's still falling. Regardless, unless you eventually achieve balance, you still have to maintain possession through the end of the fall to the ground.