OT, Thank you Packers

[mauconnfan]

I have to say this, at least the NFL won't be apologizing for the ruling yesterday, unlike the week before. They got the other one wrong and admitted it. This one they most definitely go right, maybe have to change the rule, but it was right and they won't have to apologize to the 'Boys unlike the poor Lions!

 

[Rico444]

I have to say this, at least the NFL won't be apologizing for the ruling yesterday, unlike the week before. They got the other one wrong and admitted it. This one they most definitely go right, maybe have to change the rule, but it was right and they won't have to apologize to the 'Boys unlike the poor Lions!

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.

 

[HuskyHawk]

See, I would disagree with that. There is no doubt in my mind that he had absolute control of the ball. The problem is that when the ball isn't tucked against your body, it's hard to believe that someone is strong enough to really have it. I thought it was a great play and I also thought it was going to replay the second I saw it. Not because I didn't think he caught it, but because the rule mandated it and I wasn't surprised at all when it was overturned.

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.

 

[Excalibur]

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".

 

[SixRings]

I love the people that are so biased they cant be objectionable to the interpretation of a written rule. If it was so clear that it was not a catch than why was it first determined a catch? How many steps does player have to make so that it becomes forward progress with possession? In the head official's view Dez didn't make enough. I respect it and feel the Pack would have won anyways. But don't be so righteous in thinking it was clear to everyone.

 

[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!