OT, Thank you Packers

[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.