Are you ready for some NFL Football? 2014 Edition.

[Slice of Life]

He's all yours if you want him.

Nah, I'm good. lol

[phan52]

I don't think he was blaming the pats he was blaming the refs for not telling him.

This. The Belicheat reference was because he knew his move would throw the refs off and he would get away with it. Smart? Yeah. Deceptive? Most certainly, and it will be addressed by the league going forward. Too late for Harbaugh, and throwing the flag on him was piling on by the incompetent refs.

Basically what they did was like allowing an offensive substitution without allowing the defense a counter move.

[Slice of Life]

This. The Belicheat reference was because he knew his move would throw the refs off and he would get away with it. Smart? Yeah. Deceptive? Most certainly, and it will be addressed by the league going forward. Too late for Harbaugh, and throwing the flag on him was piling on by the incompetent refs.

Basically what they did was like allowing an offensive substitution without allowing the defense a counter move.

I hate the Patriots, and Bellicheck...but if what you're saying is true, it doesn't make him a cheater...it makes him smart.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Originally Posted by CarlSpackler

Looks about right. =]

Did anybody notice that Harbaugh got an unsportsmanlike penalty last night for pretty much doing the same thing that Dez Bryant did in the Detroit game?

Plus Harbaugh had a case that the refs essentially agreed about after his meltdown. The Ravens should have been informed of the eligibility of the Pats players and they weren't. Belicheat at it again.

Hardly. I'm calling BS on this one. Harbaugh got caught off guard with a legal play.  The replay after the first one clearly showed the ref informing the Ravens that Vereen was ineligible. Collinsworth pointed it out.  The second one Harbaugh had his melt down.  The third one the ref announced to the crowd using his mic that Vereen was ineligible and said, " Do not cover him ".  That aided the Ravens and they still did not stop it.

The refs blatantly ignored pass interference committed by the Ravens on several passes.  They also called an illegal contact on Revis when the replay showed Smith initiating the contact before 5 yards and pushing off.  That negated the strip sack on Flacco.  The Ravens also employ that lovely cut blocking scheme that has o-lineman dive at D-lineman's knees on every run.  That should be outlawed.

It was the anti-Dallas game.  I half expected Goodell to come out of the stands and make the team replay the Hail Mary a la the Russians in the 72 Olympic Basketball final.

[Slice of Life]

So...that last play was PI, but the one in the other Dallas game wasn't? lol...

[phan52]

That play by Dez Bryant was a catch. But I guess Karma's a bitch. Ciao Cowboys. You will not be missed.

[buckshot4227]

That play by Dez Bryant was a catch. But I guess Karma's a bitch. Ciao Cowboys. You will not be missed.

Under the rules of football, it was not a catch.

[Gunther]

That play by Dez Bryant was a catch. But I guess Karma's a bitch. Ciao Cowboys. You will not be missed.

You prove the stereotype of a Philly fan but you are correct, it was a catch because of his extension towards the goal line, which constitutes a football move. There was not conclusive evidence to overturn that call. Having said that, there were missed opportunities such as the Murray fumble and Garrett's decision to kick a field goal on 4th and 1 at the end of the 1st half. Terrible call that flew against his aggressive approach the previous week. Anyway, was a great season given the expectations. Haven't enjoyed Sunday football this much in many years.

[Golfingdad]

You prove the stereotype of a Philly fan but you are correct, it was a catch because of his extension towards the goal line, which constitutes a football move. There was not conclusive evidence to overturn that call. Having said that, there were missed opportunities such as the Murray fumble and Garrett's decision to kick a field goal on 4th and 1 at the end of the 1st half. Terrible call that flew against his aggressive approach the previous week. Anyway, was a great season given the expectations. Haven't enjoyed Sunday football this much in many years.

The "football move" is not the problem here. It's a specific rule (The Calvin Johnson Rule) that basically says, in simple terms, that the ground CAN cause an incompletion. Certainly it looks like a catch, but by rule it wasn't. (A dumb rule? Quite possibly. But a rule nonetheless). And every rules expert (that I've seen to this point) has agreed that the correct call was made. Too bad too, I was kinda hoping Romo would win a Super Bowl.

[Gunther]

The "football move" is not the problem here. It's a specific rule (The Calvin Johnson Rule) that basically says, in simple terms, that the ground CAN cause an incompletion. Certainly it looks like a catch, but by rule it wasn't. (A dumb rule? Quite possibly. But a rule nonetheless). And every rules expert (that I've seen to this point) has agreed that the correct call was made. Too bad too, I was kinda hoping Romo would win a Super Bowl.

That rule applies if possession isn't established. He established possession by making the football move of extending to the goal line. I've heard experts on both sides.

[Golfingdad]

That rule applies if possession isn't established. He established possession by making the football move of extending to the goal line. I've heard experts on both sides.

No I don't think it does. Again, the Cslvin Johnson Rule. Not sure if you recall that play but his possession was even more established than Bryant's and still, because he went to the ground and came back up without the ball, it's not a catch. I'm leaning towards agreeing that it's a shitty rule but everything points to it having been applied correctly. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wq2ohfX_AzI

[Golfingdad]

Gonna backtrack (a little) here @Gunther .  I was reading a bunch of discussion (on reddit of all places) about this and somebody posted the actual rule.

Quote:

Article 7A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) 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, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.

The part that was bolded is the part that's being applied here, however, I see where you're coming from.  The part that I highlighted in red is where I think you have a point.  At the point where he's hitting the ground it can be argued (which is precisely what you're doing) that he was already past that point.  I'd still have to say that it appears all of the experts are unanimous that this was applied correctly and they know more than me.

I've agreed that it's probably a stupid rule, however, I hadn't considered any alternative.  Another good point from the reddit discussion:

Quote:

[–] victims_sanction 9 points an hour ago

I'll take it one step further and say it's not even that bad of a rule. The only alternative I can imagine would involve leaving it up to the ref's perogative on whether or not it "looks" like a catch. As inconsistent and bad as catch rulings already are that would be 100x worse. I like clear-cut rules, even if there a 1-2 plays a year like this that make the rule look slightly foolish.

That's a pretty solid point.

[boogielicious]

I'm sure Packer fans think it is a good rule.  Kudos to Aaron Rogers who played through a nasty injury.  I have had a calf tear and it is painful and restrictive.  He was terrific.  I hope he makes it to the Superbowl.

[Jakester23]

I'm sure Packer fans think it is a good rule.  Kudos to Aaron Rogers who played through a nasty injury.  I have had a calf tear and it is painful and restrictive.  He was terrific.  I hope he makes it to the Superbowl.

I'm a huge packers fan and that was a catch. He took 3 steps and reached for the goal line, hit the ground and the ball came out. If that happen to the packers I would be saying the fix was in. I hope they change the rule and my question is if he crossed the goal line would it be a td? When a player breaks the plane of the goal line the ball is dead so he doesn't have to maintain possession. I don't like it but GB is going to Seattle, then Arizona and bringing the trophy back to Lambeau.

[saevel25]

That was a catch. Dez secured the ball, then took a step with his left leg, which is by definition a football act, and then extends towards the endzone. He should have been ruled down by contact near the 1 yard line.

I don't think this is a 50/50 call at best. This was a clear blown call.

[Abu3baid]

I'm a huge packers fan and that was a catch. He took 3 steps and reached for the goal line, hit the ground and the ball came out. If that happen to the packers I would be saying the fix was in. I hope they change the rule and my question is if he crossed the goal line would it be a td? When a player breaks the plane of the goal line the ball is dead so he doesn't have to maintain possession. I don't like it but GB is going to Seattle, then Arizona and bringing the trophy back to Lambeau.

I'm pretty sure the rule is that it must cross the goal line with proper possession, other wise what do you do with the guy that juggles it into the end zone?

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

I'm sure Packer fans think it is a good rule.  Kudos to Aaron Rogers who played through a nasty injury.  I have had a calf tear and it is painful and restrictive.  He was terrific.  I hope he makes it to the Superbowl.

I'm a huge packers fan and that was a catch. He took 3 steps and reached for the goal line, hit the ground and the ball came out. If that happen to the packers I would be saying the fix was in. I hope they change the rule and my question is if he crossed the goal line would it be a td? When a player breaks the plane of the goal line the ball is dead so he doesn't have to maintain possession. I don't like it but GB is going to Seattle, then Arizona and bringing the trophy back to Lambeau.

That was a catch. Dez secured the ball, then took a step with his left leg, which is by definition a football act, and then extends towards the endzone. He should have been ruled down by contact near the 1 yard line.

I don't think this is a 50/50 call at best. This was a clear blown call.

The NFL disagrees with you.  I agree with the NFL only on the play as it relates to the current rule the way it is written.  He did not fully secure the ball until he was on his way to the ground and lost control.

[saevel25]

The NFL disagrees with you.  I agree with the NFL only on the play as it relates to the current rule the way it is written.  He did not fully secure the ball until he was on his way to the ground and lost control.

If you evidence is the NFL's word, I think they've done enough this past year to discredit themselves as doing anything competent

Clearly by the current rule Dez had a catch.

Article 7A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

He had control, he took a step, he stretched out towards the goalline. Tell me how taking a step and trying to reach towards the goal line isn't a football move? It has been done countless times int he NFL. By Rule the ground can not cause a fumble. He was touched by the Green Bay defender, so he should have been down at the 1 yard line or so.

If he didn't secure the ball then he would not have been able to stretch out his arm with the ball in hand with out having it move while going to the ground. The ball was secure, he had his hand on the end of the football, and it was against his forearm like they are taught to hold it. I don't see how you can say it wasn't secure.