Are you ready for some NFL Football? 2014 Edition.

[Slice of Life]

Happy for Andrew Luck. I'll be rooting hard for him this weekend, and probably to win it all...

[CarlSpackler]

Happy for Andrew Luck. I'll be rooting hard for him this weekend, and probably to win it all...

Manning looked awful yesterday. What's the deal? How many times did he over throw his receivers?

[Slice of Life]

Manning looked awful yesterday. What's the deal? How many times did he over throw his receivers?

He's lost it over the past few weeks...I wonder if his neck problems are resurfacing. Seems like he's lost strength and is trying to overcompensate...resulting in overthrows.

[CarlSpackler]

He's lost it over the past few weeks...I wonder if his neck problems are resurfacing. Seems like he's lost strength and is trying to overcompensate...resulting in overthrows.

I would say so. Sad...

I'm pulling for the Colts now (which is usually a kiss of death for any team).

[Slice of Life]

I would say so. Sad...

I'm pulling for the Colts now (which is usually a kiss of death for any team).

Meh, not that sad. He'll still be remembered as one of the all-time greats regardless of how it ends.

And at least he got his SB ring, so he doesn't have to deal with the Marino comparisons.

[David in FL]

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.

Gotta say, I was surprised it was overturned. I was in the process of complaining to my buddy that McCarthy was wasting a precious time out with a dumb challenge. I guess that's just another reason why I'm not coaching in the NFL! Need Rodgers in better shape next week if we're going to get past Seattle....we need him mobile!

[CarlSpackler]

Meh, not that sad. He'll still be remembered as one of the all-time greats regardless of how it ends.

And at least he got his SB ring, so he doesn't have to deal with the Marino comparisons.

True, but it's sad to see these guys getting old. Maybe it just hits a bit closer to home with me.

[dsc123]

I completely agree with Matt.  He had possession and made a football move.  Reaching for the end zone is a football move, @boogielicious .  If he wasn't reaching, he would have tucked it, @jamo .  Here's the only explanation for the call I can find that discusses whether it was a football move, which is similar to what @jamo said, but I don't buy it for reasons stated in the article,  and because he would have tucked it:

Quote:

"If you're going to the ground, you have to prove that you have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game and do so," said Pereira. "And part of that is stretching all the way out and to me even though he moved the ball a little bit forward, they are not going to consider that a football act."

And herein lies the problem.

Pereira admits Bryant stretches the ball towards the end zone, but apparently it wasn't enough. So, now the official must determine the degree of stretching and reaching by the receiver as if they don't have enough to worry about.

It would seem that the player either reaches with the ball or he doesn't and Bryant pretty clearly tried to stretch the ball forward only being limited in actual distance by his shoulder pads.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pereira-dez-bryant-reversal-2015-1#ixzz3OcT0kXdR

And if @saevel25 and the rest of us are wrong, then they need to change the rule.

[phan52]

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

I think taking three steps with a secure football and reaching for the goal line qualifies as a football move "common to the game". That rule could be applied as well, IMO. I could see it going either way, but I am surprised they overruled it once they called it a catch.

But it really doesn't bother me even a little bit and I am glad it happened to that bozo, Dez Bryant. He should have been penalized the week before in the Detroit game after the botched interference call.

[Jakester23]

The Dez catch sure looked more like a catch then the one they gave cobb in the 1st half.

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

It was a catch by under the rules.

He made a football move. He made a move that was very common in the NFL.

Walking is now a "football move"? It's very common in GOLF, too, Matt. Or, you know, grocery shopping. :) Or going after a bus you're about to mi

Plus, don't you have to gain possession and THEN make a football move? Failing that, you have to demonstrate possession TO THE GROUND, right?

None of those conditions were met.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamo

How does the video indicate he was trying to extend towards the goalline? The ball is inches from his chest. And he didn't take a step, he merely landed. That's not a "football move."

Also, the "ground can't cause a fumble" thing is irrelevant because, by rule, has hadn't completed the catch. The ground CAN cause incompletions.

Bonus points for both. The ground CAN cause a fumble. It can also CAUSE an incompletion. Just like it did there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Happy for Andrew Luck. I'll be rooting hard for him this weekend, and probably to win it all...

Ditto.

---

BTW: You may recall Troy Polamalu's "non-"interception in the playoffs years ago, against the Colts and Peyton Manning, which had important ramifications given the time, the score, and the game (in the playoffs).

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/news/story?id=2294309

Troy makes the catch, goes to the ground, and then knocks the ball out with his knee or something getting back up. Had he lost the ball on the ground, not a catch, even though he took a step or two and tumbled to the ground. The ref's explanation is a conundrum in and of itself:

Quote:

"I had the defender catching the ball. Before he got up, he hit it with his leg with his other leg still on the ground. He never had possession with his leg up off the ground, doing an act common to the game of football. He was losing it while his other leg was still on the ground. Therefore, he did not complete the catch. And then he lost the ball. It came out, and so we made the play an incomplete pass."

Heck, he even says "He caught the ball" (paraphrased).

So… On Troy's, they got the call wrong. On this one, they got the call right.

P.S. The article (which is older, yes) also says:

Quote:

Under league officiating procedure, an "act common to the game" is defined as controlling the ball long enough to hand it, pitch it or pass it. But Pereira noted that this definition only applies when there is "contact with a defensive player and the ball comes loose, which did not happen here."

Contact with a defensive player occurred in the Dallas/Packers game.

[Slice of Life]

Plus, don't you have to gain possession and THEN make a football move? Failing that, you have to demonstrate possession TO THE GROUND, right?

None of those conditions were met.

That's what I was trying to say. He doesn't have full control of the ball until he's falling, so he doesn't "catch it" and THEN make a "football move".

[iacas]

That's what I was trying to say. He doesn't have full control of the ball until he's falling, so he doesn't "catch it" and THEN make a "football move".

Continuing to fall and stumbling a half or full step is a football move in Matt's mind.

I chalk it up to gravity. :)

[Jakester23]

Continuing to fall and stumbling a half or full step is a football move in Matt's mind. I chalk it up to gravity. :)

It's a football move in my mind as well as a whole bunch of current and former NFL players.

[Slice of Life]

It's a football move in my mind as well as a whole bunch of current and former NFL players.

I consider it to be as well. Problem is, he didn't secure the catch and THEN make the football move, he was making the football move while securing the catch. That makes all the difference. Incomplete.

[iacas]

It's a football move in my mind as well as a whole bunch of current and former NFL players.

Uhm… . You can find the ones that apply here for yourself. :)

Plus, what Slice said. And falling down is not a football move. It's just physics.

[Jakester23]

Uhm…  [CONTENTEMBED=/t/78946/logical-fallacies-poster layout=inline]​[/CONTENTEMBED] . You can find the specific one or two yourself. Plus, what Slice said. Falling down is not a football move. It's just physics.

He was reaching out to the goal line not just falling down. He lunged towards the endzone extended the ball with one hand while maintaining possession of the ball. If it would have been ruled incomplete in the 1st place I'd be fine with them not over turning the call. It's a grey area of the rule.

[iacas]

He was reaching out to the goal line not just falling down. He lunged towards the endzone extended the ball with one hand while maintaining possession of the ball. If it would have been ruled incomplete in the 1st place I'd be fine with them not over turning the call. It's a grey area of the rule.

No he wasn't.

I've downloaded and watched the video many times. I see no "stretching" or "extending." I realize too your shoulder pads make this difficult, but… to that, I submit this: