Are you ready for some NFL Football? 2014 Edition.

[Abu3baid]

I agree that he extended his arm more to catch it than he did to cross the goal line.  But the rule doesn't say you have to "extend your arm as far as you do when trying to catch a ball high in the air."  It says you have to "advance the ball."

The only guy who can possibly know with 100% certainty what he was trying to do said...

Quote:

"I don't understand how it wasn't a football play?" Bryant said. "I guarantee if it happened in the middle of the field it would've been legal …

"Come on, man," he continued. "I'm just saying, I think it was a catch. They took it away. …All I know is I had possession and I had possession coming down. That's possession, right? That's possession.

"I tried to stretch. Come on, man. I wasn't off balance. I was trying to stretch for the end zone."

no Dez.. it wasn't a catch and you didn't have control of the ball.. you had just moved it over to your left to brace your fall with your right hand..   You were in the process of making a catch, but you didn't complete that process.. better luck next year.

p.s.  I wouldn't expect to hear anything other than the above from Dez, so really that can't be submitted as evidence, I'm sorry!

[iacas]

I agree that he extended his arm more to catch it than he did to cross the goal line.  But the rule doesn't say you have to "extend your arm as far as you do when trying to catch a ball high in the air."  It says you have to "advance the ball."

The Rule says you have to maintain contact to the ground.

He didn't make a "football move" after securing the ball.

[Golfingdad]

A guy could stumble 10 yards, as long as the ball isn't wobbling around in his hands he is advancing the ball and it should be a catch, even if he falls over and the ball comes loose.

The fact that you used the language "should be" here in place of "is" tells me that you are acknowledging that the current rule would call this scenario an incomplete pass.

I tend to agree that what you describe SHOULD BE a catch ... but it isn't.  If part of the act of catching the ball causes him to stumble to the ground, regardless of whether or not it takes him one step or 10, it's still part of the catch and if he subsequently drops the ball, it's going to be incomplete.

Think of the relationship between the catch and fall there as similar to a defender clipping your foot as you're running ... if he causes you to stumble and you eventually fall, even if it takes you 30 yards to do so, then you are still down because of his contact.

[dsc123]

The Rule also says you have to maintain contact to the ground.

Its really a poorly written rule.  That "item" (which is an odd way of referring to it) says " If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass." I think its fair to interpret that to mean that a play where the reciever does not satisfy a b and c before hitting the ground (as in down--not touching a foot or hand or whatever), then he must maintain possession.  But if he has a b and c, the catch is complete and he is no longer "in the act of catching a pass" when he hits the ground.  (I can't unbold this for some reason)

The best evidence in support of this is Pereira's quote.  He said it would have been a catch if he extended further--in other words, he didn't have to maintain possession through the ground if he made a football move.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

He initially catches the ball

He then takes one step.

Then loses control

Then regains control

Possession starts then.

Then he falls forward off balance.  He tries to "advance the ball" but the ball comes loose when he hits the ground.

By rule it is an incomplete pass.

I know it when I see it.

Fixed it for ya!

Fixed it back

[Gunther]

Matt, c'mon… He's not stretching, extending, or lunging. He's tripping and falling down. [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/111835/] [/URL]

Even Perrera acknowledged he "pushed" the ball towards the goal line, just not enough to constitute a football move which makes no sense. It's very clear he reaches out with the ball after securing possession and prior to his elbow hitting the ground. The pic u keep showing is after his body bounced off the ground and caught up with his hand. I can understand the disagreement and see how the other side comes to their conclusion however, there simply wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the field.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Originally Posted by Gunther

Even Perrera acknowledged he "pushed" the ball towards the goal line, just not enough to constitute a football move which makes no sense. It's very clear he reaches out with the ball after securing possession and prior to his elbow hitting the ground.

The pic u keep showing is after his body bounced off the ground and caught up with his hand.

I can understand the disagreement and see how the other side comes to their conclusion however, there simply wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call on the field.

Plus, Dez is already down in that pic (after making a move "common to the game") and the ball has not even contacted the ground yet. And we all know that the ground cannot cause a fumble.

[dsc123]

Fixed it back

Well, if like you say , he tried to make a football move by reaching the ball forward, then dropped it, I think that means its a complete pass.  I'll refer you to "note 1" which apparently is different than "item 1", it says:  "I t is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so."

So he has to maintain possession long enough to complete the football move, he does not have to complete the football move successfully.  And the football move was over at the moment he hit the ground because that's when the play would have been dead.  It can't be some time after he dropped the ball because that would mean his football move is still in progress after the play is dead.  So at the time that the ball touched the ground, he had made the football move.

I think Periera was making a different point--about time, not whether he dropped it.  He said Dez only extended so far because he didn't have time to make a football move, thus it was not a football move and he had to maintain possession through the ground.  An obvious problem with that is Pereira apparently guessing that Dez would have reached further if he had more time to extend, which may or may not be true.

[Abu3baid]

Plus, Dez is already down in that pic (after making a move "common to the game") and the ball has not even contacted the ground yet. And we all know that the ground cannot cause a fumble.;-)

LoL, what was that move? Falling down? :) We are all just beating a dead horse! Guys there is always next year you know.

[phan52]

LoL, what was that move? Falling down? :)

We are all just beating a dead horse! Guys there is always next year you know.

I hate the Cowboys.  I am glad they overturned it. I just think it was a great catch.

[Golfingdad]

Its really a poorly written rule.

I don't know.  It may seem that way right now because of how high profile this particular play is, but the fact is that I don't know of a better way to write it.  It's just the nature of our game now thanks to replay, HD, and super slo-mo.

Any alteration to the rule seems to me like it would invite more grey area and more judgment calls from the refs.  From the way everybody talks about the reffing these days, I can't possibly imagine how anybody thinks that giving them more power would work out to their liking.

[dsc123]

Plus, Dez is already down in that pic (after making a move "common to the game") and the ball has not even contacted the ground yet. And we all know that the ground cannot cause a fumble.

This is an easy trap to fall into but its not correct, here's why:

In order for it to be a catch, he has to either have time to perform a football move (c) or maintain possession through the ground (item 1).  If his reach is a football move, then the catch is complete regardless of whether he was "down" sometime thereafter.  If his reach is not a football move, then he must maintain possession through the ground, even after he is "down."

[dsc123]

I don't know.  It may seem that way right now because of how high profile this particular play is, but the fact is that I don't know of a better way to write it.  It's just the nature of our game now thanks to replay, HD, and super slo-mo.

Any alteration to the rule seems to me like it would invite more grey area and more judgment calls from the refs.  From the way everybody talks about the reffing these days, I can't possibly imagine how anybody thinks that giving them more power would work out to their liking.

Well what's the difference between a note an item?

Why don't they just get rid of c?  You have secure the ball (a), and you have to be in bounds (b).

Sure, we'd probably debate what it means to "secure" the ball, but that's in the rule now anyway.  So its certainly simplier.  I just don't get what we gain by requiring someone to maintain possession through the ground.  What catches would be legal that people would complain about?

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Plus, Dez is already down in that pic (after making a move "common to the game") and the ball has not even contacted the ground yet. And we all know that the ground cannot cause a fumble.

This is an easy trap to fall into but its not correct, here's why:

In order for it to be a catch, he has to either have time to perform a football move (c) or maintain possession through the ground (item 1).  If his reach is a football move, then the catch is complete regardless of whether he was "down" sometime thereafter.  If his reach is not a football move, then he must maintain possession through the ground, even after he is "down."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I don't know.  It may seem that way right now because of how high profile this particular play is, but the fact is that I don't know of a better way to write it.  It's just the nature of our game now thanks to replay, HD, and super slo-mo.

Any alteration to the rule seems to me like it would invite more grey area and more judgment calls from the refs.  From the way everybody talks about the reffing these days, I can't possibly imagine how anybody thinks that giving them more power would work out to their liking.

Well what's the difference between a note an item?

Why don't they just get rid of c?  You have secure the ball (a), and you have to be in bounds (b).

Sure, we'd probably debate what it means to "secure" the ball, but that's in the rule now anyway.  So its certainly simplier.  I just don't get what we gain by requiring someone to maintain possession through the ground.  What catches would be legal that people would complain about?

These people disagree with you.  They make the rules.  Send them a note and tell them that they are wrong.  You obviously know more than them.

NFL Competition Committee

Chairman: Rich McKay ( Atlanta Falcons )
- Jeff Fisher ( St. Louis Rams )
- Stephen Jones ( Dallas Cowboys )
- Marvin Lewis ( Cincinnati Bengals )
- John Mara ( New York Giants )
- Mark Murphy ( Green Bay Packers )
- Ozzie Newsome ( Baltimore Ravens )
- Rick Smith ( Houston Texans )
- Mike Tomlin ( Pittsburgh Steelers )

Head of NFL Refs - Dean Blandino

[Slice of Life]

Some people are confusing hit attempt to reach or do anything as he's stumbling a "football move"...Had he regained his footing and dove, it would have been a football move.

This is like arguing that if you catch a ball mid air and do the heisman pose before you land and the ground pops the ball out...it's a catch...

[iacas]

The pic u keep showing is after his body bounced off the ground and caught up with his hand.

It isn't.

Even Perrera acknowledged he "pushed" the ball towards the goal line, just not enough to constitute a football move which makes no sense. It's very clear he reaches out with the ball after securing possession and prior to his elbow hitting the ground.

And… Pereira says it was the right call.

Plus, Dez is already down in that pic (after making a move "common to the game") and the ball has not even contacted the ground yet. And we all know that the ground cannot cause a fumble.

No he isn't. If he was down, it would have been a completion and a fumble he recovered.

Some people are confusing hit attempt to reach or do anything as he's stumbling a "football move"...Had he regained his footing and dove, it would have been a football move.

This is like arguing that if you catch a ball mid air and do the heisman pose before you land and the ground pops the ball out...it's a catch...

Seriously. I'm still confused as to how falling down is a football move.

[Golfingdad]

Seriously. I'm still confused as to how falling down is a football move.

Oh, thats easy:  When I played football (I sucked, btw) I was, among other things, the punter.  One of the things I was taught was that if I was hit, even if I wasn't hit very hard, that I should fall down to see if I could draw a roughing penalty.

Another way of saying that would be:

"In football practice, one of the moves I was taught while practicing punting, was falling down. "

Thank you, thank you very much.  I'll be here all week.

[Gunther]

And… Pereira says it was the right call.

Well yes, which is why I cited him. He acknowledges that Dez pushed the ball towards the goal line but then says he didn't push it enough to constitute a football move, which again, makes no sense. What is enough? Another inch? You keep saying he didn't intentionally extend towards the goal line which is clearly false as Perrera himself acknowledges, to his detriment I must say.