-
Comment -
Yes, and the demarkation point is that they basically never admit they are wrong if it is a JUDGMENT CALL. I think at this point we can all agree that the application of this rule involved a JUDGMENT CALL. The judgment is whether he made a football move/act common to game/went to ground in act of catching (these are all supposed to be part and parcel of the same thing). Refs say his fall was part of the catch and he didn't make a football move/act common to game, while others say he went to the ground after he had secured the catch and that the 3 steps plus stretch out is a football move. It's a judgment which side you land on. Anyone who claims that there is NO room for judgment here doesn't know what they're taking about. You can agree with the final decision, but you really can't say that it is a simple and mandatory application of the rule without any discretion. The decision involved judgment.
Not only that, but the replay officials, overturned the legitimate JUDGMENT of the on-field official who was perfectly positioned right on the play. That seems to be a no-no in itself.Comment -
It would be if you judged that Bryant had completed the catch and made a football move/move common to the game prior to losing the ball. In other words, the current rules do not absolutely dictate one ruling or the other. It's a judgment call. Reasonable minds can differ on that judgment. I still think the replay officials' judgment was incorrect while the on-field official's judgment was correct. We can agree to disagree on that.Comment -
It was a catch...you can agree with the "experts"(lol)...but he took 3 ugly steps and stretched to reach the goal line...if that is not a catch according to the rules, then the rules are fukked...I was on GB ml and I'm not a Dallas fan...Comment -
The real problem with the "rule" is that it's obviously still far too "ambiguous". I do not believe that the rule was intended to nullify a catch like this, but the fact that the refs think it was tells me that the rule is ambiguous, ot at the very least asks the refs to get too far into judging intent.Comment -
Dez Bryant's low football IQ is the only problem with this play. If he secures the ball on his right side and goes down inside the 5 he sets his team up to ice this game with the best OLine and RB in football this year and roughly 4 minutes left. If Jason Garret had any brains he'd run at least one dive to burn another 40 seconds before TD and have GB in bad shape.
Instead, greedy Dez goes for the TD and decides to shift the ball to his left hand and make it impossible to call a catch because the ball is moving the whole time. If he could have kept the ball controlled they might give him the catch but the nose is bouncing around and that's the first thing the zebras look at to determine possession. Back pylon slo mo shows the nose movement clear as day. Nice challenge by McCarthy because you can't see that real time hence the initial completion call.Comment -
To overturn a disputed call there has to be "indisputable" evidence.
This is bullshit.Comment -
Once they showed that back pylon shot during the review it was obvious it was getting overturned. Ball bouncing around from hand to hand is the killer and thats on Dez being a greedy dumbass going for glory instead of playing smart ball.Comment -
I believe the NFL is ok with ambiguous "rules"...gives them more control over games...they know drone/sheep fans will spout out shit like "karma" and "pay back" and then just forget about it...it's the whole "devil convincing the world he doesn't exist trick"...
...having said all of that, I dont think there is some master script going on play by play...but I do think strings are pulled for certain teams to progress...it's not 100% competition, there is an undeniable element of entertainment and at the end of the day, the NFL has one thing on it's mind...profit
I've typed this countless times: If I'm an NFL exec, I'm considering ALL posibilities to increase profit, and that includes "allowing" certains teams(markets) to advance over others...Comment -
I didn't see that. Looks to me like he caught it with two hands and then tucked it under his left hand. They always go to hand instead of coming downwith ball outstrecthed in two hands because that's completely awkward and less secure. If what you say is true about him getting greedy going to a TD then that IS THE FOOTBALL MOVE meaning that it is a catch. So for purposes of this rule - greed is good. The problem on that type of play usually is a fumble. But that wasn't the issue in this case. For purposes of showing the catch, greed in terms of a football move is good.Comment -
He didn't catch it, Then take 3 independent steps. He caught it and got his feet down in bounds as he fell to the ground. I've seen this many times, usually the guy is falling out of bounds. Even out of bounds, if the ball is lost going to the ground, it's not a catch. Honestly you're trying to use extremely loose definitions to try and make a case for this being a catch. The NFL has been quite clear on this. They want demonstrated control throughout the process to determine a catch.
This honestly isn't close to a catch by the rules. I hate the rules, I think that should be a catch and am tired of watching games and seeing catches that shouldn't along with catches that should. But based on the rules this is not a catch.
This happens multiple times every game. The guy is falling out of bounds and gets 2 or more feet in. If he drops the ball going to the ground, it's no catch. It's actually shocking to me that guys can watch the NFL all season and not understand this. The rules aren't applied differently because of the magnitude of the play.Comment -
You're not understanding the rules. If the ball is firmly in his hands the ground can't cause a fumble and its a catch even if it comes loose. If the ball is moving he hasn't caught it yet to make that "football move" so the ground is preventing a catch not causing a fumble. Bottom line it moved around a lot before it touched the ground then popped out so where exactly was his control?Comment -
That's your opinion, I suppose, but I vehemently disagree. To my eye, he caught it clean initially, had full control and he only lost control when it touched the ground. So it's not a matter of not understanding the rules. It's a matter of judgment.
And, I don't believe that control was even part of the referee's explanation, either during the game or later.Comment -
Warrants issued for Mike Perieras and Dean Blandinos for Sodomy.Comment -
But "going out of bounds" is not a good example. That's a toe-tap to stay in, not a football move as it is when a runner tries to stretch to score. Totally different. I dare anyone to find this rule ever applied in this situation where the receiver catches near the goal line (but not IN the endzone) and loses it just before the plane is broken. Happens with fumbles a lot, but not where it's called no catch.Comment -
Still a fck job.Comment -
Not now shitstrawComment -
Now and foreverComment -
Petey, what's it like when you're right and everyone else is wrong? I imagine that happens to you a lotComment -
real pros know rule #1 - secure the catch. Simple as that.Comment
