NFL 2014-15 (Offseason / Draft / Regular Season)
- Thread starter LeTallecWiz
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Some time to suddenly find a run game.
You mean where the refs reviewed a catch that hit the ground 1st? I was so surprised to see Leo not complaining about a missed call ...
Tough way to lose a game which we should have won. I thought Murray's fumble was what turned the game - If Peppers misses the ball, it's a TD run and game over. Oh well ... That's football for you - we just didn't take advantage of the opportunities presented ... and I'm not sure we're gonna have a better chance at a SUper Bowl run in a long time ...
As for the call - I've seen it a few times and I still don't get how it's not a catch. He had two feet down with control, and then lost it when he went for the stretch ... Oh well - he'll learn from this. Was a gutsy call, a phenomenal throw and beastly attempt ...
Seattle vs NE it is.
Definitely wasn't a catch based on how the rule has been enforced the last several years.
Here's my conversation with a friend of mine after seeing the single initial replay before going into the Packers challenge commercial break.
The controversy has to be the rule itself, not the application of it for me. But I don't necessarily have an issue with the rule, it make the criteria for a catch specific enough to work. If you change the rule, the entire interpretation of a catch suddenly becomes very arbitrary, and getting a knee/elbow down is of greater importance than hanging onto the ball.
You'll end up in a situation where players will lay out for catches, get the ball, then smack a knee down to complete the catch, then lose the ball upon hitting the ground.
Here's my conversation with a friend of mine after seeing the single initial replay before going into the Packers challenge commercial break.
The controversy has to be the rule itself, not the application of it for me. But I don't necessarily have an issue with the rule, it make the criteria for a catch specific enough to work. If you change the rule, the entire interpretation of a catch suddenly becomes very arbitrary, and getting a knee/elbow down is of greater importance than hanging onto the ball.
You'll end up in a situation where players will lay out for catches, get the ball, then smack a knee down to complete the catch, then lose the ball upon hitting the ground.
Why? Full control:
Ball is still not hitting the ground:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/158444/frame-by-frame-look-at-dez-bryants-catch
Ball is still not hitting the ground:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/158444/frame-by-frame-look-at-dez-bryants-catch
Here's my personal interpretation.
Dez doesn't establish himself in bounds until his left elbow hits the ground. If he cleanly caught the ball initially, then the reach would be considered a football move.
However, he only established one foot down after controlling the ball, so he's still technically in the process of the catch until the elbow comes down, at which point he needs to control the ball throughout the process to the end of the play for it to be ruled a catch.
Once his elbow is down, he's down by contact if he holds onto the ball as it's an elbow, and he's officially in bounds. But he still needs to hold onto the ball to the end, or it isn't a catch.
Think of it in CFB terms without contact. You can't make a diving catch, have the elbow hit to be down/in bounds with possession, and then lose the ball as the rest of your body comes down. That's obviously not a catch. I view this in the same way.
Dez doesn't establish himself in bounds until his left elbow hits the ground. If he cleanly caught the ball initially, then the reach would be considered a football move.
However, he only established one foot down after controlling the ball, so he's still technically in the process of the catch until the elbow comes down, at which point he needs to control the ball throughout the process to the end of the play for it to be ruled a catch.
Once his elbow is down, he's down by contact if he holds onto the ball as it's an elbow, and he's officially in bounds. But he still needs to hold onto the ball to the end, or it isn't a catch.
Think of it in CFB terms without contact. You can't make a diving catch, have the elbow hit to be down/in bounds with possession, and then lose the ball as the rest of your body comes down. That's obviously not a catch. I view this in the same way.
From a random video on YouTube with the clip. Don't think you can argue it hit.
I misread your post actually, thought you were asking if it was conclusive that it hit the ground or not. I actually wasn't watching the first half though, so no idea about that one.
@Whirly - That's after he's got two feet down and is 'attempting to score' ... Eisen was talking about it on nfl network. Fact is, the rule ("A dumb rule," Tony Dungy) will change because of this ... Oh well, I just hope we don't lose too many FAs this summer and can continue to build this team ... Lots of potential if Jerry let's the head of scouting do his thing (or if he stays!).
At least the Seahawks got the team they prayed for - they destroyed a healthy Rodgers' led pack by almost 3 TDs earlier this year.
At least the Seahawks got the team they prayed for - they destroyed a healthy Rodgers' led pack by almost 3 TDs earlier this year.
I don't necessarily think he had full control of the ball when that first foot came up though. It's kinda iffy, as is the idea that the reach was a football move.
I think the reach was more of a natural progression of falling than a conclusive football move. My interpretation is that the official on the field ruled it a catch thinking Bryant has caught the ball cleanly earlier than shown, and that the ball hadn't been jarred loose directly by the ground, hence the overturn.
Like I said, my initial reaction was no catch. I genuinely thought it was a pretty obvious cut and dry call at the time, but people are terribly salty.
I think the reach was more of a natural progression of falling than a conclusive football move. My interpretation is that the official on the field ruled it a catch thinking Bryant has caught the ball cleanly earlier than shown, and that the ball hadn't been jarred loose directly by the ground, hence the overturn.
Like I said, my initial reaction was no catch. I genuinely thought it was a pretty obvious cut and dry call at the time, but people are terribly salty.
If it's 'kinda iffy,' then by the rules of replay it shouldn't have been enough to overturn the call ... You can only overturn the call if there's conclusive evidence that the call on the field was wrong ...
"progression of falling"? He reached for the end zone ... That's not how you, or I, or anyone falls ... Dez does that constantly (as do many football players stretching to reach the pylon) ...Probably a lesson for him going forward though.
The fact so many players have said it was crap (Jeffrey, Beckham, Ebron etc) - and coaches calling it a 'stupid rule' - means it may change in the future.
Yah - Bryant is incredible in that sense ... However, I think Ronaldo has similar physical gifts ..
Good point.
The window on this team - if they resign the Bryants, McClains etc - I think is 1-2 years as I cannot see Romo lasting much longer than that.
