**Official 2014-15 NFL Divisional Round Series** Big-D Bowl At Lambeau!!

[Carson Dyle]

Stop watching it in slow-mo, watch it in real time. That's no football move. That's trying to catch the ball and landing all in one act.

Bryant took three steps while in possession of the ball.

Maybe the worst officiating call that I've ever seen. Cowboys, Packers both mean nothing to me. Just an awful ruling. The ref was watching this play from a distance of about four feet. There's no excuse for fucking up the replay review that badly.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I believe the primary issue was that the ball came loose when he hit the ground and that's what made it an incomplete catch.

If you want to complain about the rule itself have at it, but according to the way the rule is written it was the correct call.

It's actually ok for the ball to come loose if a football move is made. I think the issue here is did he or did he not make a football move? (Although as pb pointed out earlier there is another angle that may show him bobbling the ball the whole way down which of course changes the discussion.)

 

[abj13]

So, I guess, if he has established possession and the ball still hits the ground, it could be a ground can't cause fumble/recovery after possession sort of thing? But in that type of play, you can only establish possession by maintaining the catch all the way to the ground

I think it goes to that he never made a football move. Whether he had two vs three steps down doesn't matter despite what Howie Long complaints about, that wouldn't constitute a clear football move. When the play is watched at regular speed, its clear there is no clear football move, Bryant's actions are all apart of the act of securing a catch. I think everyone who is fixated that he made a football move is not watching the play at real time, but trying to point out small movements of Bryant that occurred over tenths of a second. That isn't a football move.

Since him going to the ground is apart of the catch, he has to maintain possession cleanly if the ball hits the ground. He used the ground to maintain possession, the ball came lose and it was juggled after it hit the ground, hence it isn't a catch. It is just like Earl Thomas' overturned interception last night.

 

[juiio]

Bryant took three steps while in possession of the ball.

He was stumbling while coming down from his leap. That is not the same thing as running three steps.

 

[lupi]

He was stumbling while coming down from his leap. That is not the same thing as running three steps.

he was attempting to move to the end zone, it kinda is the same thing.

 

[Capt Caveman]

all I know is that if you asked the top receiver for each team if that was a catch, you'd have 31 yes and 1 abstained.

/facepalm No shit

 

[abj13]

Bryant took three steps while in possession of the ball.

Two vs three steps doesn't constitute a football move. Those three steps were all in the act of securing the catch. Having an extra step as an apart of an attempted catch doesn't give you sudden possession nor is a clear football move. Watch it in real time.

 

[juiio]

he was attempting to move to the end zone, it kinda is the same thing.

No it isn't. Stumbling as part of coming down from your leap means you haven't completed the catch yet. Running three steps means you have

 

[mugs]

After watching the video again I'm definitely not sure what a 'football move' is anymore.

Bryant caught the ball in the air then the following occurred:

1) Left leg landed
2) Right leg landed
3) Left leg planted
4) Pushed off left leg lunging for the end zone
5) Forearm holding ball hits ground
6) Dez rolls and ball pops up in air
7) Dez catches ball

Now forget 5, 6, 7. Do 1-4 not constitute a football move? Dude catches, hits ground 3 times and on the 3rd makes an obvious lunge towards the end zone. Don't look at the ball when this happens. Look at the leg.

No, because what you call "push[ing] off left leg lunging for the end zone" looks exactly like his momentum carrying him to the ground. His reach for the end zone isn't much of a reach considering that the ball was never below the top of his numbers and he extended it to about the top of his helmet. So he reached maybe 6 inches.

 

[Fingolfin269]

No, because what you call "push[ing] off left leg lunging for the end zone" looks exactly like his momentum carrying him to the ground. His reach for the end zone isn't much of a reach considering that the ball was never below the top of his numbers and he extended it to about the top of his helmet. So he reached maybe 6 inches.

So you're saying he at least tried to reach? Football move!

And to clarify I think that push was more of an attempt to help launch himself towards the end zone. Unfortunately (for him) there was no way to generate enough force to make that happen. Watching his leg in the replay though clearly shows he's trying to do so though.

 

[Fingolfin269]

In the meantime, while we continue to discuss the game already in the books, the Colts are busy giving the Broncos a good game. Peyton is continuing to throw up the same lame ducks he's been tossing the last couple of weeks. Could be an upset here.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Two vs three steps doesn't constitute a football move. Those three steps were all in the act of securing the catch. Having an extra step as an apart of an attempted catch doesn't give you sudden possession nor is a clear football move. Watch it in real time.

WTF are you talking about? What "extra" step??

It's that total lack of common sense that makes people fall back on reading every single letter of the playbook (and injecting their own interpretations between the letters) when they want to justify a bad call. I know a catch when I see it and that was a catch.

That would have been a touchdown had it been in the back of the end zone. The ball popped out as Bryant lunged for the goal line. Hell, he never even lost possession of it.

 

[BUTCH1]

no it would not have been a catch in the endzone.

the reason people in general have no idea what a catch is anymore is because they simply don't know the rules.

the rule says that if a receiver is going to the ground with the ball before establishing posession, then they must maintain posession all the way through to the ground.

he clearly never had posession (he was bobbling the ball out of the air, never had control when his feet were down) and then as he goes to the ground with the ball pinned between his forearm and hand, it clearly moves and shifts due to the ground.

"He never had possession"?, dude, he caught the ball with both hands and had it secured, the issue arose because Dez opted to reach the ball out with one arm and try to break the plane of the EZ, in doing so the ball contacted the ground and bounced a bit which he did recover from but as the officials point of view was that contact with the ground deemed to be loss of control over said ball and resulting in the overturning of the call on the field. I'm of the opinion that he had it firmly against his body long enough for it to be a catch but the officials did not view it as such.

 

[abj13]

WTF are you talking about? What "extra" step??

It's that total lack of common sense that makes people fall back on reading every single letter of the playbook (and injecting their own interpretations between the letters) when they want to justify a bad call. I know a catch when I see it and that was a catch.

That would have been a touchdown had it been in the back of the end zone. The ball popped out as Bryant lunged for the goal line. Hell, he never even lose possession of it.

Sadly the "I know catch when I see it" rule doesn't exist, nor is apart of the rulebook. Hate what defines a catch in the NFL all you want, the referees correctly applied the rules in this case. There was no clear football move, therefore Bryant has to maintain possession through the act of going to the ground. Once the ball made contact with the ground, Bryant had to keep tight control of the football to meet the Bert Emanual exception when catching the ball. Bryant did not maintain tight control, hence incomplete.

Unlike last week, the referees applied the rules correctly.

 

[SSSnail]

LOL @ Denver "fans" booing already.

 

[sactoking]

When i saw it love i thought "if there's any consistency they'll overturn that catch on the Calvin Johnson rule. " based on how they interpret the rules ever since they needed an after the fact justification of screwing over the Lions the call on replay was absolutely correct.

That being said it was absolutely the wrong call when the Calvin Johnson precedent was set.

 

[sactoking]

When i saw it love i thought "if there's any consistency they'll overturn that catch on the Calvin Johnson rule. " based on how they interpret the rules ever since they needed an after the fact justification of screwing over the Lions the call on replay was absolutely correct.

That being said it was absolutely the wrong call when the Calvin Johnson precedent was set.

 

[Jadow]

dez got greedy and stretched for the td. if he'd focused on securing the catch, likely would have been one.

 

[BUTCH1]

In the meantime, while we continue to discuss the game already in the books, the Colts are busy giving the Broncos a good game. Peyton is continuing to throw up the same lame ducks he's been tossing the last couple of weeks. Could be an upset here.

Yea, I just got back from the store and saw the last 2 attempts, PM usually does not miss like that, something's got to be bothering him (physically) IMO.

 

[BUTCH1]

dez got greedy and stretched for the td. if he'd focused on securing the catch, likely would have been one.

Yup, he had both hands on it and secured to his body, all he had to do was just drop on his back and it's 1st and goal from the 2.

 

[Paul98]

Obviously not a catch, he gets control falling to the ground, the ball hits the ground and comes out. Simple enough

Just think if he was hit during that time, they would have just ruled an incomplete pass like they always do when a defender hits a player as he just gets the ball or is trying to catch the ball.

Only reason it looks like it could have been a catch is after the ball hits the ground it goes into the air and he catches it. If they ball just bounced away after it hit the ground there wouldn't be much talk about it.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Demaryius Thomas has forgotten how to catch.

 

[purbeast0]

"He never had possession"?, dude, he caught the ball with both hands and had it secured, the issue arose because Dez opted to reach the ball out with one arm and try to break the plane of the EZ, in doing so the ball contacted the ground and bounced a bit which he did recover from but as the officials point of view was that contact with the ground deemed to be loss of control over said ball and resulting in the overturning of the call on the field. I'm of the opinion that he had it firmly against his body long enough for it to be a catch but the officials did not view it as such.

i mean he never had established possession with both of his feet down (ie. a football move). he didn't have full possession of the ball when his first foot hit the ground, it was still moving about his hands. i'd say he had possession the next 2 steps which were on his way to the ground, but at that point he knocked it out when it hit the ground.

 

[BUTCH1]

i mean he never had established possession with both of his feet down (ie. a football move). he didn't have full possession of the ball when his first foot hit the ground, it was still moving about his hands. i'd say he had possession the next 2 steps which were on his way to the ground, but at that point he knocked it out when it hit the ground.

Oh, OK, I see that point, yea, I kinda feel bad for Dez because he has to live with the fact that if he just dropped to the ground without trying to extend it would have been a catch.

 

[smackababy]

i mean he never had established possession with both of his feet down (ie. a football move). he didn't have full possession of the ball when his first foot hit the ground, it was still moving about his hands. i'd say he had possession the next 2 steps which were on his way to the ground, but at that point he knocked it out when it hit the ground.

The problem is, what constitutes a football move? Is stretching out for the endzone a football move?

Had this exact play happened midfield and he stretch out for the first down, would it have been ruled a fumble? If a player knocked it out during that outstretching it certainly would have been a fumble and not an incomplete pass. Regardless of that single play, the Cowboys started falling a part and gave up too much. They had some big mistakes that let GB get back in the game. I guess Murray shouldn't take football handling advice from Romo anymore.

And the Lions tweet the Cowboys they know how it feels. >_<

So, Seattle is going to the SB with this outcome. Rodgers simply doesn't have the mobility to keep them in the game. The pedestrian Cowboys pass rush let him sit in the pocket and the pedestrian Cowboys secondary let plays be made. That won't happen against Seattle.