What is a catch? Even players are confused.
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Boo-fricketty-hoo for the Cowboys and their fans. They benefitted from calls last week. The refs given and the refs taketh away...
Based on the rules I don't think that's a catch. He never really has it tucked away until the very end, he bobbles as he's falling, tucks in one arm, hits the ground and it comes loose again.
People also need to stop with the "football move" excuse, you have to make the football move, BEFORE you begin the process of going to the ground.
People also need to stop with the "football move" excuse, you have to make the football move, BEFORE you begin the process of going to the ground.
Football move was changed wars ago, I believe. According to Perreira, there is a different issue of a receiver is "going to the ground" with the catch, such that control before hitting the ground is insufficient for possession but, rather, control must be maintained through the going to ground phase.
From Matt Chatham's piece on ineligible receiver-gate, seems applicable here:
"The crime here is that loopholes exist in a rulebook that needs a massive editing overhaul. If you didn't have these bizarre eligibility rules, you wouldn't have the confusing plays that come off them where the defense doesn't know what's going on, the viewers at home and in the stadium have no clue, and we're all left to some rules expert to flip to page 127 or whatever and tell us WTF is happening. That's a terrible version of the game of football, and the people who've let the rulebook come into such disrepair are fools that have damaged the game."
From Matt Chatham's piece on ineligible receiver-gate, seems applicable here:
"The crime here is that loopholes exist in a rulebook that needs a massive editing overhaul. If you didn't have these bizarre eligibility rules, you wouldn't have the confusing plays that come off them where the defense doesn't know what's going on, the viewers at home and in the stadium have no clue, and we're all left to some rules expert to flip to page 127 or whatever and tell us WTF is happening. That's a terrible version of the game of football, and the people who've let the rulebook come into such disrepair are fools that have damaged the game."
findguapo said:
People keep saying this, but Pereira said 5 minutes ago that he did NOT make a football move and specifically said that reaching towards the goal line is not one. It's a judgement call.
I feel like we're arguing balls a strikes here.
That's huge. GB would have had to kick the FG instead of running out the clock, right?findguapo said:
One can disagree with the judgment call I guess but I don't think the rules are confusing there. You have to control the ball to the ground and if it definitely bounced up when it hit the ground. The step and a half he takes as he goes down doesn't mean he caught the ball.
The ineligible receiver thing is a feature, not a bug. Just because coaches never bother to exploit all the little rules doesn't mean they should go away. It makes it that much cooler when someone pulls off something novel. You have to be prepared for everything that could happen.
I mean, we still talk about the Flutie dropkick and that game didn't even matter.
The ineligible receiver thing is a feature, not a bug. Just because coaches never bother to exploit all the little rules doesn't mean they should go away. It makes it that much cooler when someone pulls off something novel. You have to be prepared for everything that could happen.
I mean, we still talk about the Flutie dropkick and that game didn't even matter.
BigSoxFan said:
The homefield clock is one of the really understated hidden factors that the NFL could afford to shore up.
Yeah, by rule that's not a catch but it isn't a judgement call. Judgement calls aren't reviewable and subject to challenge. It sucks for Dallas, but it was the right call.DrewDawg said:
By my understanding of the rules I agree it's not a catch. However I am enjoying it mostly because it makes the NFL look stupid. I love football but I think I might hate the NFL. Anytime the league looks like jackasses in a big spot (which happens at a surprisingly frequent clip) puts a smile on my face.
The rule is in place because they don't want to have to slice hairs about what is/isn't control before you hit the ground and the ball comes loose. If you are going to the ground, you have to control it till your momentum (slide, skid, whatever) stops. It's a simple rule whether anyone likes it. By controlling it through that process, its clear you have control before contact with the ground. If you can't do that, they deem you never had it. I don't like it, but I understand why its in place.
Edit: And if he wasn't going to the ground, he could have taken the "4th, 5th, and 6th steps" and stayed on his feet and walked in.
Edit: And if he wasn't going to the ground, he could have taken the "4th, 5th, and 6th steps" and stayed on his feet and walked in.
I guess I can understand the call now, and given that it's an implication of the "going to the ground" rule not the "football moves" rule it does seem to be correctly applicatied. But that's a bad rule, and it's unfortunate to see it decide one of the best games of the season. Bryant clearly had control of the ball until his elbow hits the ground - it might have been correctly called, but it's hard to say this is what the spirit of the rule intends. It's black and white that he controls it before reaching out, and in a perfect world that matters. Paulin is on the money, and I'd go a step farther and say that it's a shame that a rule designed to eliminate that kind of gray area is still able to be applied in a situation where the player clearly has the ball.
Part of the problem, I think, is that the NFL's solution to rules issues seems to be more rules, more defined rules, and eliminating judgment as much as possible. There are positives to this approach, but there are also negatives, because clearly defined rules are never going to square with a reasonable subjective assessment. This is how you end up with nonsense like the Tuck Rule, because the league says, "we can't trust our refs to judge whether the QB was intending to throw, so let's draw black-and-white lines of definition as to what constitutes a throw even though they might make no sense." Replay just exacerbates this problem, because it invites increasing scrutiny as to whether all the specific points of the rule as written were followed and the spirit of the rule becomes irrelevant.There is no Rev said:
As Bill James pointed out in one of his books (maybe Popular Crime), this is a problem in all of society, not just football, but that's a conversation for another day.
One thing to note: the "going to the ground" rule in part protects the offensive team, because it makes what might be a catch and fumble (if the receiver wasn't touched down) just an incomplete pass.
Greg29fan said:
That's a catch. And I get why it was called incomplete but to my eyes and sense of reality, that is a catch.
Your GIF doesn't show the actual part of the play that makes this a discussion though.
I get your argument though. I think it was Madden years ago, when talking about if something was a fumble said, "I don't know, I mean, does it look like a fumble? Yeah? Then it is."
You guys know I'm a homer, but to me in these two gifs (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/11/7528695/refs-correctly-overturn-dez-bryants-incredible-catch/in/7291894) the ball definitely comes out after Dez hits the ground, but the ball never hits the ground, it comes loose with his hand still cupped under it, then he "re-catches" the ball w/o it hitting the ground. Isn't that still a catch?
No. If he hasn't established possession (and he hasn't which is why this conversation is happening) the ball cannot touch the ground. The pic at the top of that link shows the ball AFTER it touched the ground. The second gif shows it hit the ground. Ball touching ground, without established possession, means incomplete.
Can't pause it at exact right moment:
Also, the article you're pointing to says the opposite of what you're saying.
Can't pause it at exact right moment:
Also, the article you're pointing to says the opposite of what you're saying.
DrewDawg said:
I know; I was just using it for the GIFs.
I just don't see the indisputable evidence that the ball hit the ground that's needed to overturn the ruling of catch on the field. To me it looks like he has his hand or wrist area cupped under it when he hits the ground, it comes loose and he re-catches it.
I think those who wrote the rule should be awarded a medal. Many people may not like the outcome, and it insults the sensibility of others, but those who drafted it foresaw, intentionally or not, the scenario that unfolded today. The answer is in the rule book (see Item 1, Going to the Ground). Item 1 trumps "football move." So says the rule. The debate is whether Bryant went to the ground in one motion from the time he initially touched the ball. If so, no catch. If not, then catch.( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
Not relevant to the outcome because GB would've still been able to run the clock down to the 2 minutes warning after the same play.Remagellan said:
Also, my initial thought live was that it was a TD because it popped out without touching the ground, so he couldn't have been down and it wasn't incomplete, and then he caught it in the end zone.
But in the replay, it clearly, clearly touched the ground. (Sorry that I don't have the Internet wherewithal to post an image or whatever from my phone.)
Greg29fan said:
Wait, what? If there is one thing that is indisputable, it's that the ball hits the ground. That isn't even the question.
DrewDawg said:
Yeah, can't move if he's out of bounds, but Bryant was still on the field of play.
Greg29fan said:Dallascowboys.com (traitors) actually has a pic of it brushing the ground so I guess it did.
you guess?
it is a dumb rule, but it was ruled correctly. I'm not anti-Cowboys -- and hope that Romo has cleared the whole dumb "choker" thing as I'm sympathetic to the bad rap he's had -- but after they were gifted last week's game with what was a bad call. I guess things even out.
I thought he had possession and was trying to turn it into a TD by reaching. I understand that the actual rule and that it wasn't a football catch. Out of curiosity: would it have changed anything if he had broken the plane with the ball for a TD before 'losing it'? I think that while the play typically ends as soon as the ball breaks the plane in this case he still has to complete the catch, so I don't think it would have made a difference. Is that correct?
Exactly. What I saw were two distinct acts. He had possession with both feet in bounds, then tripped over the defender and went to the ground, and was down by contact before the ball even hit the ground. It was a legal catch before he went to the ground. Not a fan if either team FWIW.Fred in Lynn said:
I can see this argument. Two acts: catch step step, then trip fall and reach. That means the "going to the ground" rule is irrelevant because the catch is over before the trip.Dehere said:
This is the interpretation I'd lean towards as a ref. But it is absolutely a judgement call- incredibly close and reasonable people can see it either way. As we've seen above in this thread.
If we can drop the league dictionary definitions for a second, does anyone believe he didn't catch the ball? I'd love to talk to someone who genuinely thinks he didn't catch it.
I mean, there's room for disagreement there but personally, no I didn't. When I watch the GIF what I see is a legal catch, then Bryant trips over the defender's feet and goes to the ground. My reading of the rule is that the instant his second foot hit the ground the process of the catch was completed and he became a ball carrier.snowmanny said:
Funny you say that because I did go back and watch that play earlier today and it is way more egregious, no doubt.SoxFan58 said:
I don't think the rule book language is clear on when the process of a catch begins and ends. In both today's game and the Calvin Johnson game I think if you looked at a still photograph of the receiver standing upright with the ball in his hands and both feet in bounds you'd say that receiver had completed the process of catching the ball.
So Dez grabs it with 2 hands and transfers to 1 hand and then takes 2 steps and lunges toward the end zone... What if a Det player popped him now (befofe he hits the ground) and the ball comes out. Is that a fumble?
Ignoring the going to the ground crap, if that play happens at midfield and Dez is reaching for a 1st down, you dont think thats called a catch and fumble?Mystic Merlin said:
He's leaning pretty far forward when coming down with the ball and basically falls forward right after landing. I'm not convinced he "had possession". The call is indeed correct as per the rule book.
No. The location had nothing to do with it. The fact the ball popped out of his hand as he fell makes it an incomplete pass. I'm not sure how one can ignore the "going to the ground" point in that play.
No. The location had nothing to do with it. The fact the ball popped out of his hand as he fell makes it an incomplete pass. I'm not sure how one can ignore the "going to the ground" point in that play.
If the rules are this hard for everyone to interpret/fully understand, then something is really wrong the rule book.
I would like the rules to be written in a way that what Bryant did is a catch, though admit I'm not sure if there is a way to do that in a way that doesn't create other problems. I think what Dez did is something that should be rewarded by the rules, but I feel pretty confident that it presently is not. The rules are everything. Without applying them the way they are written, it's just not a fair contest.ragnarok725 said:
