Argue the rule all you want, but it was ruled correctly on the field. That hasn't been a catch in 4 years.
Dez Bryant Explains His Catch
- Thread starter Big Boss
- Start date
Argue the rule all you want, but it was ruled correctly on the field. That hasn't been a catch in 4 years.
Dwight Howard
Superstar
In our judgment, he maintained possession but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game.
So the way I'm reading it, if they thought he had made an "act common to the game" (i.e. a football move), then they would have deemed it a catch.I accept the call they made but its bullshyt. Are they actually saying he didn't have two hands on the ball and hold it against his chest, right before he lets go with his right arm and extends out with his left? Cause that's what happened. The way he had the ball wrapped up, with both hands, if he didn't reach out there would have been no way the ball comes loose. By reaching out instead, he's making a football move for the goal line.reaching out = football move
So the way I'm reading it, if they thought he had made an "act common to the game" (i.e. a football move), then they would have deemed it a catch.I accept the call they made but its bullshyt. Are they actually saying he didn't have two hands on the ball and hold it against his chest, right before he lets go with his right arm and extends out with his left? Cause that's what happened. The way he had the ball wrapped up, with both hands, if he didn't reach out there would have been no way the ball comes loose. By reaching out instead, he's making a football move for the goal line.reaching out = football move
NOT when he's is going to the ground though.
the problem here is that dudes are bringing up if he "made a football move" which is irrelevant here because the catch was bringing him to the ground which means he has to MAINTAIN possession through the whole fall and landing in order for it to be considered a catch (as per current rules)
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
I don't agree. If he makes that third step and the ball gets dislodged by a hit, it's still alive. But when he takes a 3rd step and the ball jostles around the play is dead?
That's not consistent.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2923980/dez2.0.gif)
not a catch
I think the argument people are making is he caught the ball, took two steps, switched the ball to his left hand, and reached for the goal line.
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
Not only did he take three steps, his elbow came down which basically counts as four.
not a catch
They have to fix that rule
but he didn't secure the "catch" before that thirda step
look at his right hand it comes off of it while he is up in the air then secures it briefly with 2 hands but he's on his way down when he's got it finally secur but it comes out when it hits the ground.
by rule he didn't maintain possession throughout the whole catch.
we can argue whether it was a great catch or not, but at the end of the day the ONLY argument that matters is that whether this RULE is valid and not this non catch based on that rule.
Dwight Howard
Superstar
if thats not a catch I dont know what it is.his elbow hit the ground after he had clear possession. THEN the ball came out, shouldnt his elbow hitting the ground end the 'process'??
not a catch
the rule just needs to go if its gonna conitnue robbing fans of great moments. too inconsistent.
this is what the refs said back in 2010 regarding a similar call
Here’s the official explanation from outgoing NFL V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira (via NFL spokesman Greg Aiello): “By rule, when a receiver with possession of the ball is in the act of going to the ground and performs a second act by reaching out to break the plane, that completes the process of the catch and the ball is dead when it breaks the plane.”
That's what these fools do not get.
His feet could have hit the ground 5 times, if he was in the process off falling during the catch and that ball moves due to the ground, that's never a catch.
Some people simply don't want to hear this. I get it.
its true they do need to fix that rule.
but this isn't o different than any catch where the receiver has to feet in bounds but drops the ball when he lands on the ground.
the elbow hitting is irrelevant becase they looked at the catch and determined that he DID NOTmake a football move while maintaining possession before he went to the ground.
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
That catch was secured enough to be brought from two hands to one.
He had it until the ground dislodged after:
1. Three steps
2. Right elbow hit the ground
3. Ground moves ball
I think this rule needs to be revisited. If all of those things happen at anywhere else on the field absent of the ground, that's a catch, correct?
And that argument completely ignores the reason WHY it's a drop.
Going to the ground. you cannot ignore that.
Dwight Howard
Superstar
NFL V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira (via NFL spokesman Greg Aiello): “By rule, when a receiver with possession of the ball is in the act of going to the ground and performs a second act by reaching out to break the plane, that completes the process of the catch and the ball is dead when it breaks the plane.”
from 2010. defend this
from 2010. defend this