Hey Cowboy fans

[Legalizeit]

He most certainly had control of the ball. The rule that applied in this case is that he did not make a football move before losing the control that he clearly had, thereby resulting in an incompletion. What constitutes a football move is really anybody's guess.

Whatever bud, you saying it, doesn't make it true. Me, McCarthy and the NFL saw an incomplete catch when he stumbled from the catch and let the ball hit the ground and break loose of his possession. I knew it would be overturned upon seeing the first replay.

I didn't see a guy who caught the ball, maintained possession and lunged forward, I see a guy that caught the ball, fell from making the catch, and did a good job reaching for the goaline, but he still didn't complete the process.

 

[HardRightEdge]

This is one of those plays that will be talked about for years to come, like the Brady "tuck rule" call. It took 13 years, but that rule has been changed. I don't know the time frame, but I think this "football move" rule will be amended some day. Control with 2 feet down should constitute a catch.

 

[HardRightEdge]

...break loose of his possession...

Those are your words. There you have it, "bud".

I didn't say it was a bad call...I said it was a bad rule.

Good for us.

 

[thisisnate]

This is one of those plays that will be talked about for years to come, like the Brady "tuck rule" call. It took 13 years, but that rule has been changed. I don't know the time frame, but I think this "football move" rule will be amended some day. Control with 2 feet down should constitute a catch.

The problem with that is you're essentially talking about a single moment that would define if it's a catch or not, i.e.- the instant the ball is in his hands and his 2 feet touch, it's a catch. If you are to follow this wording, a receiver could be hit in the hands with 2 feet on the ground and have the ball bounce off, yet this would be considered a catch. Control is not demonstrated by a single brief moment, it is fluid and occurs over a period of time. Demonstrating control, then, requires some sort of verbiage addressing the fluidity of the control process, which at present is a "football move."

I don't know how to make it better. If a football fan were being honest, I think, he'd admit it should just pass the "eyeball test," but when that process fails his team, he'd be right to be upset, because it's entirely subjective.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The problem with that is you're essentially talking about a single moment that would define if it's a catch or not, i.e.- the instant the ball is in his hands and his 2 feet touch, it's a catch. If you are to follow this wording, a receiver could be hit in the hands with 2 feet on the ground and have the ball bounce off, yet this would be considered a catch. Control is not demonstrated by a single brief moment, it is fluid and occurs over a period of time. Demonstrating control, then, requires some sort of verbiage addressing the fluidity of the control process, which at present is a "football move."

I don't know how to make it better. If a football fan were being honest, I think, he'd admit it should just pass the "eyeball test," but when that process fails his team, he'd be right to be upset, because it's entirely subjective.

I disagree. They make these kinds of calls all of the time on sideline passes. They have to determine if the player has two feet in with control...a judgement in an instant, a "single brief moment" as you called it. Judging whether a player has control with two feet down away from the sidelines is no different.

The Tuck Rule was intended to remove judgement of intent from the call...did the QB intend to throw or pull it back? So as long as the ball was moving forward, even if "tucking" was the clear intent, it was ruled incomplete. Nearly anybody looking at the Brady call knew he was not throwing the ball, but the rule was the rule. In that case, they had to wait until Al Davis died to change the rule so they would not have to listen to his carping I-told-you-so's.

I expect this rule to be rationalized at some point...maybe after Jerry Jones is dead.

 

[thisisnate]

I disagree. They make these kinds of calls all of the time on sideline passes. They have to determine if the player has two feet in with control...a judgement in an instant, a "single brief moment" as you called it. Judging whether a player has control with two feet down away from the sidelines is no different.

The Tuck Rule was intended to remove judgement of intent from the call...did the QB intend to throw or pull it back? So as long as the ball was moving forward, even if "tucking" was the clear intent, it was ruled incomplete. Nearly anybody looking at the Brady call knew he was not throwing the ball, but the rule was the rule. In that case, they had to wait until Al Davis died to change the rule so they would not have to listen to his carping I-told-you-so's.

I expect this rule to be rationalized at some point...maybe after Jerry Jones is dead.

They have review. They don't have to determine anything in an instant. We certainly saw this in the game.

 

[AmishMafia]

I'm sure this was written somewhere......but for those with the ability to watch the incomplete pass to Bryant frame by frame....watch it. Watch it close and from all angles. For all those pissed off Cowboy fans......Bryant barely got a foot down as he was switching the ball to his left hand (not in control) and as that hand comes down, the ball strikes the ground and pops out, helping him to gain control of the ball. I have read posts about "3 steps, didn't hit the ground, etc." the facts are he didn't have control of the ball...ever (without the grounds help). I think the Calvin Johnson "non-catch" was much closer to being a catch. The refs got this call correct.....the second time....no debating that. IMO

Can you just post pic by pic? I for one would like to see.

 

[HardRightEdge]

They have review. They don't have to determine anything in an instant. We certainly saw this in the game.

It was you who made the "single brief moment" argument in favor of the current rule, not me. You're disagreeing with yourself. Instant replay is precisely one excellent reason why possession should be defined as control with two feet down, period. The vague "football move" and "completing the process" elements are an unnecessary additional element to the definition of what makes for a football play.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm sure this was written somewhere......but for those with the ability to watch the incomplete pass to Bryant frame by frame....watch it. Watch it close and from all angles. For all those pissed off Cowboy fans......Bryant barely got a foot down as he was switching the ball to his left hand (not in control) and as that hand comes down, the ball strikes the ground and pops out, helping him to gain control of the ball. I have read posts about "3 steps, didn't hit the ground, etc." the facts are he didn't have control of the ball...ever (without the grounds help). I think the Calvin Johnson "non-catch" was much closer to being a catch. The refs got this call correct.....the second time....no debating that. IMO

If a player is able to switch the ball from one hand to the other, as in this case, he has control of the ball. The rule that applies here is that he must maintain control to the ground, which presupposes control, or he must make an intervening football move.

The Calvin Johnson call was equivalent to the Bryant call. What made it more questionable from a defective/inconsistent rule perspective, was that he was in the end zone.

A ball carrier can flash the ball into the end zone, have it batted away without being tackled, and it counts as a TD. Johnson was in the end zone, had control of the ball, took a step or two, then put it on the ground. He clearly broke the plane with control. There is no consistency in any of this in terms of respecting the athletic play.

 

[thisisnate]

It was you who made the "single brief moment" argument in favor of the current rule, not me. You're disagreeing with yourself. Instant replay is precisely one excellent the reason why possession should be defined as control with two feet down, period. The vague "football move" and "completing the process" elements are an unnecessary additional element to the definition of what makes for making a football play.

I said that what you implied was that the player only needed to demonstrate momentary control. I argued that control is a fluid process and that the "football move" verbiage was a necessary evil. Your language was vague and interpreted by me as saying that the refs have only a moment to make the call, so only a moment of control should need to be demonstrated. I responded that the refs do not have only a moment to make the call; they have replay. I argued your point because your language was not clear, and I thought you meant something other than your intended message.

My bad.

 

[thisisnate]

double post