I was pulling for the Packers and the Colts, but was the difference in Dez's fumble and the one by the punt returner for Indy? One call one way one call the other?????????
What was the difference?
- Thread starter SadButTrue
- Start date
The NFL has a terrible run of bad officiating. It's ridiculous.
1. Dez Bryant made that catch. From 2000 to 1960(give or take), that was a catch 100% of the time. Now a simple play is over complicated. What is the difference between catching the ball, coming down and leaping for the goal line and having the ground cause the fumble, or bobble of the football, compared to catching the ball at the 20 and running 17 yards and leaping into the endzone and ground causing a bobble?(outside of the distance of said catch). It's a stupid NFL rule.
2. The punt returner had zero control of the ball and made zero "football" moves. That was a fumble through and through.
Both of those didn't "decide" the game, but both had MAJOR impact on the games. Refs doing their best to be part of the outcome.
1. Dez Bryant made that catch. From 2000 to 1960(give or take), that was a catch 100% of the time. Now a simple play is over complicated. What is the difference between catching the ball, coming down and leaping for the goal line and having the ground cause the fumble, or bobble of the football, compared to catching the ball at the 20 and running 17 yards and leaping into the endzone and ground causing a bobble?(outside of the distance of said catch). It's a stupid NFL rule.
2. The punt returner had zero control of the ball and made zero "football" moves. That was a fumble through and through.
Both of those didn't "decide" the game, but both had MAJOR impact on the games. Refs doing their best to be part of the outcome.
Hard to blame either call on the "refs". Those where calls finalized by review.
The play: On fourth down with 4 minutes, 42 seconds remaining in the game, Cowboys quarterback Sam Shields
and grabbed the ball with both hands. Bryant took two steps as he
stumbled to the ground. As he landed just before the Packers' goal line,
the ball squirted loose. It made contact with the ground. Bryant then
rolled over, grabbed the ball and stood up.
The initial ruling: Referee Gene Steratore's crew
initially ruled a catch and placed the ball at the Packers' 1-yard line.
Packers coach Mike McCarthy challenged the play.
The rule: The oft-cited "process rule" of the NFL rulebook has surfaced many times, Calvin Johnson
in 2010. Here is what Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 reads: "If a
player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or
without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball
throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of
play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball
touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If
he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is
complete."
The review: Watched in slow motion,
Bryant's action fits the description of the rule. He lost the ball as
he stumbled to the ground. The ball touched the ground before Bryant
regained control. Steratore, who was also the referee in the 2010 game
involving Johnson and the Lions, reversed the initial ruling.
The explanation: NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino tweeted shortly after the game:
"Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout
entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete."
Quick thought: This play was a reminder that the
eye test and the "process rule" are often in opposition. The NFL has
tried before to rectify this discrepancy via offseason rule changes, and
it's fair to assume there will be another effort this spring.
Link
HE MADE A FOOTBALL MOVE. Like I said, there is no difference between lunging for it after a two yard catch or lunging after a 20 yard catch and run.
Everybody and their mother can see he was stretching for the endzone after taking multiple steps.
The review: Watched in slow motion,
Bryant's action fits the description of the rule. He lost the ball as
he stumbled to the ground. The ball touched the ground before Bryant
regained control. Steratore, who was also the referee in the 2010 game
involving Johnson and the Lions, reversed the initial ruling.
HUH? Where did he lose control of the ball before he landed? He had full control of the ball up until he lunged for the imaginary plane we call the goal line.
It's over complicating the process.
It's funny 3 or 4 fans of Dallas or haters of the Packers are wearing blinders. They reviewed the play and follow the letter of the rule. Besides Dallas stole the game last week if we want to play that game.
I don't give a rip if Dallas stole the game or not last week, there is no such thing as Karma.
The "letter of the rule" is only followed if you're convinced he was still in the act of catching it. He was done catching it and proceeded to leap for the end zone.
"3 or 4 fans of dallas or haters of the packers"?
Right, I am sure you will find any reasonable fan of the Packers to acknowledge a gift or haters of Dallas. A lot more people like the Packers and hate Dallas than the other way around. Yet this is a topic of conversation this morning on all sports talk shows this morning.
As for me I hate both teams, not sure how else or how many different ways I can put that? It's not like the Cowboys and the Vikings have a great history. I am objectively calling it like a reasonable unbiased fan sees it.
He had a move common to the game after coming down with the ball. That's what they preach. Just too many layers upon layers of rules for a simple play of a game.
ALSO let me be clear, it didn't cost them the game. And no I don't care if the Dallas fans are upset.
Kind of the way I saw it too. Thought he secured the ball with both hands initially then moved it to one to try to extend it to goal line as he was going down.
Silly that you can review a play but not a penalty call/non-call. The non-call last week could have had just as much influence on the outcome as this call might have this week. Officials miss just as many penalties as they do anything else. Why not let anything to be challenged?
I don't care who won the game. But it would be funny to see how many heads were exploding today if the call had stood and Dallas won.
Side note.... Aaron Rodgers is good. That is all.
Agreed. I believe you should be able to throw a challenge flag if it's a blatant missed call, such as holding or a face mask.
I don't blame the refs, I blame the rules being too complicated to enforce on the field.
It needs to be all or nothing when it comes to replay.
This post was edited on 1/12 10:15 AM by Drop.Tine
Not by rule it would not have been a catch! Still would have been incomplete because he had not yet touched the ground!
EXTREMELY SIMPLE
1 is a Football Pass & Catch (rules to "pass receiving" apply)
The other is a "runner" fielding a punt. A Receiver must maintain control throughout, a runner must maintain pssesion to the ground.
1 is a Football Pass & Catch (rules to "pass receiving" apply)
The other is a "runner" fielding a punt. A Receiver must maintain control throughout, a runner must maintain pssesion to the ground.
Clearly the ball hit the ground. Clearly he had possession of it too before it hit the ground. IMO it should have been a catch. To me there is no difference in that play and a RB stretching for the end zone for TD and ground not causing a football! It goes back to the old saying, the more rules you have, the more trouble will follow. By their rule though, even if he stretched across and broke the plain, he would have still lost it when it hit the ground. I am a Cowboys fan too by the way!!
I too, as posted earlier, am not a fan of either team. (Hate is such a strong word.) I am objectively calling it like a reasonable unbiased fan sees it.
Yes, that rule needs to be changed. Anyone who has ever caught a football clearly knows that was a catch. He established possession and the ground caused him to bobble it which should be considered a fumble which he did recover. I am a Cowboy's fan but that is a catch anywhere.........................
Actually on one of the explanations I heard from the head of officials said had he completely stretched out and shown complete control of the ball then it would have counted. However his inability to be able to stretch his arm completely out showed that he was not in complete control of the football as he was going to the ground. Then it was mentioned had he not tried to stretch out then it to would have also been ruled a catch because he clearly had control of the ball until it looks like he tries to stretch out.
Not a fan of either team could care less who would have won, but when I saw the play live I knew they were going to rule it not a catch. What upset me more was Dez trying to stretch out instead of just catching the dang ball securing and going to the ground. I think the call was a good call I get so tired of these players stretching out and losing the stupid ball.
Similar threads
