And Boobs, I get the rules in how they are written. I get that with the way the rules are written the outcome was what it was. I'm also saying that the rule is more FS than Miley Cyrus' throwing motion and if your common sense can't see that Dez made that catch then I can't help you.
And Boobs, I get the rules in how they are written. I get that with the way the rules are written the outcome was what it was. I'm also saying that the rule is more FS than Miley Cyrus' throwing motion and if your common sense can't see that Dez made that catch then I can't help you.
Whoa whoa whoa.. I agree with you, on all of this, but nothing is more FS than Miley Cylies throwing motion
I get the rule ... I don't even disagree with the rule when it comes to an immediate act of tackling someone after the catch.
But in this case, the player took 3 steps, changed hands in which he was holding the football to protect it from the defender (which I absolutely consider a football move), and tried to stretch the football to the goal line (again, another play that I consider a football play). Where does the line stop between being part of the act of making the catch versus the ground causing the fumble?
NFL officials are very good normally with interpreting the rule. The official that made the original call was in GREAT position to make the call and apply judgment regarding whether or not he completed a catch and made a football play or not.
I get the rule ... I don't even disagree with the rule when it comes to an immediate act of tackling someone after the catch.
But in this case, the player took 3 steps, changed hands in which he was holding the football to protect it from the defender (which I absolutely consider a football move), and tried to stretch the football to the goal line (again, another play that I consider a football play). Where does the line stop between being part of the act of making the catch versus the ground causing the fumble?
NFL officials are very good normally with interpreting the rule. The official that made the original call was in GREAT position to make the call and apply judgment regarding whether or not he completed a catch and made a football play or not.
He was falling as soon as he caught it. Those "steps" he took were momentum falling steps. He didn't catchthe ball, take 3 steps, then trip.
So when a receiver catches a ball on the sidline with two feet in barely then falls to the ground, where is the football move in that? I probably don't understand the rule.
I get the rule ... I don't even disagree with the rule when it comes to an immediate act of tackling someone after the catch.
But in this case, the player took 3 steps, changed hands in which he was holding the football to protect it from the defender (which I absolutely consider a football move), and tried to stretch the football to the goal line (again, another play that I consider a football play). Where does the line stop between being part of the act of making the catch versus the ground causing the fumble?
NFL officials are very good normally with interpreting the rule. The official that made the original call was in GREAT position to make the call and apply judgment regarding whether or not he completed a catch and made a football play or not.
He was falling as soon as he caught it. Those "steps" he took were momentum falling steps. He didn't catchthe ball, take 3 steps, then trip.
It should be a catch 100%. Rule needs to be changed. It has however been consistently called the past few years and by the rule book was the correct call by definition.
99.999999999% of people think that should be a catch and the NFL needs to change that rule as soon as they possibly can.
I get the rule ... I don't even disagree with the rule when it comes to an immediate act of tackling someone after the catch.
But in this case, the player took 3 steps, changed hands in which he was holding the football to protect it from the defender (which I absolutely consider a football move), and tried to stretch the football to the goal line (again, another play that I consider a football play). Where does the line stop between being part of the act of making the catch versus the ground causing the fumble?
NFL officials are very good normally with interpreting the rule. The official that made the original call was in GREAT position to make the call and apply judgment regarding whether or not he completed a catch and made a football play or not.
He was falling as soon as he caught it. Those "steps" he took were momentum falling steps. He didn't catchthe ball, take 3 steps, then trip.
Stupid rule, right call, case closed.
The reason he was falling was because the defender fell in his path trying to break up the pass. There's no way in the world that he was trying to make a tackle with the way that he was flailing away.
If you really want to be anal on this kind of stuff, you could say that any catch by a receiver in some way eventually leads to him going to the ground.
It's a stupid rule as it is currently created. I'm all for the instantaneous hit or the guy dragging 2 toes to stay in bounds and if the ball hits the ground or pops loose after hitting the ball that that isn't a catch. But when someone takes 3 steps (like Dez) or 5 steps (like in the UW picture above), that's control at some point.
I get the rule ... I don't even disagree with the rule when it comes to an immediate act of tackling someone after the catch.
But in this case, the player took 3 steps, changed hands in which he was holding the football to protect it from the defender (which I absolutely consider a football move), and tried to stretch the football to the goal line (again, another play that I consider a football play). Where does the line stop between being part of the act of making the catch versus the ground causing the fumble?
NFL officials are very good normally with interpreting the rule. The official that made the original call was in GREAT position to make the call and apply judgment regarding whether or not he completed a catch and made a football play or not.
He was falling as soon as he caught it. Those "steps" he took were momentum falling steps. He didn't catchthe ball, take 3 steps, then trip.
Stupid rule, right call, case closed.
The reason he was falling was because the defender fell in his path trying to break up the pass. There's no way in the world that he was trying to make a tackle with the way that he was flailing away.
If you really want to be anal on this kind of stuff, you could say that any catch by a receiver in some way eventually leads to him going to the ground.
It's a stupid rule as it is currently created. I'm all for the instantaneous hit or the guy dragging 2 toes to stay in bounds and if the ball hits the ground or pops loose after hitting the ball that that isn't a catch. But when someone takes 3 steps (like Dez) or 5 steps (like in the UW picture above), that's control at some point.
The rule states that the receiver may or may not be influenced by the defender so that point is moot.
Comments
Cost me a fantasy football playoff spot on the famous Calvin Johnson "drop" (self $75k).
I hate it. But they called it correctly based on the fucked up rule.
Green Bay would have won anyway.
I agree that the rule is absolutely fucktarded. I just have no idea how to make the rule better.
But in this case, the player took 3 steps, changed hands in which he was holding the football to protect it from the defender (which I absolutely consider a football move), and tried to stretch the football to the goal line (again, another play that I consider a football play). Where does the line stop between being part of the act of making the catch versus the ground causing the fumble?
NFL officials are very good normally with interpreting the rule. The official that made the original call was in GREAT position to make the call and apply judgment regarding whether or not he completed a catch and made a football play or not.
Stupid rule, right call, case closed.
I probably don't understand the rule.
99.999999999% of people think that should be a catch and the NFL needs to change that rule as soon as they possibly can.
If you really want to be anal on this kind of stuff, you could say that any catch by a receiver in some way eventually leads to him going to the ground.
It's a stupid rule as it is currently created. I'm all for the instantaneous hit or the guy dragging 2 toes to stay in bounds and if the ball hits the ground or pops loose after hitting the ball that that isn't a catch. But when someone takes 3 steps (like Dez) or 5 steps (like in the UW picture above), that's control at some point.