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.
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.
Fuck what the NFL has in its rule book for a second ...
You watched the play live ...
You've watched the replays ...
Assume that you don't know what the rules are or are not ...
I can't imagine that you'd sit there and say that that wasn't a catch if you were just going on gut instinct.
The only way that you can call that, or even worse the Calvin Johnson example, an incomplete pass is because of some misguided component of the rule.
I'm all for creating rules and standardization. But common sense also has to prevail. The problem with standardizing things is that they make things black and white with no opportunity for interpretation or changing of assumptions when you realize that something happened that wasn't what was the desired outcome.
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.
Fuck what the NFL has in its rule book for a second ...
You watched the play live ...
You've watched the replays ...
Assume that you don't know what the rules are or are not ...
I can't imagine that you'd sit there and say that that wasn't a catch if you were just going on gut instinct.
The only way that you can call that, or even worse the Calvin Johnson example, an incomplete pass is because of some misguided component of the rule.
I'm all for creating rules and standardization. But common sense also has to prevail. The problem with standardizing things is that they make things black and white with no opportunity for interpretation or changing of assumptions when you realize that something happened that wasn't what was the desired outcome.
Jesus Christ.
Within the NFL rule book which these players are playing by... It is not considered a catch. You can't just say "fuck the rule book" in the middle of a game on a call that has been called that way for a long time.
Thats all. Unbelievable play. Sucks the rules fucked him but rules are rules. Change it as soon as possible.
If you can't see that I'm saying that the rule needs to be fucking changed ... or missed the fact that I've said multiple times that the call was called correctly because of the rules, then this board is way too fast for 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.
Voted down for ANYTHING being more ridiculous than a negative Miley throwing analogy
Comments
There are between 9,000-10,000 pass completions a year in the NFL, when we are bitching about 1 of those passes ... the rule is probably safe.
I personally think the rule is solid.
If a player loses control of the ball, and it touches the ground ... incomplete.
You watched the play live ...
You've watched the replays ...
Assume that you don't know what the rules are or are not ...
I can't imagine that you'd sit there and say that that wasn't a catch if you were just going on gut instinct.
The only way that you can call that, or even worse the Calvin Johnson example, an incomplete pass is because of some misguided component of the rule.
I'm all for creating rules and standardization. But common sense also has to prevail. The problem with standardizing things is that they make things black and white with no opportunity for interpretation or changing of assumptions when you realize that something happened that wasn't what was the desired outcome.
Within the NFL rule book which these players are playing by... It is not considered a catch. You can't just say "fuck the rule book" in the middle of a game on a call that has been called that way for a long time.
Thats all. Unbelievable play. Sucks the rules fucked him but rules are rules. Change it as soon as possible.
#everyplaycounts
Would have won the game without the drop. Missed the playoffs by one game.