dez bryant
Comments
-
It's a fucktarded rule.
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. -
Tried to make the hero play, dropped the ball.
Green Bay would have won anyway. -
If you can't see that Dez made that catch, then you should go have a heart to heart talk with @GrandpaSankey
-
If you can't see that Dez put the ball on the ground prior to completing the process of a catch, you deserve #Owen16.Tequilla said:If you can't see that Dez made that catch, then you should go have a heart to heart talk with @GrandpaSankey
-
-
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.
-
He's already falling to the ground on the 2nd step. Case closed.Tequilla said:
I agree that the rule is absolutely fucktarded. I just have no idea how to make the rule better. -
Why can't one fall to the ground while making a football move? These are million dollar athletes. Let the fuckers entertain.
-
Whoa whoa whoa.. I agree with you, on all of this, but nothing is more FS than Miley Cylies throwing motionTequilla said: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.
-
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. -
That was a catch. That rule is stupid.
-
The rule should be having control of the ball in the field of play.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
He's already falling to the ground on the 2nd step. Case closed.Tequilla said:
I agree that the rule is absolutely fucktarded. I just have no idea how to make the rule better. -
Live by refball, die by refball.
-
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.Tequilla said: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.
Stupid rule, right call, case closed. -
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.
-
Right, steps don't matter, even five, see.CuntWaffle said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
Stupid rule, right call, case closed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkqkHZ1oWIw -
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. -
Did the ball touch the ground? Did he complete the catch? Fuck I don't even know what rule he broke...
-
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.CuntWaffle said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
Stupid rule, right call, case closed.
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.Tequilla said:
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.CuntWaffle said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
Stupid rule, right call, case closed.
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. -
Wasn't a catch.
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.
-
Those black jerseys >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current black jerseysdroggins said:
Right, steps don't matter, even five, see.CuntWaffle said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
Stupid rule, right call, case closed.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkqkHZ1oWIw -
This legalism bullshit is killing football. It's bad in the college game and worse in the NFL.
-
Fuck what the NFL has in its rule book for a second ...CuntWaffle said:
The rule states that the receiver may or may not be influenced by the defender so that point is moot.Tequilla said:
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.CuntWaffle said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
Stupid rule, right call, case closed.
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.
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. -
This is dumb.topdawgnc said:Wasn't a catch.
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. -
Ok.doogsinparadise said:
This is dumb.topdawgnc said:Wasn't a catch.
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.
-
almost as gay as the tuck rule. It will be updated soon enough and applied incorrectly 30% of the time.
-
Jesus Christ.Tequilla said:
Fuck what the NFL has in its rule book for a second ...CuntWaffle said:
The rule states that the receiver may or may not be influenced by the defender so that point is moot.Tequilla said:
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.CuntWaffle said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
Stupid rule, right call, case closed.
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.
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. -
If you can't see the refs job is to apply the rules, not to make the rules, you're Skip Bayless FSTequilla said:If you can't see that Dez made that catch, then you should go have a heart to heart talk with @GrandpaSankey
-
Any halfbrain knows that shit was a catch. But Cunt is right, change the stupid fucking rule.
