Catch or No Catch?

[Ice Trae]

It's tough, imo. At first it looked like an incomplete pass but after watching the replay for a while, it does look like he maintains control of the ball after he tucked it with one hand. So i'm going to go ahead and say I think it was a catch.

[Quake Griffin]

please don't bastardize the thread talking about corruption and refs cheating etc. etc.


people who know the rule and understand it well, please opine.

Can you please make a poll?

poll made.

[Napoleon7]

It was definitely a catch.
Player made multiple steps and most definitely lunged for the goal line.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

[WiscoKing13]

I'm a GB fan so you know my opinion, but the one thing I'm surprised isn't being talked about in comparison to the megatron "catches", is the initial deflection from shields witch makes Dez bobble once and then he has to reestablish while going to the grown.

[sixerswillrule]

from espn " “must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground." yeah definitely not a catch.

No one is arguing if he didn't maintain control after hitting the ground. He obviously didn't. The question is if it was already a catch before that point.

[El Turco]

from espn " “must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground." yeah definitely not a catch.

No one is arguing if he didn't maintain control after hitting the ground. He obviously didn't. The question is if it was already a catch before that point.

throughout the process of contacting the ground. he controlled the ball on the ground at first and once he was on the ground he needs to finish the motion with control for it to be a catch. there is no before to this.

[Quake Griffin]

from espn " “must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground." yeah definitely not a catch.

No one is arguing if he didn't maintain control after hitting the ground. He obviously didn't. The question is if it was already a catch before that point.

throughout the process of contacting the ground. he controlled the ball on the ground at first and once he was on the ground he needs to finish the motion with control for it to be a catch. there is no before to this.

he got three feet in after he """caught""" the ball at its highest point and tucked it in his left arm.

I think there is certainly a case for a before.

[El Turco]

Doesnt matter how many feet he got in, once ball hits the ground during the process, it is incomplete. And before he started his process he was airborne, thus there was no before.

[sixerswillrule]

from espn " “must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground." yeah definitely not a catch.

No one is arguing if he didn't maintain control after hitting the ground. He obviously didn't. The question is if it was already a catch before that point.

throughout the process of contacting the ground. he controlled the ball on the ground at first and once he was on the ground he needs to finish the motion with control for it to be a catch. there is no before to this.

There is a before. You're missing the point. If a dude catches the ball at the 40 yard line and gets tackled at the 10, and loses the ball "in the process", it's meaningless because it was already a freaking catch. At some point during those 30 yards, BEFORE hitting the ground, it became a catch. Exaggerated example but you get my point. I repeat:

No one is arguing if he didn't maintain control after hitting the ground. He obviously didn't. The question is if it was already a catch before that point.

[therealbig3]

He was going to the ground as part of the catch though...you guys are saying it was a catch, run, and fumble. It wasn't. That entire process was a catch, and he didn't maintain control.

When you go airborne, catch the ball, stumble forward, and fall, that entire process constitutes "the catch". You have to maintain control throughout.

[sixerswillrule]

He was going to the ground as part of the catch though...you guys are saying it was a catch, run, and fumble. It wasn't. That entire process was a catch, and he didn't maintain control.

When you go airborne, catch the ball, stumble forward, and fall, that entire process constitutes "the catch". You have to maintain control throughout.

What if you stumble with the ball in your hands for 10 yards?

[therealbig3]

He was going to the ground as part of the catch though...you guys are saying it was a catch, run, and fumble. It wasn't. That entire process was a catch, and he didn't maintain control.

When you go airborne, catch the ball, stumble forward, and fall, that entire process constitutes "the catch". You have to maintain control throughout.

What if you stumble with the ball in your hands for 10 yards?

According to the rule, not a catch. You need to make a football move before you lose control of the ball for the catch to count, and he didn't. Stumbling and falling isn't a football move. Since he started going to the ground before he made a football move, he needs to maintain control throughout, and he didn't.

[Quake Griffin]

He was going to the ground as part of the catch though.

i disagree.

[therealbig3]

That's fair. I understand people see things differently. But personally, I'm pretty confident in saying that the refs got it right. Plays like that have pretty much always been called incomplete passes.

[Insomniaac]

It was very close but I think they got the call right by rule, I also think they need to change the rule. The Calvin catch should have been a catch and this should have been too. And this is coming from someone who was rooting for the Packers.

[Insomniaac]

No one is arguing if he didn't maintain control after hitting the ground. He obviously didn't. The question is if it was already a catch before that point.

throughout the process of contacting the ground. he controlled the ball on the ground at first and once he was on the ground he needs to finish the motion with control for it to be a catch. there is no before to this.

There is a before. You're missing the point. If a dude catches the ball at the 40 yard line and gets tackled at the 10, and loses the ball "in the process", it's meaningless because it was already a freaking catch. At some point during those 30 yards, BEFORE hitting the ground, it became a catch. Exaggerated example but you get my point. I repeat:

No one is arguing if he didn't maintain control after hitting the ground. He obviously didn't. The question is if it was already a catch before that point.

I was watching the game with a room full of Packer fans and this was exactly the example I gave when questioning whether or not it should be a catch

[sixerswillrule]

He was going to the ground as part of the catch though...you guys are saying it was a catch, run, and fumble. It wasn't. That entire process was a catch, and he didn't maintain control.

When you go airborne, catch the ball, stumble forward, and fall, that entire process constitutes "the catch". You have to maintain control throughout.

What if you stumble with the ball in your hands for 10 yards?

According to the rule, not a catch. You need to make a football move before you lose control of the ball for the catch to count, and he didn't. Stumbling and falling isn't a football move. Since he started going to the ground before he made a football move, he needs to maintain control throughout, and he didn't.

I'm well aware of the " football move" part of the rules. It just means nothing to me. It's such a vague term that could mean anything. There needs to be much more clarification.

[bwgood77]

Doesnt matter how many feet he got in, once ball hits the ground during the process, it is incomplete. And before he started his process he was airborne, thus there was no before.

I guess the point is, how many steps does it take, and how long do you have to have control then? What if he took 4 steps? 5? 6? 7? 20? But then on the way to the ground and trying to get it across the goal line that happens? People's point is that he ALREADY had control before going to the ground, and like you said, at the beginning of when he was hitting the ground, and the motion in which he controlled the ball to stick it out to the goal line is when he lost it, after he had possession.

Obviously it can be interpreted both ways, and it could have gone either way, but to me it was pretty clear he caught the ball and had control of it which is why he stuck it out at the end. The rule is in place more for when someone is kind of bobbling the ball or doesn't appear to have their control on their way to the ground.

[LikeABosh]

I'm a GB fan so you know my opinion, but the one thing I'm surprised isn't being talked about in comparison to the megatron "catches", is the initial deflection from shields witch makes Dez bobble once and then he has to reestablish while going to the grown.

This is important. Shields deflecting the pass ever so slightly negates the first step Dez took because he's still positioning it in his hands. I still say it should have been a catch, but I completely understand the perspective of the rule the refs had to follow

[stl705]

Looked like a catch to me, even with the rules in place... Got possession, established two feet in bounds, and made a football move toward the goal-line where his knee hit ground, making him down at the 1 or whatever it was. I think this play was botched and is over-analyzed. What is a "football" move? If a lunge towards the goal-line isn't a football move, I don't know what is.