Catch or No 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.

[earthmansurfer]

That Bryant catch looked like a catch to me. The ball came loose when he hit the ground but he had possession and control before that. I'm not a Dallas nor GB fan, but I feel bad for the former.

[bwgood77]

I think it's a catch too, but the thing is, I guess according to the rules, it isn't.

But he did have control but kind of lost control when he tried to stretch the ball over the end zone, like many people do (though not usually in the same motion). But he had enough control to stick the ball out like that in the first place, so in my mind, that IS having control. There are some nfl rules I will never understand.

[bballcool34]

definitely a catch. And if it's not there's something wrong with the rules imo

[Pharmcat]

catch

i think DAL got screwed on that

[GS Warriors 1]

I'm not a Dallas nor GB fan, but I feel bad for the former.

After what happened last week....nope.

[GS Warriors 1]

NOT A CATCH.

He was still juggling the ball as he was going down. Tough call to make but they got it right.

[dr3am]

it was definitely a catch, just being honest

[El Turco]

not a catch, ball hit the ground while he was in the process. looked clean at first look though.

[Worm Guts]

By the rules, it wasn't a catch. He didn't complete the process.

[Worm Guts]

NOT A CATCH.

He was still juggling the ball as he was going down. Tough call to make but they got it right.

He wasn't juggling it but it came loose when he hit the ground.

[El Turco]

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

[earthmansurfer]

So the rules state that if the ball comes loose from hitting the ground (if airborne I imagine), then it isn't a catch?
That is a terrible rule. It goes against the rule "The ground can't cause a fumble."
Anyway, glad it wasn't my team but the NFL has to change that "rule".

ps - What happened to Dallas last week GS Warriors 1 (or anyone)?

[bwgood77]

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

Yeah, but the problem is that he had enough control to stick his arm out WITH the ball to try and get it over the goal line. He lost it during this process, which, in hindsight was a stupid move because he DID have control of the ball if he didn't do that, and even until the end of that move.

Many people lose control of it during that motion of trying to stick it past the goal line, though not during the completion of catch process.

But the rule doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Even with the current rule, I would have probably said "He had enough control going to the ground to make an additional move to try and extend the ball past the goal line, and therefore he DID have control of the ball while hitting the ground".

[kerry kittles]

So the rules state that if the ball comes loose from hitting the ground (if airborne I imagine), then it isn't a catch?
That is a terrible rule. It goes against the rule "The ground can't cause a fumble."
Anyway, glad it wasn't my team but the NFL has to change that "rule".

ps - What happened to Dallas last week GS Warriors 1 (or anyone)?

Same as this:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Q4tKnfaIY[/youtube]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Lions/status/554383070451597312[/tweet]

Correct call. Poor rule.

[El Turco]

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

Yeah, but the problem is that he had enough control to stick his arm out WITH the ball to try and get it over the goal line. He lost it during this process, which, in hindsight was a stupid move because he DID have control of the ball if he didn't do that, and even until the end of that move.

Many people lose control of it during that motion of trying to stick it past the goal line, though not during the completion of catch process.

But the rule doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Even with the current rule, I would have probably said "He had enough control going to the ground to make an additional move to try and extend the ball past the goal line, and therefore he DID have control of the ball while hitting the ground".

he tried to reach before finishing the process and lost control, recievers usually reach in after completing the process. not a very good rule but refs made the right call.

[truth18]

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?

[therealbig3]

To me, after looking at the replay several times...I don't see the controversy...clearly not a catch. Everyone knows that you need to maintain control throughout the process, as you go to the ground, and he clearly didn't.

[GoRapstheoriginal]

Why wouldn't they run the ball in that situation!?!?!

[Worm Guts]

S
That is a terrible rule. It goes against the rule "The ground can't cause a fumble?

Not really.