Catch or No Catch?

[sixerswillrule]

Going in circles here, no use continuing.

[bwgood77]

:crazy: Going in circles here, no use continuing.

Yeah, at best, it's a subjective rule and it will come down to the opinion of the official (and the fan). It seems many people actually think he didn't maintain control, or perhaps they didn't see the steps made after the catch or the football move to extend across the goal line or maybe people just like to back the officials.

[sixerswillrule]

:crazy: Going in circles here, no use continuing.

Yeah, at best, it's a subjective rule and it will come down to the opinion of the official (and the fan). It seems many people actually think he didn't maintain control, or perhaps they didn't see the steps made after the catch or the football move to extend across the goal line or maybe people just like to back the officials.

Yup. And I hate the Cowboys. This rule has just always been puzzling to me. I've seen regular catches where the guy doesn't even go to the ground, but he gets hit and the ball pops out. I could've sworn that those were catches + fumbles, but instead ruled incomplete. Like the Bryant play apparently not "a football move", which I'll say again, is such a meaningless term. It's a joke that this is the official language for a pretty important rule, yet it's so ridiculously unclear.

[CentralQB5]

He moss'd shields came down with 2 feet with possession. Took another step started falling. Proceeded to switch the ball to his left hand which led to him trying to reach for the goal line. Idk how that isn't a catch with a football move? He took a total of 3 steps and had ability to stretch with the ball. The NFL is so annoying and picky. They might as well say in order to catch the ball a reviewer must spin in the air 5 times while counting to 10 Mississippi in order for anything to be a catch.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[TheKingofSting]

Technically catch but rules are rules no matter how stupid they are = no catch. Players should be given a test on the rules and if they can't pass then they can't play.

[ATL Boy]

A lot of people (Skip Bayless) are saying that this is nothing like the Calvin Johnson situation. It's exactly the Calvin situation, he didn't maintain control throughout the entire process and the ball hit the ground. It's a stupid rule but its been consistently called over the year and the refs made the right call, no catch.

[Quake Griffin]

A lot of people (Skip Bayless) are saying that this is nothing like the Calvin Johnson situation. It's exactly the Calvin situation, he didn't maintain control throughout the entire process and the ball hit the ground. It's a stupid rule but its been consistently called over the year and the refs made the right call, no catch.

3 feet in, right hand on the ground to break the fall and reaching for the end zone tend to make some people believe that.

[East Bay Sports]

Common sense, logic and the eye test say that should be a catch all day every day.

The letter of the law, which is a stupid rule about "completing the catch", says it is incomplete. I disagree with the rule, agree with the call.

[Devilzsidewalk]

any other level of football and that's a catch. That's why the NFL's rules are all terrible.

[Manster7588]

Things that make you go hmmmm.

I guess rules changed from last year to now.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... ayoff-game

[CBS7]

Its a weird rule but not a catch.

As soon as he hit the ground he was falling. Its the whole "process of a catch" thing if you're falling. So he had to maintain control of the ball throughout. The ball hit the ground and was jarred loose. Doesn't matter if he regained control afterwards, as it was incomplete, not a fumble. It wasn't a catch, unfortunately.

I've seen people say "but he took 3 steps". Landing separately on two feet is not two steps, and he was falling when he took the "third" (only) step.

I'll echo what most people are saying. Problem with the rule? Maybe. Problem with the call? No.

[bluejerseyjinx]

A lot of people (Skip Bayless) are saying that this is nothing like the Calvin Johnson situation. It's exactly the Calvin situation, he didn't maintain control throughout the entire process and the ball hit the ground. It's a stupid rule but its been consistently called over the year and the refs made the right call, no catch.

3 feet in, right hand on the ground to break the fall and reaching for the end zone tend to make some people believe that.

As someone who officiated for 18 years, I'm a bit baffled. I understand the rule the way it is written, or at least I thought I did. I saw a catch, 3 steps and a hand and right hip on the turf before reaching for the goal line and the ball hitting the ground after the official ruled him down just before the goal line. I didn't see enough to over turn what was originally called on the field.

[83SixersRocked]

catch. bad rule.