Did the ball hit the ground?

[Gepetto 985]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Zf0_zhxj8

 

He never had control.

When coming down, the ball was dislodged. He tried securing it while bracing for the fall.

If he had 2 hands on it and then landed on his feet, then took a step and lunge...i would say it was a catch.

But he had 2 hands. Ball got dislodged right before he landed and while 'trying' to secure the ball it hit the ground.

 

Pretty good job by the ref.

 

He does have control. He secured the ball with 2 hands then moved it to one hand and dove for the goal line.

[sirensong 111]

the ball most certainly hit the ground.

 

awful rule, correctly enforced.

[Antiramie 50]

The slippery slope that's produced by the vague verbiage of the rule is at what point has his "contacting the ground" concluded and it no longer matters if the ball comes loose? After he's slid for 3.4 seconds? When he tries to get up?

 

What if he's untouched and maintains control while on the ground but then drops the ball while trying to get up?

[sirensong 111]

 

He does have control. He secured the ball with 2 hands then moved it to one hand and dove for the goal line.

 

he certainly had control--that's the ridiculousness of the rule. he has full control with both hands, with both feet down, with a knee down, and then with his elbow down. it is a catch by any intuitive conception of the act of catching--there is no definition of 'catch' that was not fulfilled...

 

...except the NFL's 'process' absurdity.

[Antiramie 50]

 

he certainly had control--that's the ridiculousness of the rule. he has full control with both hands, with both feet down, with a knee down, and then with his elbow down. it is a catch by any intuitive conception of the act of catching--there is no definition of 'catch' that was not fulfilled...

 

...except the NFL's 'process' absurdity.

 

Exactly. Why going to the ground excludes every other determining factor of a catch because someone is in the act of falling is beyond me. A guy can stumble five steps with the ball tucked but because he's also moving downward he still has to maintain control after he'd normally be down by contact.

[Reality 2,710]

 

he certainly had control--that's the ridiculousness of the rule. he has full control with both hands, with both feet down, with a knee down, and then with his elbow down. it is a catch by any intuitive conception of the act of catching--there is no definition of 'catch' that was not fulfilled...

 

...except the NFL's 'process' absurdity.

Exactly, I don't even blame the rule, the rule was wrongly interpreted to begin with. The lunge being called an uncommon act is the only reason the rule was invoked.

 

If the lunge was considered a football move, which it obviously was, there's no reason to even discuss the process. 3 steps while securing the ball against the chest, then lunging with one hand toward the goal line while the knee and elbow contact inbounds is plenty to satisfy the requirements for a catch.

 

Refs comments after game btw

 

"Although the receiver is possessiong the football, he must maintain possession of that football throughout the entire process of the catch, Steratore told a pool reporter after the game. In our judgment, he maintained possession but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game. We deemed that by our judgment to be the full process of the catch, and at the time he lands and the ball hits the ground, it comes loose as it hits the ground, which would make that incomplete; although he re-possesses it, it does not contact the ground when he reaches so the repossession is irrelevant because it was ruled an incomplete pass when we had the ball hit the ground."

 

Several "judgments" made by the ref.

[Serpent 51]

So when a WR catches the ball, takes a step or whatever, then gets hit and the ball pops out, that's clearly a fumble. The WR possesses the ball for a second or two and the hit jars it loose, completed catch+ball then gets loose=fumble.

 

There would be something like 10 fumbles a game on average with those "completed passes" and fumble.

 

People put the thing on slow motion and advance it frame by frame and then turn around and insist it was a catch. Ridiculous. In real time it was just your average incomplete pass.

[sirensong 111]

So when a WR catches the ball, takes a step or whatever, then gets hit and the ball pops out, that's clearly a fumble. The WR possesses the ball for a second or two and the hit jars it loose, completed catch+ball then gets loose=fumble.

 

There would be something like 10 fumbles a game on average with those "completed passes" and fumble.

 

People put the thing on slow motion and advance it frame by frame and then turn around and insist it was a catch. Ridiculous. In real time it was just your average incomplete pass.

 

 

this is ridiculous. until 2011 in the NFL, the definition of a catch was full control of the ball, followed by both feet (or one knee) on the ground. once that happens, loss of control afterwards after was either a fumble or a dead ball/DBC. it was just like the sideline rules for receptions--feet on the ground in the field of play is what established possession. that rule worked for most of a century, and it works even better now that replay can establish ball control (no ball movement relative to hands/arms) and possession (feet). that's what a catch is.

 

furthermore, i challenge you to find 10 examples in that same game of the process rule preventing a fumble. hell--i challenge you to find 10 examples in the entire playoffs. since it happens so often, you should have no trouble at all coming up with them.

 

it's ok--we'll wait.

 

your argument is bad and you should feel bad.

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

No catch.

Easy call.

No catch.

 

Let's move on. The only opinion that matter is the head ref that make the call.

[rallo 132]

Exactly, I don't even blame the rule, the rule was wrongly interpreted to begin with. The lunge being called an uncommon act is the only reason the rule was invoked.

 

If the lunge was considered a football move, which it obviously was, there's no reason to even discuss the process. 3 steps while securing the ball against the chest, then lunging with one hand toward the goal line while the knee and elbow contact inbounds is plenty to satisfy the requirements for a catch.

 

Refs comments after game btw

 

"Although the receiver is possessiong the football, he must maintain possession of that football throughout the entire process of the catch, Steratore told a pool reporter after the game. In our judgment, he maintained possession but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game. We deemed that by our judgment to be the full process of the catch, and at the time he lands and the ball hits the ground, it comes loose as it hits the ground, which would make that incomplete; although he re-possesses it, it does not contact the ground when he reaches so the repossession is irrelevant because it was ruled an incomplete pass when we had the ball hit the ground."

 

Several "judgments" made by the ref.

 

exactly... while these judgements are fair... i don't think they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't a catch... which i thought was needed to overturn a play...

 

beating a dead horse, but nobody would have a problem with this if it were called incomplete of the field...

 

but the ref who was less that 5 yards away had a 'judgement' that it was a catch... seems odd

[rallo 132]

So when a WR catches the ball, takes a step or whatever, then gets hit and the ball pops out, that's clearly a fumble. The WR possesses the ball for a second or two and the hit jars it loose, completed catch+ball then gets loose=fumble.

 

There would be something like 10 fumbles a game on average with those "completed passes" and fumble.

 

People put the thing on slow motion and advance it frame by frame and then turn around and insist it was a catch. Ridiculous. In real time it was just your average incomplete pass.

 

except for the official less than 5 yards away from the play... he saw it in real time... had the best view in the house... he called it a catch

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

I think all the experts that say it should have been ruled a catch are wrong. The ball does hit the ground, but thats not the only reason it wasnt a catch. Dez never had full possession of the ball before it touched the ground. Why are so many people ignoring this fact. Chris Carter is the only analyst i have heard who definitively said it wasnt a catch. So no control + ball coming loose contacting the ground = incomplete.

[Sho Nuff 719]

I think all the experts that say it should have been ruled a catch are wrong. The ball does hit the ground, but thats not the only reason it wasnt a catch. Dez never had full possession of the ball before it touched the ground. Why are so many people ignoring this fact. Chris Carter is the only analyst i have heard who definitively said it wasnt a catch. So no control + ball coming loose contacting the ground = incomplete.

 

Most experts have said by the rule its not a catch.

Every rules guy...former ref...and so on for the most part has said that "by the NFL rule" it was not a catch.

[roroco 75]

Geez, people can be so stubborn. Not only does Calvin Johnson get dinged for this rule all the time, we see it nearly every game in a different scenario. If a WR stretches out to catch a ball going out of bounds, it is not enough for them to have complete control and 2 feet down. If the ball comes loose, then it is incomplete. The only difference here is that the ball remains inbounds, and it doesn't matter if the WR regains control.

 

The bottom line is the WR has to catch the ball and has to control the ball before and after the the full process of the catch - even if he goes to the ground in bounds.

[sirensong 111]

I think all the experts that say it should have been ruled a catch are wrong. The ball does hit the ground, but thats not the only reason it wasnt a catch. Dez never had full possession of the ball before it touched the ground. Why are so many people ignoring this fact. Chris Carter is the only analyst i have heard who definitively said it wasnt a catch. So no control + ball coming loose contacting the ground = incomplete.

 

you're talking about 2 different things. once he gets the ball around shield's hand, he unquestionably has full control of the ball, which is grasped firmly in both hands--no ball movement relative to his hands. this is control. he then drops one hand to the ground, but retains as much control of the ball as any RB has when he is carrying one-handed. this is still control.

 

but by rule, he has not yet established possession. because he loses control when the ball contacts the ground, it was correctly ruled as no possession--an incomplete pass. most people acknowledge that it was the correct call under the rule. what the vast majority of us are saying (and have said since the rule was first established) is that the rule itself is stupid.

[rallo 132]

 

you're talking about 2 different things. once he gets the ball around shield's hand, he unquestionably has full control of the ball, which is grasped firmly in both hands--no ball movement relative to his hands. this is control. he then drops one hand to the ground, but retains as much control of the ball as any RB has when he is carrying one-handed. this is still control.

 

but by rule, he has not yet established possession. because he loses control when the ball contacts the ground, it was correctly ruled as no possession--an incomplete pass. most people acknowledge that it was the correct call under the rule. what the vast majority of us are saying (and have said since the rule was first established) is that the rule itself is stupid.

 

i think the problem i had with it, is that the rule has a few amendments that make it very unclear and open to different kinds of interpretation.

 

The 'judgement call' comes down to if you think Dez was diving for the catch/ falling the whole time without the ability to "establish possession" even though he made a 'catch'. If you think he was falling uncontrollably, then the rule is pretty clear cut... even though he caught the ball he did not complete the process, and it would be an incomplete pass

 

If you think Dez controlled possesion and was able to make another move forward before reaching for the goal (ie not falling to the ground uncontrollably)... then he is considered a ball carrier at that point, and it's a catch + a ground forced fumble (shield contacted him to the ground) so it's first and goal from the 1.

 

My problem with the whole issue is that it is not 100% clear whether Dez was falling uncontrollably (with possession but no move common to the game) or lunging for the goal with the ball in his hands (possession + football move)... because of this uncertainty, i feel there is no way anyone can overturn that call.

 

That said... game ovah, cowboys might not have won anyway, other contributing factors... yadda yadda yadda...

 

We can all agree that at least explanation of the rule needs to change if not the rule itself...

[rallo 132]

so i guess the whole possession theory means

 

you either think

 

A. Dez caught the ball, but was diving/falling uncontrollably

 

or

 

B. Dez caught the ball and was able to lunge for the goal

[sirensong 111]

so i guess the whole possession theory means

 

you either think

 

A. Dez caught the ball, but was diving/falling uncontrollably

 

or

 

B. Dez caught the ball and was able to lunge for the goal

 

 

as i posted earlier, he certainly caught the ball by any definition of what 'catching' means to 6+ billion people on the planet. however, the monumental stupidity of the process rule prevented that play from being ruled a 'reception'.

 

by the rules of the NFL prior to this same referee's ridiculous call in 2011, dez caught the ball, fumbled, and recovered his own fumble within the field of play. first and goal at the 1. however, those rules were thrown out by the league, in favor of the new 'process' crap. the only reasonable argument against the final judgment is that dez's lunge counted as a 'move common to the game of football'. since that term is undefined on the rule, there is no grounds to claim that it qualifies.

 

this does bring up a technical matter though--due to the structure of the replay rules, the burden of proof gets wonky. by rule, the replay needed to show irrefutable visual evidence that the lunge was not a football move.

 

would you say that the replay proved that it was not?

[travis_henrys_baby_momma 10]

Yes, the ball contacted the ground. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000456759/Did-Dez-catch-it

 

1:07 mark

 

Thanks....that's what I was looking for....I don't have cable or a DVR....but watched some of the game on Verizon's NFL app. Was just curious....as the replay I kept seeing didn't show the ball making contact.

[Serpent 51]

 

 

this is ridiculous. until 2011 in the NFL, the definition of a catch was full control of the ball, followed by both feet (or one knee) on the ground. once that happens, loss of control afterwards after was either a fumble or a dead ball/DBC. it was just like the sideline rules for receptions--feet on the ground in the field of play is what established possession. that rule worked for most of a century, and it works even better now that replay can establish ball control (no ball movement relative to hands/arms) and possession (feet). that's what a catch is.

 

furthermore, i challenge you to find 10 examples in that same game of the process rule preventing a fumble. hell--i challenge you to find 10 examples in the entire ###### playoffs. since it happens so often, you should have no trouble at all coming up with them.

 

it's ok--we'll wait.

 

your argument is bad and you should feel bad.

 

Why don't you go and find 10 examples of that Dez "catch" being ruled a catch instead? I'll wait.

[sirensong 111]

 

There would be something like 10 fumbles a game on average with those "completed passes" and fumble.

 

 

 

you're the one who made this nonsensical claim, so it's up to you to support it or to admit that you're talking out of your ass. trying to weasel your way around it by changing the subject counts as the latter.

 

you said an average of 10 fumbles a game. i challenge you to cite 10 of them for the entire season.

 

do you even watch football, or just check fantasy stats?

[mobb_deep 917]

[Serpent 51]

 

 

you're the one who made this nonsensical claim, so it's up to you to support it or to admit that you're talking out of your ass. trying to weasel your way around it by changing the subject counts as the latter.

 

you said an average of 10 fumbles a game. i challenge you to cite 10 of them for the entire season.

 

do you even watch football, or just check fantasy stats?

 

I've played it, I've coached it, I watch it and know it much better than you.

The problem is you are stupid. In your mind the drivel you out of your mouth makes sense, in the real world you're just an idiot and people know better than to bother with you.

 

Add me to that list of people. retard.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

 

you're talking about 2 different things. once he gets the ball around shield's hand, he unquestionably has full control of the ball, which is grasped firmly in both hands--no ball movement relative to his hands. this is control. he then drops one hand to the ground, but retains as much control of the ball as any RB has when he is carrying one-handed. this is still control.

 

but by rule, he has not yet established possession. because he loses control when the ball contacts the ground, it was correctly ruled as no possession--an incomplete pass. most people acknowledge that it was the correct call under the rule. what the vast majority of us are saying (and have said since the rule was first established) is that the rule itself is stupid.

Yes i understand all that, and i agree by the rule most agree it wasnt a catch. I dont think it should have been a catch even without the rule. Thats where i disagree with most people. The amount of time he had control was so small, that i dont think it should have been ruled a catch no matter what.

[sirensong 111]

 

I've played it, I've coached it, I watch it and know it much better than you.

The problem is you are stupid. In your mind the drivel you ###### out of your mouth makes sense, in the real world you're just an idiot and people know better than to bother with you.

 

Add me to that list of people. ###### retard.

 

 

so you couldn't come up with anything to support your claim, and are still trying to change the subject. this is a pretty standard argumentative technique--if you can't bring facts, bring more volume. my students often try this when they haven't done the assigned readings.

 

 

[sirensong 111]

Yes i understand all that, and i agree by the rule most agree it wasnt a catch. I dont think it should have been a catch even without the rule. Thats where i disagree with most people. The amount of time he had control was so small, that i dont think it should have been ruled a catch no matter what.

 

 

old rules would have been a clear catch and fumble. it isn't based on the amount of time--feet down with control established possession.

 

otherwise, how many hundredths of a second are required to determine whether it was a catch or not, and when should the official start the catch clock?

[mobb_deep 917]

 

 

old rules would have been a clear catch and fumble. it isn't based on the amount of time--feet down with control established possession.

 

otherwise, how many hundredths of a second are required to determine whether it was a catch or not, and when should the official start the catch clock?