Divisional Round Playoff Discussion

[The Breeze]

Some of the comments here are making me chuckle. Everyone has their level of emotional attachment and way of rooting. My brother, a washington fan, thinks the best outcome during a Cowboys Giants game is a plane crashing at midfield.

I just enjoy good football. Sometimes one player will irritate me more than anything else. I typically root for the NFC teams.

I love the way Seattle plays and thought the Ravens had the best shot at them.

I'm not so sure the Colts D is for real, due to the stark reality of Manning's demise. I think Brady will shred them.

I agree with Kapp, Manning's standards are too high to go another season if that's how he's gonna perform.
Saw an article on ESPN citing anon sources that Peyton has been playing with a torn quad muscle since the San Diego game. Not sure I believe it....but that could really hurt his throwing at his age. http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2014/st ... nth-season

Denver(Elway) may have Childressed the QB position by going after Manning......they have one QB if he doesn't return, Brock Osweiler(sp?) and the coaching staff that may get shaken up.

[John_Viveiros]

The whole football move thing is irrelevant in regards to the Bryant drop.

Only to you, and to the referees who watched the replay. For the rest of us, it seems that we follow the other rule of replay - if you aren't sure, don't overturn. What you and the ref who reviewed the play are saying is you are 100% sure that there is no way that switching the ball to his left and and lunging out while bracing the ground with his right arm is a football move common to the game. I think that's absurd. The call was ruled a catch on the field, and that's the way it should have stood, because of the ambiguity of whether it was a football move. I'm not sure it was - I think so. Had it been ruled incomplete to begin with, what I saw couldn't have overturned it, because it wasn't irrefutable. Clearly, this was "refutable" - just look around the web, at what guys like Nate Burleson and Brian Baldinger (both with Minnesota connections!) are saying.

On the other hand, karma is a b**ch, because Dez got the benefit of not getting called for the obvious unsportsmanlike conduct call when he ran out onto the field to confront the referees last week.

And again, the refs missed Randall Cobb taking off his helmet at the end of the last Packer play that sealed the game. I'm beginning to think that these calls only go against us.

[Purpnation]

Only to you, and to the referees who watched the replay. For the rest of us, it seems that we follow the other rule of replay - if you aren't sure, don't overturn. What you and the ref who reviewed the play are saying is you are 100% sure that there is no way that switching the ball to his left and and lunging out while bracing the ground with his right arm is a football move common to the game. I think that's absurd. The call was ruled a catch on the field, and that's the way it should have stood, because of the ambiguity of whether it was a football move. I'm not sure it was - I think so. Had it been ruled incomplete to begin with, what I saw couldn't have overturned it, because it wasn't irrefutable. Clearly, this was "refutable" - just look around the web, at what guys like Nate Burleson and Brian Baldinger (both with Minnesota connections!) are saying.

On the other hand, karma is a b**ch, because Dez got the benefit of not getting called for the obvious unsportsmanlike conduct call when he ran out onto the field to confront the referees last week.

And again, the refs missed Randall Cobb taking off his helmet at the end of the last Packer play that sealed the game. I'm beginning to think that these calls only go against us.

No, it doesn't matter, the football move litterally has no bearing on this call being that when he hit the ground, the ball hit the ground and popped loose out of his hands, no matter how much people dont like it, that is an incomplete pass, the simple fact of the matter is Bryant failed to complete the process of the catch, dont hate the call, hate the rule. (Though I have to say that common sense dictates that when you catch a ball and it hits the turf and pops out of your hands while you are going to the ground, it is incomplete. So I don't really understand all this hate on the process of the catch rule, but to each their own.)

[John_Viveiros]

No, it doesn't matter, the football move literally has no bearing on this call being that when he hit the ground, the ball hit the ground and popped loose out of his hands, no matter how much people don't like it, that is an incomplete pass, the simple fact of the matter is Bryant failed to complete the process of the catch, don't hate the call, hate the rule. (Though I have to say that common sense dictates that when you catch a ball and it hits the turf and pops out of your hands while you are going to the ground, it is incomplete. So I don't really understand all this hate on the process of the catch rule, but to each their own.)

You know that's just wrong. Charles Johnson lost control of the ball this year going to the ground (a while after making a football move) and it was a fumble (not incomplete) and subsequent recovery by Felton for the TD. But because he had 'made a move common to the game of football' - in that case, a cut upfield - it was considered possession and a fumble.

I don't see anywhere where it says the "move" has to be a change of direction - moving the ball to one arm to extend the ball further seems to follow the spirit of that rule, in my book. And, seemingly, in the eyes of most people, if what I read on the internet is to be believed. Again - maybe that's not what Dez was doing. But because it was ruled as a catch on the field, to overturn, you need to be sure that isn't what was happening. And I don't feel anyone can be sure of that.

Really, I was with you until I was reminded by the game commentators that he was lunging toward the goal to extend the ball over the line. That's a "move", and at that point, the ball hitting the ground "has no bearing on this call" as you say.

[TSonn]

You know that's just wrong. Charles Johnson lost control of the ball this year going to the ground (a while after making a football move) and it was a fumble (not incomplete) and subsequent recovery by Felton for the TD. But because he had 'made a move common to the game of football' - in that case, a cut upfield - it was considered possession and a fumble.

I don't see anywhere where it says the "move" has to be a change of direction - moving the ball to one arm to extend the ball further seems to follow the spirit of that rule, in my book. And, seemingly, in the eyes of most people, if what I read on the internet is to be believed. Again - maybe that's not what Dez was doing. But because it was ruled as a catch on the field, to overturn, you need to be sure that isn't what was happening. And I don't feel anyone can be sure of that.

Really, I was with you until I was reminded by the game commentators that he was lunging toward the goal to extend the ball over the line. That's a "move", and at that point, the ball hitting the ground "has no bearing on this call" as you say.

I was on that line of thought right away, too. See earlier in this thread. But after reading more about it and hearing about it constantly, it apparently comes down to whether or not Dez is falling while he's catching it. If he is falling, then none of this football move stuff (2 steps, lunging) matters because he has to secure the ball through the fall (which Dez didn't do). If he is not falling, then the football move stuff comes into play.

To me, it doesn't look like he's falling while catching the ball. He's gets tripped around the same time he secures the ball. So, I still think the call is wrong. The refs apparently saw Dez as falling while catching the ball.

[Purpnation]

Yea it was close, that is for sure. I gotta say I really think the right call was made, and I have since I saw the first pr second replay where I saw the ball hit the ground and pop loose.

[PurpleKoolaid]

The fact there wasn't sufficient evidence to overturn is what ticks me off. Ive seen that exact play called both ways, and onces it called as a catch, it should have been left. And guess who the call favored

[Purpnation]

The fact there wasn't sufficient evidence to overturn is what ticks me off. Ive seen that exact play called both ways, and onces it called as a catch, it should have been left. And guess who the call favored

At least that call was by the rulebook, I have never EVER seen a blatant penalty just be picked up and wiped away after announcing it like the Boys got last week.