He caught the ball, had control of it and even took a step with it. Throughout the vast majority of NFL history, that would have been considered a catch. However, under an idiotic, overly-written and relatively new rule, it wasn't called a catch. For some reason, you seem positively delighted by that.Purpnation wrote: Except that was a terrible, awful abomination of a no call, Bryants incomplete catch was a great call, and the only acceptable one. He did not complete the process of the catch, that is a fact.
Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
-
- Franchise Player
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:29 am
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
The ball hit the ground and bounced out of his hands while he was still in the process of the catch, Sounds incomplete to me.Mothman wrote: He caught the ball, had control of it and even took a step with it. Throughout the vast majority of NFL history, that would have been considered a catch. However, under an idiotic, overly-written and relatively new rule, it wasn't called a catch. For some reason, you seem positively delighted by that.
You claim he had control of it, but the replay clearly shows, he DIDNT. The ball hitting the ground and bouncing out if the hands is a far cry from having control of the ball.
Last edited by Purpnation on Sun Jan 11, 2015 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
Enough. You can make your point without being obnoxious. Check the attitude or move on to another subject.Purpnation wrote:The ball hit the ground and bounced out of his hands while he was on the ground. Sounds incomplete to me.
Me, the rulebook, and common sense all have one thing in common, we are correct.
-
- Franchise Player
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:29 am
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
Facts are facts, idk why a Viking fan is going out of the way to claim some cowpoke caught the ball when it literally hit the ground and bounced out of his hands, nothing in this equation makes sense.Mothman wrote: Enough. You can make your point without being obnoxious. Check the attitude or move on to another subject.
-
- Franchise Player
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:29 am
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
Texas Vike wrote:[
I disagree. I think it was a catch and I don't even think it's close. Heck of a grab by Dez. He has a right to be completely frustrated.
I hate that so many of these games are coming down to a referee's call. I hate Dallas, too, but I hate to see a great play get discarded like that, especially when it literally made the difference in the game.
It doesn't matter if you thought it was a catch, it wasn't. If you dont like the rule, then so be it, but the fact is he didn't complete the process of the catch, that is the cold hard fact of the matter.
Much of the problem lies from people not liking the rule, not that I understand, as the ball hitting the ground and the squirting out certainly sounds like an incomplete to me.[/quote]
No cold hard facts here. My interpretation of the rule and that play was that it was a catch. You are free to interpret it differently, but check your attitude.[/quote]
Your interpretation of the rule doesn't mean.anything, all that matters is the rule. Bouncing the ball off the turf and then recatching it does not a catch make.
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
Yeah, he lost possession for that millisecond when the ball hit the ground. Most people are saying that he showed possession during the 2/3 steps he took and the lounge he made with the ball.Purpnation wrote: Facts are facts, idk why a Viking fan is going out of the way to claim some cowpoke caught the ball when it literally hit the ground and bounced out of his hands, nothing in this equation makes sense.
That's where the problem is here. Is possession two steps? Is it a football move? So if a player does either (like Bryant did) then the ball hitting the ground shouldn't matter, right? That's what is different with the Megatron non-catch. It happened all in the end zone so two steps and a football move doesn't matter. This play didn't happen in the end zone so steps and a football move should matter.
To me it was called a catch and definitely didn't have indisputable evidence to overturn it.
-
- Franchise Player
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:29 am
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
Yeah, he lost possession for that millisecond when the ball hit the ground. Most people are saying that he showed possession during the 2/3 steps he took and the lounge he made with the ball.TSonn wrote:[
Facts are facts, idk why a Viking fan is going out of the way to claim some cowpoke caught the ball when it literally hit the ground and bounced out of his hands, nothing in this equation makes sense.
That's where the problem is here. Is possession two steps? Is it a football move? So if a player does either (like Bryant did) then the ball hitting the ground shouldn't matter, right? That's what is different with the Megatron non-catch. It happened all in the end zone so two steps and a football move doesn't matter. This play didn't happen in the end zone so steps and a football move should matter.
To me it was called a catch and definitely didn't have indisputable evidence to overturn it.[/quote]
The ball bounced off the ground before possession was established, this is an easy call to make. I didn't see anything even close to a football move but I'll keep my eye out. All I know, is the catch was interrupted by the ground and it is really a stretch to say that he established possession before the ball hit the ground.
Color me befuddles at all the confusion over this one call, it seemed like a pretty clear cut, the ball bounces off the ground before the catch is completed, therefore incomplete, I never would have expected this type of reaction from it.
Last edited by Purpnation on Sun Jan 11, 2015 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
Check the attitude.Purpnation wrote:Facts are facts, idk why a Viking fan is going out of the way to claim some cowpoke caught the ball when it literally hit the ground and bounced out of his hands, nothing in this equation makes sense.
As for why Vikings fans are annoyed by the call: many of us are football fans as well as Vikings fans.
Here's why some of us are bothered by the call:
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/pu ... Fumble.pdf
I thought Bryant met those criteria. He caught the ball, controlled it, took two steps (so both feet touched the ground) and reached forward with it as he approached the goal line. He met the criteria for a catch.Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass.
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward
pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it,
advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.). Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Here's the "going to the ground" rule:
The problem, as I see it, is that he didn't go to the ground in the act of catching the pass. he caught the pass, established possession, and then went to the ground. I think the applicable rule should have been that the ground cannot cause a fumble.Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or
without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting
the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches
the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching
the ground, the pass is complete.
Oh, and here's the play:
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201501110 ... &tab=recap
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
Yeah, I agree Mothman. He took enough steps that it should have been ruled the same as a WR making a catch, running 20 yards, and getting tackled with the ball hitting the ground and popping out. Down by contact, no fumble.
I'm not sure how what Bryant did was NOT two steps and/or a football move (which is really what the replay needed to prove).
I'm not sure how what Bryant did was NOT two steps and/or a football move (which is really what the replay needed to prove).
-
- Franchise Player
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:29 am
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
Mothman wrote: Check the attitude.
As for why Vikings fans are annoyed by the call: many of us are football fans as well as Vikings fans.
Here's why some of us are bothered by the call:
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/pu ... Fumble.pdf
I thought Bryant met those criteria. He caught the ball, controlled it, took two steps (so both feet touched the ground) and reached forward with it as he approached the goal line. He met the criteria for a catch.
Here's the "going to the ground" rule:
The problem, as I see it, is that he didn't go to the ground in the act of catching the pass. he caught the pass, established possession, and then went to the ground. I think the applicable rule should have been that the ground cannot cause a fumble.
Oh, and here's the play:
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201501110 ... &tab=recap
I think most would counter your point about him taking two steps with the fact that the ball was contested and not clearly in his possession when both steps were taken. In any event, I.think that the process of the catch was not completed, and I really didn't understand the call being so heavily scrutinized, you have to complete the process of the catch and i simply dont think he did that.
That said, the Packers and Cowboys make my #### blood boil on both sides, so I'm just going to step away from this topic for fear of further letting my emotions best me. Thanks for the rulebook qoutes.
-
- Franchise Player
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:29 am
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
As I said, I think the counter point to this was that he was still trying to secure control during his two steps, rather then establishing possession and then taking two steps.TSonn wrote:Yeah, I agree Mothman. He took enough steps that it should have been ruled the same as a WR making a catch, running 20 yards, and getting tackled with the ball hitting the ground and popping out. Down by contact, no fumble.
I'm not sure how what Bryant did was NOT two steps and/or a football move (which is really what the replay needed to prove).
- PurpleKoolaid
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8641
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm
- x 28
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
The ball was secure, and he made a football move. Called a catch, overturned. It was a BS call overturn, on an awesome catch. He certainly had complete control twice as long as the slight hit to the turf.
Watching Brady, Rogers and Manning play, Rogers is the best QB in the NFL now. No doubt. How the heck can the Packers get Favre then Rogers? Just isn't fair.
I think Im the only person on this board that like the Seahawks.
Watching Brady, Rogers and Manning play, Rogers is the best QB in the NFL now. No doubt. How the heck can the Packers get Favre then Rogers? Just isn't fair.
I think Im the only person on this board that like the Seahawks.
- Kansas Viking
- Starship Commander
- Posts: 11256
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 5:08 am
- Location: Cestus III
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
No you're not.PurpleKoolaid wrote:
I think Im the only person on this board that like the Seahawks.
Mike
-
- Franchise Player
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:29 am
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
What football move did he make? I didn't even see him establish clear control of the ball, let alone make a football move with possesion. I think it was a great call and the correct one, even.if it did benefit the fudge.PurpleKoolaid wrote:The ball was secure, and he made a football move. Called a catch, overturned. It was a BS call overturn, on an awesome catch. He certainly had complete control twice as long as the slight hit to the turf.
Watching Brady, Rogers and Manning play, Rogers is the best QB in the NFL now. No doubt. How the heck can the Packers get Favre then Rogers? Just isn't fair.
I think Im the only person on this board that like the Seahawks.
You LIKE the Seahawks? I'm calling 911 immediately.
Re: Divisional Round Playoff Discussion
"Most" don't seem to be doing that here but this isn't a "majority rules" situation anyway. If you look at the film, his possession of the ball isn't being contested. It's in his hands and then he's able to shift it to one hand and extend it. He's in control of the football, he got both feet down and he made a move common to the game. I think he met the criteria for a catch before the ball hit the ground and the impact forced it loose.Purpnation wrote:I think most would counter your point about him taking two steps with the fact that the ball was contested and not clearly in his possession when both steps were taken.
... that's understandable but there's a reasonable argument to be made that he did. I don't think this is a clear-cut case of the rules being enforced properly.In any event, I.think that the process of the catch was not completed, and I really didn't understand the call being so heavily scrutinized, you have to complete the process of the catch and i simply don't think he did that.
there's also the question of whether the replay showed indisputable visual evidence that warranted changing the call on the field. I suppose that comes down to the official's judgment regarding what constitutes "an act common to the game". I think shifting the ball from two hands to one and lunging for the goal line should qualify but i understand how this "process rule" can be interpreted differently.
You're welcome.That said, the Packers and Cowboys make my #### blood boil on both sides, so I'm just going to step away from this topic for fear of further letting my emotions best me. Thanks for the rulebook qoutes.