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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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
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.
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.