All Forums | NFL Betting

The non-catch....

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 2164
Posts: 49
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 7891
Posted: #26
He caught the ball in the air and immediately started falling to the ground (whether or not his legs were moving forward), and in those cases you need to maintain possession of the ball throughout, which he did not (ball hit ground and popped up) so it's incomplete. 

The rule is goofy and in plays like this, or in the Calvin Johnson no-catch vs. Chicago it seems like they should be catches, but by rule, they are not.

You can switch the ball around from hand to hand all you want, if you are still falling to the ground, you still need to keep that ball off the ground and prevent it from moving if it does hit the ground. 


 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #27

Quote Originally Posted by smarterthanyou:

per the rule, the ball is allowed to pop into the air as long as it never hits the ground.

 

Huh??  Youre kidding right??  Are you saying when he reached out the ball didn't hit the ground before going into the air??

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 12
Posted: #28
When a reciever is hit by a defender and the reviever had landed with two feet with control of the ball and made a football move and done all those three things clearly it's a fumble. 
What you are talking about oaif a reciever lands and gets hit, that's incomplet because the receiver doesn't have time to do all three things,control land and football move. AND YOU LITERALLY JUST CONTRAICTED YOURSELF. because you just said "the moment he reached" if dez Bryant landed and in your own words "reached" that constitutes a football move. Which would turn dez Bryant from a reciever to a runner and therefore down by contact. He never loses control f the ball in the air only on the ground. And I'm honestly not arguing catch or no catch its a judgement call. There are two facts he landed with two feet and had control of the ball in the air. Then there is an opinion of whether or not he made a football move prior to te ball hitting the ground. I thought he did some think he didn't, the refs didn't. My problem is there is no way you can conclusively say that he didn't make a football move and overturn a called catch.


Quote: Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234]

 

What happens if after he landed the safety comes over and hits him and knocks the ball out???  Incomplete correct??  Yes....

According to you though him landing was enough and it would be ruled a fumble??  No...wrong

In the process of LANDING....or what Cowboy fans/backers are calling taking two steps....the ball moves on his body...that right there shows he never even completed the catch yet..

There is 100% a way of over-turning the call...the moment he reached out and the ball pops in the air...

It has nothing to do with me being a Packer fan or not...I don't bet their games...they still had 4 mins to score...

The ball popped in the air when he hit the ground...its simple

[/Quote]
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2014
Posts: 719
Posted: #29
Dez made a great catch and followed up with greater effort to reach the goal line.There Will be some kind of rule change.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2014
Posts: 2341
Posted: #30
he never lost control of the ball.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #31

Quote Originally Posted by smarterthanyou:

he never lost control of the ball.

After reaching out the ball, the ball hit then grond and was in the air with zero hands on it....not sure what youre saying here

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 12
Posted: #32
Every time you say reach you contradict yourself. Because if dez bryan reached its a football move and therefore a catch. The officials didn't see a reach and said that it wasn't a football move and therefore if a player doesn't make a football move prior to the ball hitting the ground then he needs to control through the process. But obviously you think he reached and made a football move because you keep saying it 


Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

After reaching out the ball, the ball hit then grond and was in the air with zero hands on it....not sure what youre saying here

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #33

Quote Originally Posted by Eccapper1105:

 

Actually youre wrong...reached or stretched his arm, it doesn't matter. 

Go on ESPN and read their article on the play...it says explain the reverse perfect.

The rule states a player must establish himself on the ground and make a football move...

The refs feel that Dez was constantly falling to the ground, that he never established himself with a catch...

 

So, if a player is going across the middle and jumps to catch on the ball....makes the catch and on the way down and "reaches" for more yards without hitting the ground...but gets hit and loses the ball...

Is that a fumble or a incomplete pass??  Its an incomplete pass even though he "reached"

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2010
Posts: 2801
Posted: #34
Quote Originally Posted by KobezKing:

So letsgopack if its "landing" then how is a pass complete on sideline when a receiver jumps and lands dragging two feet bfor going out of bounds a catch? U make no sense bud

Thats a great point, how come those sideline catches where the WR jumps catches the ball and falls out of bounds is a catch? shouldnt he be out of bounds since he didnt make a football move to complete the process?
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 12
Posted: #35
If a reciever catches a ball lands on two feet in the field takes a step and reaches the ball and it gets hit then its a fumble, because when a receiver does the three things in the rules to make a catch , control, land, and football move then he is no longer a reciever and a runner. Your problem is you don't have a basic understanding of the rule in its entirety. Dez Bryant landed with two feet and control. Whether he made a football move or not is debatable, if you believe he made a football move by reaching then it's a catch. If you believe that he didn't make a football move and the the reach and step was momentum then he must complete the process of the catch through the ground and it's not a catch. But the fact that people are debating whether or not it was or wasn't a conscience football move shows that there is not conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field because it doesn't have to do with the ball moving on the ground, everyone with eyes knows the ball moves on the ground and therefore it's not a catch but what is inconclusive is whether or not he was an established a runner prior to hitting the ground and should not be overturned. And like I previosuly stated to me when I say one of te best recievers in the game have the ball in his control in his upper body and move the ball away from his body towards the goal line it makes me believe that he certainly has the body control to make a conscience decision and reach for the end zone constituting a move common to the game of football
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 12
Posted: #36
This is exactly the rule and this is what people are misinterpreting, those are catches or not catches do to the calvin Johnson rule. A player must control land and football move. When a football move is not made because you are going to the ground, in the endzone, or out of bounds then you must completly control the ball through the catch or through the ground. That's not what happened to dez because imo he had already established the three criteria to make it a catch and the rule of the process should never come into play and if you don't think so that's fine but you can't say conclusively that he didn't 



Quote Originally Posted by Zman55:


Thats a great point, how come those sideline catches where the WR jumps catches the ball and falls out of bounds is a catch? shouldnt he be out of bounds since he didnt make a football move to complete the process?
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2011
Posts: 1553
Posted: #37
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

 

Its the entire process when you catch the ball in mid-air...its not hard to understand..

The ground cant cause a fumble but can cause an incomplete pass...when the ball pops in the air when he is reaching, the process was still not over...thus its incomplete


ok yes or no when dez moved the ball from 2 hands to one hand and then dove towards the endzone was that a football move?
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #38

Quote Originally Posted by Eccapper1105:

If a reciever catches a ball lands on two feet in the field takes a step and reaches the ball and it gets hit then its a fumble, because when a receiver does the three things in the rules to make a catch , control, land, and football move then he is no longer a reciever and a runner. Your problem is you don't have a basic understanding of the rule in its entirety. Dez Bryant landed with two feet and control. Whether he made a football move or not is debatable, if you believe he made a football move by reaching then it's a catch. If you believe that he didn't make a football move and the the reach and step was momentum then he must complete the process of the catch through the ground and it's not a catch. But the fact that people are debating whether or not it was or wasn't a conscience football move shows that there is not conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field because it doesn't have to do with the ball moving on the ground, everyone with eyes knows the ball moves on the ground and therefore it's not a catch but what is inconclusive is whether or not he was an established a runner prior to hitting the ground and should not be overturned. And like I previosuly stated to me when I say one of te best recievers in the game have the ball in his control in his upper body and move the ball away from his body towards the goal line it makes me believe that he certainly has the body control to make a conscience decision and reach for the end zone constituting a move common to the game of football

 

Here's how Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 reads:

"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."

In this case, Bryant took two steps and lunged toward the goal line. Why was this not an "act common to the game"? Because, by NFL rules, Bryant did it while going to the ground. He never established himself as "upright." Steratore, in Sunday's official pool report, said: "In our judgment, [Bryant] … continued to fall and never had another act common to the game."

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 12
Posted: #39
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

 

Here's how Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 reads:

"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."

In this case, Bryant took two steps and lunged toward the goal line. Why was this not an "act common to the game"? Because, by NFL rules, Bryant did it while going to the ground. He never established himself as "upright." Steratore, in Sunday's official pool report, said: "In our judgment, [Bryant] … continued to fall and never had another act common to the game."

 
Like ESPN and there ignorance you only posted half the rule and this is where the misinterpretation lies. The first line of the rule you posted states that if a player goes to the ground IN THE ACT OF CATCHING the ball, however by nfl rules, the prior paragraph that I post states, that one those three things are completed its a catch and therefor no longer is dez in the process of making a catch, he did the three things and made the catch. The refs say he didn't they say he had control he landed but didn't make a football move and therefore was still in the process of making the catch on the ground. If they constituted the reach as a football move it would have counted as a catch but they didn't and that in no way shape or form should be conclusive in that replay.

COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS

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:

  1. (a)  secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

  2. (b)  touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

  3. (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.). 

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #40
Quote Originally Posted by Eccapper1105:

 
Like ESPN and there ignorance you only posted half the rule and this is where the misinterpretation lies. The first line of the rule you posted states that if a player goes to the ground IN THE ACT OF CATCHING the ball, however by nfl rules, the prior paragraph that I post states, that one those three things are completed its a catch and therefor no longer is dez in the process of making a catch, he did the three things and made the catch. The refs say he didn't they say he had control he landed but didn't make a football move and therefore was still in the process of making the catch on the ground. If they constituted the reach as a football move it would have counted as a catch but they didn't and that in no way shape or form should be conclusive in that replay.

COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS

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:

  1. (a)  secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

  2. (b)  touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

  3. (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.). 

 

What you and many people aren't seeing/hearing/understanding...

Dez was mid-air...people arguing this assume him LANDING...is taking 2 steps or a football move...ITS NOT...and that's what the refs said...him landing was just his momentum moving him forwards towards the goaline...

HE DIDNT LAND and make football moves, his feet hitting the ground was NOT two steps...

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2011
Posts: 1553
Posted: #41
 If they constituted the reach as a football move it would have counted as a catch but they didn't and that in no way shape or form should be conclusive in that replay.



i disagree first he moved the ball to one hand from 2 second you can see the turf come up from his foot when he lunges for the goal line that is a intentional act with control of the ball he was not falling he was pushing off his foot to score
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2011
Posts: 1553
Posted: #42
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

 

What you and many people aren't seeing/hearing/understanding...

Dez was mid-air...people arguing this assume him LANDING...is taking 2 steps or a football move...ITS NOT...and that's what the refs said...him landing was just his momentum moving him forwards towards the goaline...

HE DIDNT LAND and make football moves, his feet hitting the ground was NOT two steps...


yes or no when dez moved the ball from 2 hands to one hand then dove for the goal was that a football move? of course it was you can see the turf come up when he pushed off to get in the endzone
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 12
Posted: #43
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

 

What you and many people aren't seeing/hearing/understanding...

Dez was mid-air...people arguing this assume him LANDING...is taking 2 steps or a football move...ITS NOT...and that's what the refs said...him landing was just his momentum moving him forwards towards the goaline...

HE DIDNT LAND and make football moves, his feet hitting the ground was NOT two steps...


I'm not debating whether dez caught it or not... I don't know whether he did or didn't in my eyes and in my opinion, the act of having the ball in two hands secured tight to dez body, a top reciever in the league has enough body control to keep the ball tight to his body while hitting the ground. The fact that he didn't shows me he made a conscience effort to reach for the goalline constituting a football move, but I definitely see your opinion and see the refs opinion that it was momentum..... However what everyone is missing because they are bitching whether it's a catch or not is that it was ruled a catch on te field... And there is no way you me an official or anyone can look at that replay and CONCLUSIVELY decide that he didn't make a football move.... I don't think he took three steps. To me he landed took one step and moved the ball away from his body I don't see how it's clear football move and I don't see how it's not a clear football move and to me that's the error in judgment by the officials 
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2005
Posts: 37877
Posted: #44
GET RID OF REPLAY, STOP THE NONSENSE
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 1396
Posted: #45
In my view, Yall arguing bout whether Dez made a fball move affirmatively demonstrates that the initial call should not have been reversed.   Too many nfl officials simply recall the play.   It is interesting that in defending call ref says that in their opinion  Dez didn't make a fball move.  Well that's not the std of review.   What he should have said was the replay affirmatively shows that Dez didn't make a fball move.   There should be no room for opinion.

The early review of the Cobb catch is another great illustration.   If u want to say that based on replay u think he caught the ball that's fine but to suggest that the replay affirmatively refutes that the ball hit the ground first, is fundamentally flawed.  

The fact that the so called experts continually disagree illustrates that the review process is not uniform and not being done correctly.   Otherwise most of the calls would be left in effect.

Sad way to end Dallas season but I'm guessing detroit feels the same way.   Hopefully Seattle will end all what if discussions.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2015
Posts: 2
Posted: #46
it was clearly a FUMBLE and a recovery by DALLAS period. End of story
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2006
Posts: 18880
Posted: #47
we got azzfkd ,lucky we took 6
bigFnPOO
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 12603
Posted: #48
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

 

Actually youre wrong...reached or stretched his arm, it doesn't matter. 

Go on ESPN and read their article on the play...it says explain the reverse perfect.

The rule states a player must establish himself on the ground and make a football move...

The refs feel that Dez was constantly falling to the ground, that he never established himself with a catch...

 

So, if a player is going across the middle and jumps to catch on the ball....makes the catch and on the way down and "reaches" for more yards without hitting the ground...but gets hit and loses the ball...

Is that a fumble or a incomplete pass??  Its an incomplete pass even though he "reached"


Right here you make it perfectly clear why call should NOT have been overturned- "The refs FEEL" !  After watching numerous calls the last several weeks that should have been reversed but weren't because "it wasn't 100% conclusive" well this is the poster child of all time for not being 100% conclusive.
 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2014
Posts: 2341
Posted: #49
he never lost control of the ball.
All Forums | NFL Betting
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.