All Forums | NFL Betting

You must maintain possession throughout the process

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 3963
Posts: 67
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2014
Posts: 2341
Posted: #26
i notice not one poster pasted the rule here.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2008
Posts: 8308
Posted: #27
Calls on the field can only be overturned when video replay suggests that there is no way ("indisputable") the call can be upheld. An even higher standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Seems like an extremely high bar needed to overturn a call...
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 505
Posted: #28
Quote Originally Posted by tootskie:


Do you think they f'n guessed when they looked at it in the replay booth.  That call was made because that's the F'n RULE. 
ya they flipped a coin under that booth cuz it sure looked like he made a football move AFTER he caught the ball and the ball only moved after those steps and he was reaching for the EZ. If you dont think the league is rigged, the obvious incomplete pass to cobb where you can clearly see for days the ball hit the ground first and they gave them the 1st down, you need your head checked
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2013
Posts: 15034
Posted: #29
Quote Originally Posted by richig761:

It's not a catch, sorry. It just wasn't.

Complain about the RULE ITSELF, all you want. But per the NFL rulebook, it was called correctly. 

The ground cannot cause the ball to move, and he was still in process of the catch when it happened. 

But that all depends on when the catch "happened" and whether or not he made a football move. There is so much leeway in how you interpret things. Nothing is black and white. The ref could have easily said the receiver had possession (and made a football move) before he hit the ground, which would make contact with the ground a non factor. This is where I think the calls Dallas got last week really hurt them as the league probably didn't want to give them another controversial call.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2008
Posts: 8308
Posted: #30
...And one that was not met based on interpretation of the rule as written. 

Had it been ruled incomplete initially, it would have been easily confirmed by applying the rule.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 26767
Posted: #31

Quote Originally Posted by Polar_Bear:

I was watching the game that did not have the receiver take 2 or 3 steps. Would hate to see you people walk if thats what you call stepping.

How do you catch a ball at the 5.1 yard line but then get to the 1 yard line without taking steps then?

I just watched it 10 times.

His first step was the 5.1 yard line

His 2nd step was the 3.8 yard line

His third step was the 2.8 yard line

All this happened before he even made the lunge or went down

 

Tell me which sentence is wrong

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2005
Posts: 2510
Posted: #32
I don't bet NFL so wasn't on this game.  My opinion was that it was not a catch but that there was not indisputable evidence to overturn.  The issue being a question over whether or not Bryant made a football move when he lunged and stretched the ball out with one hand.  To recap:

De novo review: incomplete
Instant case - "indisputable evidence to overturn" review: call should have stood
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 1004
Posted: #33
Quote Originally Posted by booshnugs:

Everyone avoiding the big factor...his opposite elbow was down prior to the ball going loose. Down by contact had possession etc......horrible call.
Down by contact can only be called after a receiver makes a football move.  You guys are all interpreting 2 feet down as a football move but that really doesn't make it a football move.  The outstretching of the arms is a football move, and that would be the only case to make.

For example: Dez makes that catch with two feet down but then falls down out of bounds without being touched.  If he bobbles the ball when he hits the ground (just as he did in this play near the end zone) it is an incomplete pass.  2 feet, elbows/knees down, have no bearing on the play in today's game.  The only thing to determine was if Dez stretched out the ball for a football move.  Your opinion and interpretation of the play is immaterial.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 17917
Posted: #34
Indisputable my a
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 17917
Posted: #35
Been watching football for ages and I only see that call on. Tds not when a guy makes 3 steps and stretches then all with 1 hand screw job
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 6391
Posted: #36
i would have thought that once his elbow was down, then the play was over with him in possession of the ball.  I have no dog in this hunt but these rules are always a matter of interpretation.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2013
Posts: 15034
Posted: #37
Quote Originally Posted by JFen31:

Calls on the field can only be overturned when video replay suggests that there is no way ("indisputable") the call can be upheld. An even higher standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Seems like an extremely high bar needed to overturn a call...

This is an excellent point (an indisputable one at that)!
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 1004
Posted: #38
Quote Originally Posted by Skipster:

i would have thought that once his elbow was down, then the play was over with him in possession of the ball.  I have no dog in this hunt but these rules are always a matter of interpretation.
Just to reiterate the rule: down by contact can only occur when a catch is made and a football move happens.  The rule "down by contact" is different for a RB/QB in a running play...not a passing play. To the guy that has been watching football for ages: I can't believe that you have watched so many games and never heard an announcer mention when a WR catches and makes a "football move" by turning up-field.  Yes, Dez Bryant's 2 feet come down in the process of leaping and making the catch but that does not define the "football move" process, only the reaching out of the ball.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2010
Posts: 663
Posted: #39
Quote Originally Posted by tootskie:


Do you think they f'n guessed when they looked at it in the replay booth.  That call was made because that's the F'n RULE. 

Ya stupid summabytch..Get tha fukk outta here snot-faced pussie.

 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 46014
Posted: #40
Quote Originally Posted by VegasVandal:

How do you catch a ball at the 5.1 yard line but then get to the 1 yard line without taking steps then?

I just watched it 10 times.

His first step was the 5.1 yard line

His 2nd step was the 3.8 yard line

His third step was the 2.8 yard line

All this happened before he even made the lunge or went down

 

Tell me which sentence is wrong

You get there by the forward momentum of your longer than 2 yards body naturally travelling forward as you hit the ground from flying forward through the air and then falling forward due to your body being lurched forward when you hit the ground. His body alone is longer than 2 yards so if he took a step at 2.8 yards and also lunged forward ontop of that how does he end up well short of the goal line? Also it is not a step when his foot lands on the ground, that is him landing in a forward motion at full speed and obviously going forward as he goes to the ground. I had packers +4.5 live bet so the play did not affect me either way and I have zero bias towards it. That's how I saw it so we can agree to disagree
The lion and the tiger may be more powerful, but the wolf doesn't perform in the circus.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 26767
Posted: #41

Quote Originally Posted by stevopa:

Just to reiterate the rule: down by contact can only occur when a catch is made and a football move happens.  The rule "down by contact" is different for a RB/QB in a running play...not a passing play. To the guy that has been watching football for ages: I can't believe that you have watched so many games and never heard an announcer mention when a WR catches and makes a "football move" by turning up-field.  Yes, Dez Bryant's 2 feet come down in the process of leaping and making the catch but that does not define the "football move" process, only the reaching out of the ball.

And yet you are disregarding the 3rd foot that came down and the fact he traveled 4 yards upfield with 3 feet down after making the catch.

How does one travel 4 yards upfield AFTER catching a ball and having ball cradled in his arms without bobbling and taking 3 steps AND a lunge without it being possession? Tell me how

 have been watching football for ages too and have never seen a call that blatant overturned in my life.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2011
Posts: 1553
Posted: #42
i think it is clear the nfl needs to define a football move
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2008
Posts: 8308
Posted: #43
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the play is reversed via "indisputable" evidence...

This is the standard. There is no debate about it. Only when review shows by "indisputable" evidence that the original call was 100% wrong can it be overturned...


 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2014
Posts: 493
Posted: #44
Quote Originally Posted by booshnugs:

Everyone avoiding the big factor...his opposite elbow was down prior to the ball going loose. Down by contact had possession etc......horrible call.


exactly this, bs call and totally fuked Dallas
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 26767
Posted: #45

Quote Originally Posted by Polar_Bear:

You get there by the forward momentum of your longer than 2 yards body naturally travelling forward as you hit the ground from flying forward through the air and then falling forward due to your body being lurched forward when you hit the ground.

 

Did you even go back and watch the replay? There is no dispute he took the 3 steps. It's clear as day. So which sentence are you disputing from my post of the steps taken?

 

 His body alone is longer than 2 yards so if he took a step at 2.8 yards and also lunged forward ontop of that how does he end up well short of the goal line?

Um because the lunge was in a tripping motion after he made the 3rd step at 2.8 yards. That happens all the time....not sure what you are getting at with this one

 

 Also it is not a step when his foot lands on the ground, that is him landing in a forward motion at full speed and obviously going forward as he goes to the ground. I had packers +4.5 live bet so the play did not affect me either way and I have zero bias towards it. That's how I saw it so we can agree to disagree

 

WRONG. The first step you make once you catch a ball is the "first step" even if you catch the ball in the air hence why there is a rule of receivesr having to have 2 feet down before going out of bounds in order for a catch to stand. They don't make the receiver catch the ball then land with two feet in bounds and then take two more steps for them to be granted the catch.

 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2012
Posts: 2069
Posted: #46
Quote Originally Posted by JFen31:

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the play is reversed via "indisputable" evidence...This is the standard. There is no debate about it. Only when review shows by "indisputable" evidence that the original call was 100% wrong can it be overturned...

This....

All the other debate is immaterial. The incident itself is immaterial to the situation. It was without question the wrong call to overturn because of the lack of indisputable evidence. Fact. Wrong call
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2011
Posts: 10
Posted: #47
This should not even be questionable and I even had GB ml and the under.

I have watched the reply 12 times in slow motion!!

He caught the ball and landed with both feet down on the 5 yard line

He he tucked the ball in with both hands

He took a step to the 3 yard line

He grabbed the ball with one hand took another step to the 2 yard line

He reached out with the ball in possession of his left hand

He came short of the goal line with the elbow down and his knee

Even if the hit the ground and moved, the ground can't cause a fumble.
Possession was very obvious way before the lunge. 

And if you were to call it a fumble he regained possession in the end zone.

Those who say it was not a catch need to quit, you are embarrassing yourselves. It was obviously a catch that resulted in a bad call, which caused the initial call (a catch) to be overturned (which is really confusing to me)
Without undisputed evidence in should not have been over turned.

It worked out great for my bet but Dallas got screwed!!

 IT WAS A 100% CATCH



 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 1004
Posted: #48
Quote Originally Posted by VegasVandal:

And yet you are disregarding the 3rd foot that came down and the fact he traveled 4 yards upfield with 3 feet down after making the catch.

How does one travel 4 yards upfield AFTER catching a ball and having ball cradled in his arms without bobbling and taking 3 steps AND a lunge without it being possession? Tell me how

 have been watching football for ages too and have never seen a call that blatant overturned in my life.

His momentum while leaping in the air causes him to go upfield but that does not mean he made a football move.    Just because he is flying (as he leaps into the air, which he did), and tumbling over a defensive player, causing him to move with momentum towards the goal line does not mean he has made a decisive football move or has possession.  That's the NFL rule, not mine.

As I mentioned numerous times before, the act of lunging with the ball would be a football move.  If you think he lunged and made a "football move", then that's your opinion.  The NFL refs and Mike Perairra interpreted it differently.  If he holds on to the ball, either way, it's a mute point.  So, note to Dez Bryant, make sure to secure the ball on 4th and game that way there is no argument.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2008
Posts: 8308
Posted: #49
"The call on the field is correct unless we have indisputable visual evidence to the contrary, and then we can overturn it, and we are really trying to stick to that standard. You will see that reversals are down this year because we are not going to try to reofficiate the play in the booth. We have a ruling on the field. If it's not clear and obvious that that ruling on the field is incorrect, the call will not be overturned, and that's the standard that we're trying to stick to."

-Dean Blandino, NFL Head of Officiating, 
12/05/14

Pretty much all you need to know, folks. 

https://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/152685/inside-slant-nfl-replay-reversals-drop-amid-new-interpretation-for-indisputable

 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2009
Posts: 6735
Posted: #50
Blandino just commented on it. Correct call. 
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.