NFL Playoffs Thread (again with less Suh)

[jersey cubs fan]

the rules are so skewed in the favor of the offenses I fail to see how people can pretend it is somehow unfair to force a receiver to maintain a catch as he falls to the ground.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Let me ask this, if somebody goes up for a ball, grabs it, taps down two feet and one foot bounces twice and then on his way down the ball hits the ground and pops out should that be a completion? I say no. So how do you write the rule that differentiates what Dez did and this scenario?

 

Well, if the catch yesterday happened as Bryant was heading out of bounds, he wouldn't have reached the ball forward for the end zone.

 

My scenario could be in the middle of the field. So, if the player gets greedy with his ball control it's catch? I'm confused what your point is. Just looking for clarification.

 

the point is you can tap two tows on the sideline fall out of bounds and have the ball hit the ground as you go down and its a catch. But if you do it in the middle of the field its not. That seems contradictory

[Soul]

as i recall, the rules committee reviewed the process rule the offseason after the Calvin Johnson non-TD and decided they liked it the way it was and made no changes

 

anything to screw the Lions.

 

j/k, the rule was new for the year and one the refs were tracking in 2010, the Johnson catch was the first call involving it. The rule sucked then and it sucks now. Bryant was robbed. He had more of a catch then Johnson did, and Johnson's should have been a TD. That coming from a fan of the team that benefited from Johnson's non-catch.

I hope you mean robbed by the rule rather than robbed by the refs yesterday.

 

If it's the latter then your post doesn't make sense.

[minnesotacubsfan]

as i recall, the rules committee reviewed the process rule the offseason after the Calvin Johnson non-TD and decided they liked it the way it was and made no changes

 

anything to screw the Lions.

 

j/k, the rule was new for the year and one the refs were tracking in 2010, the Johnson catch was the first call involving it. The rule sucked then and it sucks now. Bryant was robbed. He had more of a catch then Johnson did, and Johnson's should have been a TD. That coming from a fan of the team that benefited from Johnson's non-catch.

I hope you mean robbed by the rule rather than robbed by the refs yesterday.

 

If it's the latter then your post doesn't make sense.

 

well yea, I think the rule sucks. The refs did their thing, but even then I think they could have called that a catch just because of the way Bryant caught it.

[jersey cubs fan]

Let me ask this, if somebody goes up for a ball, grabs it, taps down two feet and one foot bounces twice and then on his way down the ball hits the ground and pops out should that be a completion? I say no. So how do you write the rule that differentiates what Dez did and this scenario?

 

Well, if the catch yesterday happened as Bryant was heading out of bounds, he wouldn't have reached the ball forward for the end zone.

 

My scenario could be in the middle of the field. So, if the player gets greedy with his ball control it's catch? I'm confused what your point is. Just looking for clarification.

 

the point is you can tap two tows on the sideline fall out of bounds and have the ball hit the ground as you go down and its a catch. But if you do it in the middle of the field its not. That seems contradictory

 

I don't think your point is accurate at all. Getting 2 feet down is not the end of the story. Maintaining control is the key. If you go to the ground out of bounds and the ball pops lose, it's no catch.

[JonJayCutler]

I get that the ground allegedly caused the ball to pop up (and I'm sure it did), but I'm still having a hard time finding visual proof of the ball actually hitting. His arm hides it pretty well...

 

Wouldn't a lack of seeing the ball actually touch the ground make it fall short of the indisputable category?

[mhuber92211]

So talking about stupid NFL rules, the requirement for all players to be available for media interviews has been an issue as all have known for over 3 years for Marshawn Lynch. He was fined last year but it was "suspended". Then this year the fine was reinstated and another fine was tacked on making it a fine of $100k because he wouldn't talk to national media (local guys usually can get something but respect him enough to ease off after a tough game).

 

Anyhow, despite your feelings on the matter if the fine was reasonable or not this came out over the weekend...

 

https://twitter.com/BartHubbuch/status/554429292189212673

 

This to me is so wrong on so many levels that makes me wish this writer was on the field so Marshawn can go beast mode on him. Talk about your perfect example of media making it about themselves....sheesh

[minnesotacubsfan]

I get that the ground allegedly caused the ball to pop up (and I'm sure it did), but I'm still having a hard time finding visual proof of the ball actually hitting. His arm hides it pretty well...

 

Wouldn't a lack of seeing the ball actually touch the ground make it fall short of the indisputable category?

 

I had a hard time finding a view of the ball actually touching the ground too. For me, thats kind of the thing though, if I cant SEE the ball touching the ground, how can I overturn the call on the field? Maybe I just havent seen the right view, but so far I just havent seen it.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Let me ask this, if somebody goes up for a ball, grabs it, taps down two feet and one foot bounces twice and then on his way down the ball hits the ground and pops out should that be a completion? I say no. So how do you write the rule that differentiates what Dez did and this scenario?

 

Well, if the catch yesterday happened as Bryant was heading out of bounds, he wouldn't have reached the ball forward for the end zone.

 

My scenario could be in the middle of the field. So, if the player gets greedy with his ball control it's catch? I'm confused what your point is. Just looking for clarification.

 

the point is you can tap two tows on the sideline fall out of bounds and have the ball hit the ground as you go down and its a catch. But if you do it in the middle of the field its not. That seems contradictory

 

I don't think your point is accurate at all. Getting 2 feet down is not the end of the story. Maintaining control is the key. If you go to the ground out of bounds and the ball pops lose, it's no catch.

 

so if he changes hands 2-3 times before he bobbles it at the end, its not a catch? Is there actually a view that clearly shows the ball touching the ground? And what about the times the ball does touch the ground but is still "a catch"?

[jersey cubs fan]

so if he changes hands 2-3 times before he bobbles it at the end, its not a catch? Is there actually a view that clearly shows the ball touching the ground? And what about the times the ball does touch the ground but is still "a catch"?

 

Back in the day, contact with a blade of grass could "cause" an incomplete pass. But they changed it so that if the guy had control it did not matter if it made contact with the ground. What matters is maintaining control and Bryant did not maintain control. The ball was in his hands, hit the ground and popped out of his hands. Reestablishing control after the bounce does not matter because contact with the ground and that contact leading to the loss of control, makes it incomplete that instant.

[minnesotacubsfan]

well then I'm just stuck in the past, or want to be. I think its a dumbly thought out rule. It seems like they made it to help WR's, but I think in some cases it just makes it more confusing. Well, so far, like all cases.

[imb]

Let me ask this, if somebody goes up for a ball, grabs it, taps down two feet and one foot bounces twice and then on his way down the ball hits the ground and pops out should that be a completion? I say no. So how do you write the rule that differentiates what Dez did and this scenario?

 

Well, if the catch yesterday happened as Bryant was heading out of bounds, he wouldn't have reached the ball forward for the end zone.

 

My scenario could be in the middle of the field. So, if the player gets greedy with his ball control it's catch? I'm confused what your point is. Just looking for clarification.

 

"Greedy with his ball control" implies that he had control of the ball already, which would have made him down by contact.

 

I hate that im arguing this so much because it's really in that nebulous realm that I can see it going either way, and Dallas was not going to stop Rodgers from going back down the field so ultimately it probably doesn't matter. I just think if a receiver snatches the ball, gets three feet in and the ball falls out as he reaches for the end zone, it's a catch. I can see if he's bobbling the thing, but it seemed like he had total control, enough to forcibly reach his hands out.

[Andy]

Let me ask this, if somebody goes up for a ball, grabs it, taps down two feet and one foot bounces twice and then on his way down the ball hits the ground and pops out should that be a completion? I say no. So how do you write the rule that differentiates what Dez did and this scenario?

 

Well, if the catch yesterday happened as Bryant was heading out of bounds, he wouldn't have reached the ball forward for the end zone.

 

My scenario could be in the middle of the field. So, if the player gets greedy with his ball control it's catch? I'm confused what your point is. Just looking for clarification.

I think his point is that the only reason the ball came loose is because Dez, having already caught the ball, was stretching for the end zone. If he'd been at the 15-yard line instead of the 5, he just falls on his butt and this is never an issue.

 

The bottom line is the rule needs to be adjusted somehow. Any set of rules that results in Josh Cribbs being ruled to have possession on that punt and Dez Bryant not being ruled to have possession on that catch needs to be examined.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think his point is that the only reason the ball came loose is because Dez, having already caught the ball, was stretching for the end zone. If he'd been at the 15-yard line instead of the 5, he just falls on his butt and this is never an issue.

 

That is not necessarily true at all. Lots of people stretch for yardage at any point on the field. It's not just a goal line situation.

[Andy]

I think his point is that the only reason the ball came loose is because Dez, having already caught the ball, was stretching for the end zone. If he'd been at the 15-yard line instead of the 5, he just falls on his butt and this is never an issue.

 

That is not necessarily true at all. Lots of people stretch for yardage at any point on the field. It's not just a goal line situation.

You're probably right that I can't assume he wouldn't have stretched. I still feel like that qualified as a 'football move', though, if that's still a thing.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think his point is that the only reason the ball came loose is because Dez, having already caught the ball, was stretching for the end zone. If he'd been at the 15-yard line instead of the 5, he just falls on his butt and this is never an issue.

 

That is not necessarily true at all. Lots of people stretch for yardage at any point on the field. It's not just a goal line situation.

You're probably right that I can't assume he wouldn't have stretched. I still feel like that qualified as a 'football move', though, if that's still a thing.

 

You can't just make the move, you have to maintain control through the move.

[imb]

listen to how stupid that argument sounds. It's not enough to get your feet in, it's not enough to get your feet in and possess the ball, it's not enough to get your feet in and possess the balland control it, it's not enough to get your feet in and possess the ball and control it and to make a football move. I mean at that point, the ball is yours.

[jersey cubs fan]

listen to how stupid that argument sounds. It's not enough to get your feet in, it's not enough to get your feet in and possess the ball, it's not enough to get your feet in and possess the balland control it, it's not enough to get your feet in and possess the ball and control it and to make a football move. I mean at that point, the ball is yours.

 

you make it sound like a 15 minute play.

 

Catch ball get feet in (depending on whether sideline/endzone/midfield) and maintain possession while going to the ground. It's really freaking simple.

 

If you fall, you have to hold the ball.

[dew1679666265]

To me, if there was no contact I would agree with the call. If Shields makes contact and Bryant has possession, the ground can't cause a fumble and should be spotted where his knee touches the ground.

 

The ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion. Bryant never had full possession of the ball and it coming out when it did just emphasizes that point.

[imb]

It was closer to a fumble than to what you're describing

[Sammys Boombox]

Let me ask this, if somebody goes up for a ball, grabs it, taps down two feet and one foot bounces twice and then on his way down the ball hits the ground and pops out should that be a completion? I say no. So how do you write the rule that differentiates what Dez did and this scenario?

 

Well, if the catch yesterday happened as Bryant was heading out of bounds, he wouldn't have reached the ball forward for the end zone.

 

My scenario could be in the middle of the field. So, if the player gets greedy with his ball control it's catch? I'm confused what your point is. Just looking for clarification.

 

the point is you can tap two tows on the sideline fall out of bounds and have the ball hit the ground as you go down and its a catch. But if you do it in the middle of the field its not. That seems contradictory

 

Not true. You have to possess all the way to the ground while going out of bounds too.

[dew1679666265]

You're probably right that I can't assume he wouldn't have stretched. I still feel like that qualified as a 'football move', though, if that's still a thing.

 

The problem is that the "football move" was simply Dez's momentum carrying him to the ground while he was trying to possess the ball. There needed to be something clear and distinctive that showed he had control and, if anything, sticking his arm out and then losing the ball just showed that he didn't have complete control of it.

[UK1679666180]

I still don't understand why the fact that they made contact is being overlooked. That's more important than a football move or whatever the [expletive] that means.

[Sammys Boombox]

Let me ask this, if somebody goes up for a ball, grabs it, taps down two feet and one foot bounces twice and then on his way down the ball hits the ground and pops out should that be a completion? I say no. So how do you write the rule that differentiates what Dez did and this scenario?

 

Well, if the catch yesterday happened as Bryant was heading out of bounds, he wouldn't have reached the ball forward for the end zone.

 

My scenario could be in the middle of the field. So, if the player gets greedy with his ball control it's catch? I'm confused what your point is. Just looking for clarification.

I think his point is that the only reason the ball came loose is because Dez, having already caught the ball, was stretching for the end zone. If he'd been at the 15-yard line instead of the 5, he just falls on his butt and this is never an issue.

 

The bottom line is the rule needs to be adjusted somehow. Any set of rules that results in Josh Cribbs being ruled to have possession on that punt and Dez Bryant not being ruled to have possession on that catch needs to be examined.

 

So, should fumbles that occur near the goal line not be fumbles because the guy was only stretching because the end zone was so close? I get he's talking about a football move (WHICH DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU ARE GOING TO THE GROUND FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME), but the player tried to do something that he could not physically do (possess the ball and cross the goal line) and failed. Isn't that what sports are all about?

[Sammys Boombox]

I still don't understand why the fact that they made contact is being overlooked. That's more important than a football move or whatever the [expletive] that means.

 

Everybody pay close attention:

 

He's going to the ground throughout the act of the catch. Steps, getting hit, making a football move. None of it matters. It's not that hard.