NFL Playoffs Thread (again with less Suh)

[dew1679666265]

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

 

It couldn't have been a fumble because he was touched and the ball would've been dead. Had he shown complete possession of the ball, he's down inside the 1.

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

Contact is irrelevant because Dez never showed possession of the ball. If you don't possess the ball, you can't be touched down.

[minnesotacubsfan]

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.

 

made contact, thigh on the ground, no actual visual proof of the ball touching even a BLADE of grass (that I've seen yet)

 

Dallas got hosed.

[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.

 

made contact, thigh on the ground, no actual visual proof of the ball touching even a BLADE of grass (that I've seen yet)

 

Dallas got hosed.

 

This is delusional, or you are not trying hard enough to find video of the play.

[dew1679666265]

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?

 

A football move does matter - Dean Blandino said it himself last night. Dez just didn't show a football move - he simply went with his momentum and lost the ball when he hit the ground.

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

made contact, thigh on the ground, no actual visual proof of the ball touching even a BLADE of grass (that I've seen yet)

 

Dallas got hosed.

 

I've seen a couple of angles on NFL Network that showed the ball hitting the ground pretty clearly. One was from the end zone and the other was from the near sideline.

[Sammys Boombox]

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?

 

A football move does matter - Dean Blandino said it himself last night. Dez just didn't show a football move - he simply went with his momentum and lost the ball when he hit the ground.

 

Yeah, but a football move can only be made if you are not going to the ground during the catch. They are actions that cannot be done at the same time. If you are making a football move you are no longer considered going to the ground to complete a catch.

[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.

 

Contact is irrelevant because Dez never showed possession of the ball. If you don't possess the ball, you can't be touched down.

 

I thought he had possession of the ball until the ball was dislodged by the ground.

[Guest]

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.

 

I think this is the post that clarifies it best. He got 3 feet down, but he was in the act of falling the entire time from the point the ball dropped into his hands. It was going to be a great catch. But....

 

For those that say they haven't seen the replay where the ball hits the ground, this link shows three different angles over and over again. One shows that the ball indeed touched the ground. One shows a full speed replay where it's really hard to argue that he maintained possession long enough to consider it a catch.

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2015-01-11/dez-bryant-catch-cowboys-packers-nfc

 

ETA: The bottom replay shows to me that even if the defender wasn't there, the likelihood that he could have maintained his balance was very unlikely. He caught the ball and was in the process of falling from that point on.

[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.

 

made contact, thigh on the ground, no actual visual proof of the ball touching even a BLADE of grass (that I've seen yet)

 

Dallas got hosed.

 

This is delusional, or you are not trying hard enough to find video of the play.

 

Ball hit the ground after he was tripped up by the DB.

[Andy]

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.

That seems like very close to saying the ground can cause a fumble, though. If a RB stretching for the end zone lands on the ball and it pops out, did he not have control of it before?

[dew1679666265]

Yeah, but a football move can only be made if you are not going to the ground during the catch. They are actions that cannot be done at the same time. If you are making a football move you are no longer considered going to the ground to complete a catch.

 

If Dez were falling as he caught the ball, I'd agree with you. But he was jumping and had the opportunity to land on his feet when he caught the ball. As it happened, it would have sufficed if he just went to the ground without a football move and held onto the ball.

 

However, since he lost control of the ball, a football move was required prior to that to show he had possession prior to the ball coming loose. Even if you want to say reaching for the end zone was a football move, then he lost possession of the ball during that football move - meaning he didn't have complete control of it.

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

Contact is irrelevant because Dez never showed possession of the ball. If you don't possess the ball, you can't be touched down.

 

I thought he had possession of the ball until the ball was dislodged by the ground.

 

That's pretty debatable. It looked to me like he was getting control of the ball as he stumbled and then lost it when he hit the ground - meaning he never truly had possession.

[dew1679666265]

That seems like very close to saying the ground can cause a fumble, though. If a RB stretching for the end zone lands on the ball and it pops out, did he not have control of it before?

 

Yes, he did have control of it. And because of that control, the play is dead when the ball touches. A player is either a receiver (in the process of catching the ball) or a runner (has shown possession of the ball).

 

The rules are different for receivers and runners - a receiver has not yet shown possession of the ball, so if it touches the ground and comes loose, it's incomplete. Because a runner has shown possession of the ball already, when the ball hits, it's dead.

[ChiCubsFan]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[minnesotacubsfan]

That seems like very close to saying the ground can cause a fumble, though. If a RB stretching for the end zone lands on the ball and it pops out, did he not have control of it before?

 

Yes, he did have control of it. And because of that control, the play is dead when the ball touches. A player is either a receiver (in the process of catching the ball) or a runner (has shown possession of the ball).

 

The rules are different for receivers and runners - a receiver has not yet shown possession of the ball, so if it touches the ground and comes loose, it's incomplete. Because a runner has shown possession of the ball already, when the ball hits, it's dead.

 

in this case, where Bryant catches the ball, takes 2 steps, changes hands with the ball and THEN falls down, it seems more relevant to the runners situation. But JUST because the ball was thrown down the field, that changes everything? idk.

 

and if there is a screen shot of the ball clearly touching the ground, could someone show me it?

[CubColtPacer]

That seems like very close to saying the ground can cause a fumble, though. If a RB stretching for the end zone lands on the ball and it pops out, did he not have control of it before?

 

Yes, he did have control of it. And because of that control, the play is dead when the ball touches. A player is either a receiver (in the process of catching the ball) or a runner (has shown possession of the ball).

 

The rules are different for receivers and runners - a receiver has not yet shown possession of the ball, so if it touches the ground and comes loose, it's incomplete. Because a runner has shown possession of the ball already, when the ball hits, it's dead.

 

in this case, where Bryant catches the ball, takes 2 steps, changes hands with the ball and THEN falls down, it seems more relevant to the runners situation. But JUST because the ball was thrown down the field, that changes everything? idk.

 

and if there is a screen shot of the ball clearly touching the ground, could someone show me it?

This is the difference. The NFL considers Bryant to be falling down from the moment he made the catch. He never made a controlled step. Each step was off balance, and so he is considered to be going to the ground the entire time until he regains his balance, which is why he had to control the ball all the way through the ground. If he had jumped, came down, run a couple steps and then tripped, he wouldn't have had to control it all the way through.

[mul21]

The thing that kills me about it is that if he had been at the 10 yard line, this whole argument probably never happens because he tucks the ball away instead of trying to extend over the goal line. I almost feel like the fact that he switched hands and tried to extend for the TD should make the stupid rule invalid in this instance.

 

And MCF, if you can't see the ball touching the ground, you should probably get your eyes checked or just go into college officiating of some sport.

[minnesotacubsfan]

not being obtuse, but I rally havent seen a replay where its clear the ball hits the ground.

[Splendid Splinter]

not being obtuse, but I rally havent seen a replay where its clear the ball hits the ground.

 

Umm... Dez's arm is off to the side. It's not underneath the ball. That would be the only way where the ball didn't hit the ground unless you got some ginormous forearms.

[Banedon]

 

http://s1.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Dez-Bryant-catch-overturned.jpg

[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.

 

Contact is irrelevant because Dez never showed possession of the ball. If you don't possess the ball, you can't be touched down.

 

I thought he had possession of the ball until the ball was dislodged by the ground.

 

That's pretty debatable. It looked to me like he was getting control of the ball as he stumbled and then lost it when he hit the ground - meaning he never truly had possession.

 

http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/229/files/2015/01/sam-shields-dez-bryant-nfl-divisional-round-dallas-cowboys-green-bay-packers.jpg

 

In this picture, I don't see how he doesn't have possession.

[bukie]

That picture clearly shows him going to the ground, which means it's irrelevant whether he looks like he has it there, he has to maintain possession through to the ground.

[jersey cubs fan]

In this picture, I don't see how he doesn't have possession.

 

No still photo is going to show you possession.

[Guest]

In this picture, I don't see how he doesn't have possession.

 

You can snap that same photo on every other play where a receiver seems to have possession before they hit the ground, and then the ground ultimately causes the ball to come loose, thereby being ruled as incomplete.

 

From the point he caught the ball, he was in the act of falling. Because he was falling, he had to maintain possession of the ball all the way through his fall. That didn't happen.