IndyKen
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 715
- Reaction score
- 315
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.How did the officials 'costed' another team their season by making the correct call? Saying that is as stupid as saying the officials 'costed' the Raiders the Tuck Bowl by getting the call right.
Edit: Sydney, either learn the rules or stop following the sport.
Oh, so offended that I disagree with you, huh?
It's a catch. He made several steps and stretched the ball out. That's a football move.
Overturning it, and calling it an incompletion, was the right call.
Edit: And whoever Sydney is, (s)he needs to learn the rules.
It comes down to whether the reach for the pylon was part of the catch or a separate football move. To me, it looks like he made the catch and them made a move to the pylon. In the end, a judgment call that probably comes down to where the game is being played. No way they take that catch away in Dallas.
Deus is right Sydney, you need to learn the rules. maybe sydneys the dallas fan that bet his grand kids college tuition money on the 'boys?in todays nfl that isn't a catch, in fact going back ten years or more that wasn't a catch, he didn't have control of it on the way down and then part of the ball hit the ground. no part of the ball can hit the ground. a real good example of a similar catch that was ok was edelmans catch yesterday, he had one hand on top of the ball and the other Underneath it so in essence the ground didn't help him maintain control. Also you don't know if the cowboys would have scored a td or settled for a field goal. Plus there was plenty of time left for gb to get the ball and score. so you can't really with any certainty that the refs blew the game on that call.
in todays nfl that isn't a catch, in fact going back ten years or more that wasn't a catch, he didn't have control of it on the way down and then part of the ball hit the ground. no part of the ball can hit the ground. a real good example of a similar catch that was ok was edelmans catch yesterday, he had one hand on top of the ball and the other Underneath it so in essence the ground didn't help him maintain control. Also you don't know if the cowboys would have scored a td or settled for a field goal. Plus there was plenty of time left for gb to get the ball and score. so you can't really with any certainty that the refs blew the game on that call.
I'm not offended that you disagree. Disagreement would be fine, if you actually knew the rule. Since you think that was a catch, you obviously don't know the rule.
I know the rules, thanks.
The ball hit the ground and came loose.
NO CATCH
Personally in my view it was a catch. it drives me crazy at how tick tack the nfl has gotten when it comes to what is a catch and what isn't . i don't care if it touches the ground it should be a catch if the receiver gets their hands on it. But from what i remember when bryant came down with it and the ball touched the ground and it came lose i figured it was going to be challenged. I don't think it was over the goal line, and even if it was he would have to have absolute control of the ball like edelman in yesterdays game.I thought he had possession of the ball before he hit the ground. Bryant actually secured it while in the air and then extended his arm towards the end zone to make the TD where the ground caused the fumble. I'm going to disagree with Deus and yourself without being a b@&$h using the disagree button that is reserved for trolls and idiots.
Obviously not
deus, post-game Pereira said he didnt think that bryant extended his arm far enough to be considered a separate football move. He said "thats the question". It was a judgment call--not a bright line rule like youre suggesting.