***The Second Call/NonCall good/bad conspiracy etc thread***merged**

[Ken]

There is a ton of clear evidence the ball hit the ground. That you refuse to see it is your own problem. I'm not even talking about those gifs, so why bring them up? There is absolutely no angle that indicates the arm is UNDER the ball. Everything shows it to the side. Other shots show the ball ON THE GROUND. Pull your head out, already. That is all beside the point anyway, as I'm just explaining that whether or not the ground is the actual "object" that knocks the ball out doesn't matter.

I have been looking for clear evidence and have yet to see it. A picture where you can't tell if its touching or not is not clear.

 

[gimmesix]

Yes, no doubt that he was lunging towards the goal-line. If he wasn't going for the goal-line he never would have lost control of the ball.

I don't think it's as clear-cut as we'd like it to be. Dez was falling after contact was made while he was in the air. His arm was out in front of him as he falls. Now, it appears he could have tucked the ball in to try to make sure he secured the catch, but instead he appears to reach it forward a bit more than he had been. I think that's where the judgment call comes in: Was he reaching for the goal line or was that just a natural function of him going to the ground? That's really hard to say.

The officials saw it as part of the natural function when they looked at it on replay. They probably should have ruled insufficient evidence for overturning the call, but the judgment was left in their hands, which is how we end up with rulings like this.

 

[links18]

If the receiver loses control of the ball (for whatever reason) prior to the catch being completed, and it hit the ground at any point before that, then it's incomplete.

Even if when it touched the ground he was in full control?

 

[gimmesix]

I have been looking for clear evidence and have yet to see it. A picture where you can't tell if its touching or not is not clear.

I think it was quite clear during the game (and replays) that the ball touched the ground and when it did the back of the ball moved, which led to the double-catch. Dez had nothing under the ball for it to hit when he went to the ground. He had the front of the ball cupped, but his arm was outstretched and the belly of the ball hit the ground, causing the back end to come up.

If the question comes down to whether the ball touched the ground, then I don't think there's any argument. If it comes down to making a football move, I think an argument can definitely be made.

 

[gimmesix]

Even if when it touched the ground he was in full control?

The ball moved in his grip right after it contacted the ground, so I don't know how that can constitute full control.

 

[Kevinicus]

Even if when it touched the ground he was in full control?

Correct.

 

[Kevinicus]

I have been looking for clear evidence and have yet to see it. A picture where you can't tell if its touching or not is not clear.

You can tell. It's a fact. Plenty of video angles make it clear as well. Unless you live in imaginary physics land.

 

[xwalker]

I don't think it's as clear-cut as we'd like it to be. Dez was falling after contact was made while he was in the air. His arm was out in front of him as he falls. Now, it appears he could have tucked the ball in to try to make sure he secured the catch, but instead he appears to reach it forward a bit more than he had been. I think that's where the judgment call comes in: Was he reaching for the goal line or was that just a natural function of him going to the ground? That's really hard to say.

The officials saw it as part of the natural function when they looked at it on replay. They probably should have ruled insufficient evidence for overturning the call, but the judgment was left in their hands, which is how we end up with rulings like this.

He lunged towards the goal-line, pushing off with his last step.

 

[percyhoward]

If the question comes down to whether the ball touched the ground, then I don't think there's any argument. If it comes down to making a football move, I think an argument can definitely be made.

Yeah, people who are fixating on whether or not the ball hit the ground are missing the point. That only matters if the process of the catch hadn't already been completed -- which it had, according to the official on the field. He saw it as a catch and down by contact, but the replay official did not take the contact on Dez by the defender into account, and just treated it as if Dez were falling down on his own trying to make the catch. Dez only fell after he was contacted (tripped) by Shields.

Horrible interpretation of what happened by the replay official.

 

[31smackdown]

I think it was quite clear during the game (and replays) that the ball touched the ground and when it did the back of the ball moved, which led to the double-catch. Dez had nothing under the ball for it to hit when he went to the ground. He had the front of the ball cupped, but his arm was outstretched and the belly of the ball hit the ground, causing the back end to come up.

If the question comes down to whether the ball touched the ground, then I don't think there's any argument. If it comes down to making a football move, I think an argument can definitely be made.

"I think it was quite clear during the game (and replays) that the ball touched the ground and when it did the back of the ball moved"

The contention is that that is not what happened. The ball "popped up" because of the shoulder pad not the ground. Unfortunately the refs saw it pop up and thought it was the ground that caused it. The pop up does not happen until the ball hits his shoulder pads. The ground did not pop it out of his possession. He has the ball "tipped" for better control, the ball and his hand hit the ground at the same time, the ball does not move in his hand, his body slides forward and his shoulder pad hits the ball, which is now off the ground and still in his hand and knocks it lose as he starts to turn over. He then re-catches it.

 

[percyhoward]

it's also important to point out that the field judge knew there was contact with the defender, otherwise he would have awarded Dez the touchdown, instead of marking the ball dead inside the one.

So the question is, how did we get from "catch and down by contact" to "falling down on his own as part of the catch?"

 

[gimmesix]

He lunged towards the goal-line, pushing off with his last step.

I can see that point of view, but I also can see where it appears that everything is just the natural motion of falling to the ground after making a leaping grab and being bumped by the defender (which is how I saw it).

Now, that probably means the call should not have been overturned, because I don't think it's irrefutable either way.

 

[percyhoward]

I have been looking for clear evidence and have yet to see it. A picture where you can't tell if its touching or not is not clear.

The official on the field nearest the play (the one who ruled it a catch) saw the ball bounce up. This means either...

1) he thought it never hit the ground, or...

2) he thought the catch happened before that

And it had to be #2, because he never gave the "catch" signal. He just ran up and spotted the ball. If he didn't already think the catch had been made with two feet down and contact by the defender, he would've reacted with palms up, elbows bent, and arms coming down to signal that, yes, a catch had been made. He didn't do that, because he considered it a catch and down by contact, and was only interested in where to spot the ball.

 

[djmajestik]

The rule was applied as it has been since they jobbed the Calvin catch.

The biggest problem with the rule is that falling to the ground shouldn't even be a part of this rule.

Diving and sliding where you cannot otherwise get two feet down, sure. That makes sense. If you lay out for a pass and never come down on your feet, you have to force the whole "complete the process" stuff.

Having a guy jump, land and then fall basically extends the process for some indefinite period of time.

It seems like this rule was written for one circumstance and ever since the Calvin play it has been broadened to include plays that have no business being included.

Sucks for sure and it was a huge call that nobody in their right mind should feel good about.

I asked a friend, "so this is how playoff games are going to be decided"?

The call is consistent with other calls so I don't see the conspiracy. It's just an awfully applied rule that needs serious reconsideration.

Consistent?? As in, the Cobb "catch"?

 

[gimmesix]

Yeah, people who are fixating on whether or not the ball hit the ground are missing the point. That only matters if the process of the catch hadn't already been completed -- which it had, according to the official on the field. He saw it as a catch and down by contact, but the replay official did not take the contact on Dez by the defender into account, and just treated it as if Dez were falling down on his own trying to make the catch. Dez only fell after he was contacted (tripped) by Shields.

Horrible interpretation of what happened by the replay official.

Not sure that falling on his own really matters here (unless I've missed something). Whether there is contact while the receiver is in the air or he goes down on his own, he still has to maintain control through contact with the ground in order to complete the catch. The only exception is if it determined that a "football move" was made after the receiver got both feet down.

It's possible I'm misunderstanding the rule.

 

[xwalker]

I can see that point of view, but I also can see where it appears that everything is just the natural motion of falling to the ground after making a leaping grab and being bumped by the defender (which is how I saw it).

Now, that probably means the call should not have been overturned, because I don't think it's irrefutable either way.

Aside from lunging or not lunging, his feet hit the ground as Left-Right-Left. If he took 10 steps and then hit the ground in the same manner it would obviously have been a catch. How many steps is a catch and how many is not a catch?

 

[gimmesix]

"I think it was quite clear during the game (and replays) that the ball touched the ground and when it did the back of the ball moved"

The contention is that that is not what happened. The ball "popped up" because of the shoulder pad not the ground. Unfortunately the refs saw it pop up and thought it was the ground that caused it. The pop up does not happen until the ball hits his shoulder pads. The ground did not pop it out of his possession. He has the ball "tipped" for better control, the ball and his hand hit the ground at the same time, the ball does not move in his hand, his body slides forward and his shoulder pad hits the ball, which is now off the ground and still in his hand and knocks it lose as he starts to turn over. He then re-catches it.

Dez had nothing under the ball when it made contact with the ground. It moved after that contact. Whether it was his shoulder pads that caused the movement or the ground really doesn't matter at that point because the officials are going to assume it was the ground.

I don't think there is any way we could have won the argument that the ball did not move after contact with the ground.

 

[gimmesix]

Aside from lunging or not lunging, his feet hit the ground as Left-Right-Left. If he took 10 steps and then hit the ground in the same manner it would obviously have been a catch. How many steps is a catch and how many is not a catch?

It was clear that Dez was in the act of falling. If you stumble and fall, how many steps do you have to take before it's no longer considered falling?

I do not think the steps matter since he clearly going to the ground the entire time. If he had reestablished control of his body then tripped, that would be different. I do not think we can refute that he was falling.

 

[percyhoward]

Not sure that falling on his own really matters here (unless I've missed something). Whether there is contact while the receiver is in the air or he goes down on his own, he still has to maintain control through contact with the ground in order to complete the catch. The only exception is if it determined that a "football move" was made after the receiver got both feet down.

It's possible I'm misunderstanding the rule.

The question is whether he is falling down as part of the process of making the catch. For that to have been the case, either...

1) Dez would have had to be falling down on his own, or...

2) Dez would have had to be contacted while still in the air.

Neither of those things happened, which is why the field judge called it a catch. It was only upon the reversal that "catch, then two feet down, then contact" became "falling down as part of making the catch." That was where the idea came in of having to maintain control all the way to and after hitting the ground, when the field judge wasn't even concerned with that question.

 

[Kevinicus]

It was clear that Dez was in the act of falling. If you stumble and fall, how many steps do you have to take before it's no longer considered falling?

I do not think the steps matter since he clearly going to the ground the entire time. If he had reestablished control of his body then tripped, that would be different. I do not think we can refute that he was falling.

This is not true. He was not going to the ground until AFTER he had 2 feet down. And if you get extra steps in then it cannot be said going to the ground did not occur after the catch process was complete.