Dez no catch #2?

Zekeats

theranchsucks
Messages
12,763
Reaction score
15,103
The ruling was that the receiver lost control of the ball when he hit the ground but it looks like the ball never hit the ground. The ball did shift/move around a little but it never bobbled out of his hand/s. What is the correct ruling supposed to be? The rules are still insanely vague. They are still judgement calls and in this case was there ENOUGH EVIDENCE to over rule the original call.

See for yourself: 1:55

http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2016/09/11/highlights-giants-vs-cowboys
 

JBS

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,473
Reaction score
21,981
I was waiting for this


Hahahahahahahahaha
 

Zekeats

theranchsucks
Messages
12,763
Reaction score
15,103
He did secure it, just out of bounds.

I know. That is what I seen too. My argument is that it never left his hand that he initially caught it with. It never bobbled out or came untouched by his hand during the catch. Once the ball touches his hand it is ALWAYS in contact with his hand. I just wonder what the rule book states as far as that is concerned.
 
Last edited:

Nova

Ntegrase96
Messages
10,263
Reaction score
12,041
Yeah honestly I don't know anymore.

I understand why that wasn't a catch, but I've seen the same principle be ruled a catch in other instances.

Like Martavis Bryant's catch last year in the playoffs.

By the same logic, he doesn't technically have control until he's out of bounds either.

The rule is just a mess, but overall I have no huge issue with this call. Just the inconsistency.
 

CalPolyTechnique

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,233
Reaction score
43,941
Yeah honestly I don't know anymore.

I understand why that wasn't a catch, but I've seen the same principle be ruled a catch in other instances.

Like Martavis Bryant's catch last year in the playoffs.

By the same logic, he doesn't technically have control until he's out of bounds either.

The rule is just a mess, but overall I have no huge issue with this call. Just the inconsistency.

And the league officials came out after the Martavious Bryant catch and said that it shouldn't have been ruled a catch.
 

Nova

Ntegrase96
Messages
10,263
Reaction score
12,041
Ha. Found this.

http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

It was a catch!

This is a problem.

What is "control". Has that been defined yet?

Because if the ball doesn't ever hit the ground and you've established tapping two feet in bounds... How is that not "control"?

The NFL should just admit this is subjective and stop feeding us BS.
 

Zekeats

theranchsucks
Messages
12,763
Reaction score
15,103
This is a problem.

What is "control". Has that been defined yet?

Because if the ball doesn't ever hit the ground and you've established tapping two feet in bounds... How is that not "control"?

The NFL should just admit this is subjective and stop feeding us BS.


Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
 

Kevinicus

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,413
Reaction score
12,150

treykin32

Well-Known Member
Messages
381
Reaction score
291
The NFL has a new rule. It goes like this. If a play is ruled a catch on the field it MUST over turned if Dez is the receiver. It was a catch.....again..the NFL sucks
 
Top