Catch Rule on Ceedee Endzone Catch

[GORICO]

Ok, so if his toe doesnt come off, then yah, its not a catch.

CowboyRoy---good part we won the game...would have been much worse had we lost

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

I’ve seen people continue to argue back and forth that this was a catch. The rule is stupid, but by definition it was not a catch. Posting the rule below:

“Scenario: A player is facing towards the LOS/QB and moving backwards to make the catch at the out of bounds line. They get their toes down, but their heel continues down and hits out of bounds. No, this is not a dragging the toes scenario.

Ruling: It's incomplete. It's not the same as "dragging" the toes. It would be ruled as finishing a step.”

Here is the same scenario, but in reverse. Heel hit in bounds. Toes hit out of bounds -

Rule book -

https://nflcommunications.com/Documents/2021 - Rule Book Case Book.pdf

>A.R. 15.104 Heel/toe

>Third-and-10 on A30. A2 controls a pass and gets his left foot down in bounds at the 50. As his right foot comes down, the heel hits in bounds and in the normal motion of taking a step, his toes hit out of bounds. Officials rule complete. Ruling: Reviewable. A’s ball fourth-and-10 on A30. Incomplete. Adjust clock if wound before review. If any part of the foot hits out of bounds during the normal process of taking a step (no drag or delay), then the foot is out of bounds.

Again, terrible rule but still a no-catch by definition.

Yep. I think they need to review the rule because it makes no rational sense. Had CeeDee just touched both toes down even as he was going backwards like in the real play it would have counted, which is absurd.

I think they need to simplify it and make that any part of both feet touch in bounds prior to going out of bounds it’s a catch.

 

[MarcusRock]

You seem to miss the point here honestly. The contention on the Dez catch is that he was not going to ground on the catch. He was going to ground on the dive for the end zone. It is apparent that is the case because he had already switched the ball on the catch from both hands to the other and then he dove with that outstretch arm that the ball was then in. Going to the ground assumes no football move so he has to maintain control through that part. Dez, on the other hand had such control of the ball and his body that he did not fall to the ground on the catch but switched hands and dove for the endzone.

So debate all you want, you won't change anybody's mind on that aspect of the play!

Truth trigger alert! Lol. Hey, just ignore the mechanics of a rule you didn't understand and you can have any result you want. That video explains precisely why the ruling was what it was so then you respond with the same ol', same ol' as if it overcomes that. It doesn't.

Honestly, I don't care if what I say changes anybody's mind or not. I'm just here to collect mental data on what people do when confronted with truth they can't deny that keeps them from what they want. And what they do is continue to deny, just like you are repeating the same wrong, slanted interpretation of a rule you didn't understand (or pretend not to). It's a fascinating phenomenon. You did exactly what I said people do in desperately trying to legislate Dez as upright when he was clear as day going to the ground. That rule's requirement is that you don't let the ball touch the ground and hold on to it. Dez did neither. That's why none of you catch theorists EVER want to debate that part of the rule because it kills your case on the spot. That's why it was an easy overturn upon review. But hey, playing victim is easier to swallow so I get it.

By the way, if the NFL misapplied their own rules, where are the sports article exposé pieces that support that? I never get a straight answer to this question. It's because they don't exist, right? Neither do any of y'all's contentions. Crappy outcome but how about accepting it like a man and not using grade school, "hey, not fair!" defense mechanisms to cushion your owwie?

 

[Sydla]

What's hilarious about this entire thread is that some of the very same people claiming Lamb was robbed would be calling it a great call if, say, AJ Brown for the Eagles did the exact same thing against us.

 

[noshame]

NO CATCH PEOPLE
Geez

 

[Runwildboys]

Yep. I think they need to review the rule because it makes no rational sense. Had CeeDee just touched both toes down even as he was going backwards like in the real play it would have counted, which is absurd.

I think they need to simplify it and make that any part of both feet touch in bounds prior to going out of bounds it’s a catch.

That seems like it would be simpler, but then a heel-toe step would be very difficult to discern, without leaving it up to the officials' discretion. Still, that would probably be easiest.

 

[MarcusRock]

What's hilarious about this entire thread is that some of the very same people claiming Lamb was robbed would be calling it a great call if, say, AJ Brown for the Eagles did the exact same thing against us.

You know it. It's just like that blocked punt rule that snared us last season that all of a sudden was a "terrible rule" when we didn't benefit and would be "that's just how it is" if it happened to the other team.

 

[INCowboysFan]

the confusion is from the rule is different for in field sideline plays, thats a catch on a sideline in the field of play.

Don't think so. His heel hit out of bounds. If that happens on the sidelines it is incomplete as well.

 

[blueblood70]

Don't think so. His heel hit out of bounds. If that happens on the sidelines it is incomplete as well.

its not they allow the play to be finished with toes only..seen it many times. its why the broadcast were also confused, may payers, coaches and fans were debating this because of the sideline rule..

 

[MarcusRock]

its not they allow the play to be finished with toes only..seen it many times. its why the broadcast were also confused, may payers, coaches and fans were debating this because of the sideline rule..

You've seen a play where toes come down and the heel hits out of bounds on the sidelines and they allow that as a catch? That flies against the very plain rule on the books actually labeled "heel/toe." Got video? Maybe you mean a double toe tap or double toe drag which would be good. This play was neither of those.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

What's hilarious about this entire thread is that some of the very same people claiming Lamb was robbed would be calling it a great call if, say, AJ Brown for the Eagles did the exact same thing against us.

That’s a given. We see the hypocrisy every week when nobody talks about the gift calls/non-calls that benefit us, or the horrendous refereeing witnessed in other games around the league.

 

[blueblood70]

You've seen a play where toes come down and the heel hits out of bounds on the sidelines and they allow that as a catch? That flies against the very plain rule on the books actually labeled "heel/toe." Got video? Maybe you mean a double toe tap or double toe drag which would be good. This play was neither of those.

they stop the pay at toes yes because almost ALL plays on the sideline end up out of bounds the monrupm, of toe drag swag after the toe tap the next step is out of bounds' look it up , rule on the sideline different the EZ..seen it,
Prove me wrong.

Its like that odd ball KO play where if you step out of bounds then touch the ball its a touchback and you get the ball on the 25.. typically the rule is no player who is out of bounds can be the first to touch it..crazy twists to all rules but I'm done debating it..ive seen few backwards toe drag taps that were called catches.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Imagine if this happened to us, lool? Supermarkets would be sold-out of tinfoil…

Seahawks’ Darrell Taylor ran off sideline onto field to block after interception, refs didn’t notice

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...ock-after-interception-refs-didnt-notice/amp/

 

[MarcusRock]

That’s a given. We see the hypocrisy every week when nobody talks about the gift calls/non-calls that benefit us, or the horrendous refereeing witnessed in other games around the league.

Speaking of which, did you see the play yesterday when the Seahawks linebacker came off the bench during an INT to celebrate but the play wasn't over yet and he just started blocking like he was in all the time and the refs missed it? Hilarious.



Edit: Nevermind. You did see it. Lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

they stop the pay at toes yes because almost ALL plays on the sideline end up out of bounds the monrupm, of toe drag swag after the toe tap the next step is out of bounds' look it up , rule on the sideline different the EZ..seen it,
Prove me wrong.

Its like that odd ball KO play where if you step out of bounds then touch the ball its a touchback and you get the ball on the 25.. typically the rule is no player who is out of bounds can be the first to touch it..crazy twists to all rules but I'm done debating it..ive seen few backwards toe drag taps that were called catches.

The only way those are catches as you've described are designed toe drags or toe taps where the receiver hops on his toes and then lands out of bounds. No disputing that. Lamb's second foot down was a step and you can't step on a sideline and be ruled in. Further, Lamb's second foot actually hit the defender which is what deflected it downward. Otherwise, it's doubtful he gets that foot down by himself. But it was a step, not a toe drag like you see on the sidelines. Falls under the "heel/toe" rule and is not a catch.

 

[Sydla]

Speaking of which, did you see the play yesterday when the Seahawks linebacker came off the bench during an INT to celebrate but the play wasn't over yet and he just started blocking like he was in all the time and the refs missed it? Hilarious.



Edit: Nevermind. You did see it. Lol.

I don't know about you but this is just downright awesome. What was he thinking? Did he think they only had 10 guys on the field and he had screwed up and should have been in? Hahaha.

 

[MarcusRock]

I don't know about you but this is just downright awesome. What was he thinking? Did he think they only had 10 guys on the field and he had screwed up and should have been in? Hahaha.

I think he thought the DB was touched down like on the Parsons return for a TD and came out to celebrate and then was like, "oh damn, let me just get in the middle of things and maybe they won't notice." One of the most hilarious blown calls ever. But yeah, the refs suck all around. Next time someone around here tries to list all those "odd occurrences that ONLY happen to the Cowboys," I'll have this cued up. Lol.

 

[Proof]

Excellent point.

that is not an excellent point lol. it is simple though.

 

[Proof]

You know it. It's just like that blocked punt rule that snared us last season that all of a sudden was a "terrible rule" when we didn't benefit and would be "that's just how it is" if it happened to the other team.

Why would anyone want to argue for another team? That's weirdo behavior. I really don't understand this beacon of justice and integrity role you've assumed (unless you're defending something I want to be right about of course)

 

[Proof]

the rule is already that simple. It just says if any part hits out of bounds it’s incomplete. Lol, that’s literally what you’re asking for just the inverse.

that's just...not true though.