Dez no catch #2?

Zekeats

Zekeats

theranchsucks
Messages
13,157
Reaction score
15,711
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

JBS

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,387
Reaction score
23,825
I was waiting for this


Hahahahahahahahaha
 
Zekeats

Zekeats

theranchsucks
Messages
13,157
Reaction score
15,711
Paniolo22 said:
He did secure it, just out of bounds.
Click to expand...

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

Nova

Ntegrase96
Messages
10,699
Reaction score
12,659
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

CalPolyTechnique

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,686
Reaction score
44,617
Ntegrase96 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Nova

Ntegrase96
Messages
10,699
Reaction score
12,659
theranchsucks said:
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!
Click to expand...

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

Zekeats

theranchsucks
Messages
13,157
Reaction score
15,711
Ntegrase96 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

Kevinicus

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,886
Reaction score
12,670
treykin32

treykin32

Well-Known Member
Messages
382
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top