How so? It never even left his hand. To me that is considered a slight movement. Its not like it slid down his forearm and into his hand. Actually from the second Dez starts to come down with the ball it is in the palm of his left hand and it stays there throughout the catch with very minor "slight" movement. NO WAY is there enough evidence to overrule that call. Especially if you are following the RULE BOOK
See normally I would agree with you. Actually at first I didn't think it was a catch at all. But watch it in slow motion and then read the catch rules. See my other posts in this thread to understand.
Thanks for enlightening me on this. It's crazy though; Blandino says it shouldn't be a catch but still says that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it. Which is BS because M Bryant gains final control with two feet in the air as he's going out of bounds.
Regarding the Dez catch it's not even close IMO. The ball is bobbling in his left and his upper body is clearly out of bounds. Like some already mentioned, had this happened in the middle of the field it would be a catch. Him being out-of-bounds before re-establishing control is what screwed the pooch in this case.
The ball NEVER, NEVER was bobbled. It stayed on his hand the entire time through. It never separated from contact with his hand. It had slight movement which is allowed according to the rule book. 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.
That ball absolutely was bobbled in his hand. Not to mention, if the refs are trying to establish that you were in possession and had full control of the ball, it's an easy call when they see the ball jiggling around in one hand (as opposed to two). Beyond that, all of this was happening as he's clearly sliding out of the end zone.
Not sure if you can't see very well or if you were just joking but that ball definitely was not secured until he was out of bounds, not sure how anyone could try and argue otherwise.
Yep.. I thought it was an incompletion after I saw the replay but I wouldn't have get on it. What gets me is that yes the ball moved but his hand was under it the whole time. In real life terms if your about to drop something but you hang onto it even though it moves then it's still a catch. If you catch your sunglasses before they go in the water it doesn't matter if they move as long as you hold on to those things. In the NFL.. Not so much.
The biggest issue is the whole special endzone rules, if you cross the goal line while reaching for the goal line and you break the plane its a touchdown the second the plane is broken, if someone knocks it out of your hands after breaking the plane still a touchdown. Now if you catch a pass in the endzone you have to maintain control all the way through the catch, so if you catch it toe tap in the endzone it is not a touchdown until you complete the the catch which is maintain control after the toe tap to the ground
Some of you still don't understand the rule. Dez made the catch but when he hit the ground the ball came loose and although it didn't appear the ball touched the ground when Dez regained control of the ball he was out of bounds. That's a no catch! He's had a problem of allowing the ball to come loose when he hits the ground. In preseason against the Rams he made a similar play in the endzone and once again when he hit the ground the ball came loose but it appeared he scored and the ball may have been slapped away by the defender. It was another play that was questionable but they didn't review it. He has big, strong hands he has to try and hang onto the ball without it coming loose when he hits the ground. He does the hardest part by catching the ball and coming down with it but he continues to allow the ball to come loose when he hits the ground.
Your are correct. And the rule book clearly states what you are saying. 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.
Yes, but this applies more in the open field. Of course it was a "catch" according to the rules, but at the time the ball was secured with control he was out of bounds. "Item 2. Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, or the pass is incomplete." http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/
I hate to say it, but the refs got it right and it was not a catch. If a player leaves the ground to catch a pass, he must maintain possession throughout the entire catch process. In this case, when Dez hit the ground the ball popped out of his grip and was lose and even though the ball never touched the ground, by the time Dez regained his grip on the ball, he was out of bounds. Dez got robbed in Green Bay, but yesterday's call was legit.
This note pertains to all parts of the rules. End zone, in field, sideline, ect. It pertains to any 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.
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. Go watch it in slow motion and tell me when that ball popped out of his hand
OK... I see what you are saying. These rules are written poorly I honestly have no clue. I feel like it was a consistent call though.
It popped lose when his hand hit the ground, to me that looks like the ball pops lose. I guess the question you are asking is "what is the definition of slight movement".............I guess that is subjective and open to interpretation.
