Explain to me how that wasn't a 'football move' **Bryant Reversed Call Thread**

[CaptainAmerica]

So many good comments in this thread. Here is something I saw...The intent to stretch the ball to the goal line is evident by one act Dez made...putting his right elbow down on the ground attempting to keep his body off the ground for one more split second so he could reach the goal line. That one move shows Dez was in control and not simply falling wherever his body happened to land. The fact the official admits a lunge would be a move common to the game is sickening to me.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

Think of the "football move" thing as an out or an exception to the base rule. According the refs, such an act must be a clear, overt act that is separate from the act of falling to the ground. Because that is UNCLEAR, i.e. the football move and the falling kind of merge together, ruling that there was a football move cannot be made, and so that exception cannot be applied. My mind is boggled that anyone who watches a lot of other NFL games and has seen this applied in the same way for a few years now is surprised. It's a dumb rule, because its overturning what appear to be catches (see Calvin Johnson...i mean he was just putting the ball down to celebrate!) but its in place currently so it is what it is until they change it.

He wasn't allowed to run forward, the DBs leg got in his way. Which would make it..... a tackle. He had the Ball. In his possession. and would've stumbled into the end zone , if it weren't for the DB preventing him from doing so.

it was a CATCH. and then a TACKLE.

 

[Derinyar]

Think of the "football move" thing as an out or an exception to the base rule. According the refs, such an act must be a clear, overt act that is separate from the act of falling to the ground. Because that is UNCLEAR, i.e. the football move and the falling kind of merge together, ruling that there was a football move cannot be made, and so that exception cannot be applied. My mind is boggled that anyone who watches a lot of other NFL games and has seen this applied in the same way for a few years now is surprised. It's a dumb rule, because its overturning what appear to be catches (see Calvin Johnson...i mean he was just putting the ball down to celebrate!) but its in place currently so it is what it is until they change it.

Pretty sure you have it backward. The term football move is part of the basic rule on what defines a catch. Item 1, a sub rule, doesn't mention a football move because its in use when a football move isn't made or able to be made during the process of the catch. So if catching the ball, getting two feet down and making a football move happen the process of the catch is complete and Item 1 isn't an issue.

 

[btcutter]

How's that not control and football move toward the goal line?

 

[nathanlt]

How's that not control and football move toward the goal line?

1/4 second forward beyond this point, you'll see both elbows down and the ball is not down! THAT'S THE MONEY SHOT. (acknowledging that there are 4 or 5 football moves during this play)

Is this from a video, or just a still camera?

 

[TheIceman]

your wrong.

the call was wrong.

He clearly had possession of the ball. before the ball came out. And even then, there is still some question as to whether it can proven, proven mind you without any doubt, that the ball touched the ground.

bottom line here is this. This replay official over turned a call on the field, he had no business what so ever over turning. There is plenty in that play to have at least some doubt as to whether he made a football move or not....

the replay official ignored all of that doubt. and over turned the call on the field. It was the worst call in modern NFL history. Absolute worst call ever.

That was a catch. plain and simple. that got over turned by some replay official who thinks an awful lot of himself....

Haha, I can always tell when people are running on emotions when they start their argument with such words.

Remember, when they review they're NOT looking to see if theres indisputable evidence that a football move was NOT made, they're looking to see if there's indisputable evidence that a football move WAS made, in order to nullify the rule that says you must maintain control THROUGHOUT the process. The ball hitting the ground is immaterial, because as you can see he doesn't maintain FULL CONTROL when the ball pops up (however it happened).

 

[TheIceman]

Pretty sure you have it backward. The term football move is part of the basic rule on what defines a catch. Item 1, a sub rule, doesn't mention a football move because its in use when a football move isn't made or able to be made during the process of the catch. So if catching the ball, getting two feet down and making a football move happen the process of the catch is complete and Item 1 isn't an issue.

I suppose this would be true, if they initially ruled that it was a catch originally because there WAS a football move. But i don't think what they originally ruled on that part. If they just ruled it a catch because of full control throughout going to the ground THEN the football move becomes an "out" during the review. Does that make sense. Guess we'll never know.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

1/4 second forward beyond this point, you'll see both elbows down and the ball is not down! THAT'S THE MONEY SHOT. (acknowledging that there are 4 or 5 football moves during this play)

 

[JoeBoBBY]

Haha, I can always tell when people are running on emotions when they start their argument with such words.

Remember, when they review they're NOT looking to see if theres indisputable evidence that a football move was NOT made, they're looking to see if there's indisputable evidence that a football move WAS made, in order to nullify the rule that says you must maintain control THROUGHOUT the process. The ball hitting the ground is immaterial, because as you can see he doesn't maintain FULL CONTROL when the ball pops up (however it happened).

well. human beings are emotional creatures. That doesnt make them wrong.

but maybe the Iceman isnt?

it was the wrong call. 99% of the people look at that play and say. Something is wrong. It makes no sense.

Dez came down with the ball and wouldve used his momentum to go right into the endzone if the DBs leg was tripping him up. he did, take another two steps after being tripped up and while stumbling forward. It was a catch.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Haha, I can always tell when people are running on emotions when they start their argument with such words.

Remember, when they review they're NOT looking to see if theres indisputable evidence that a football move was NOT made, they're looking to see if there's indisputable evidence that a football move WAS made, in order to nullify the rule that says you must maintain control THROUGHOUT the process. The ball hitting the ground is immaterial, because as you can see he doesn't maintain FULL CONTROL when the ball pops up (however it happened).

This makes no sense. What if Dez catches it, has possession, the guy tackles him immediately without him making a football move, throws him to the ground and the ball comes out but his knee or elbow is already down?

It's down by contact because the ground cannot cause a fumble.

The mere fact that they are using interpretative nonsense that there should be a "football move" even though he catches it to deny the catch makes the reversal garbage. The only time this applies is if they are determining a fumble or incomplete pass when a receiver is popped soon after catching it and then loses the ball.

 

[btcutter]

1/4 second forward beyond this point, you'll see both elbows down and the ball is not down! THAT'S THE MONEY SHOT. (acknowledging that there are 4 or 5 football moves during this play)

Is this from a video, or just a still camera?

Don't know I got the still photo from Bleacher report.

 

[nathanlt]

I love this, but if we get the angle where the camera guy was looking straight on Dez' facemask at this exact point, the NFL WILL CAVE! But honestly, it shouldn't even matter. One or two elbows down is, by DEFINITION, "ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND!"

THAT'S IT!!! ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND means just one elbow!!!!

 

[percyhoward]

Because the football move is irrelevant if the act of the catch results in the player going to the ground. In that scenario, the specific focus item part of the rule must be applied, football move or no football move. Put another way, falling to the ground as part of the process of the catch essentially means you cannot be making a football move while doing so.

Dez wasn't falling down as he caught the ball. He high-pointed the ball, came down with two feet, and was then contacted by the defender.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

This makes no sense. What if Dez catches it, has possession, the guy tackles him immediately without him making a football move, throws him to the ground and the ball comes out but his knee or elbow is already down?

It's down by contact because the ground cannot cause a fumble.

The mere fact that they are using interpretative nonsense that there should be a "football move" even though he catches it to deny the catch makes the reversal garbage. The only time this applies is if they are determining a fumble or incomplete pass when a receiver is popped soon after catching it and then loses the ball.

that play shouldve NEVER been over turned..... There is not enough evidence to Over Turn that call.

 

[speedkilz88]

I suppose this would be true, if they initially ruled that it was a catch originally because there WAS a football move. But i don't think what they originally ruled on that part. If they just ruled it a catch because of full control throughout going to the ground THEN the football move becomes an "out" during the review. Does that make sense. Guess we'll never know.

You are wrong again. The ref on the field made the sign down by contact. Not a catching gesture because he saw the catch already was made and then he saw the receiver advance the ball to the 1 after being tackled.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

Dez wasn't falling down as he caught the ball. He high-pointed the ball, came down with two feet, and was then contacted by the defender.

exactly. If it weren't for the defenders leg, dez would've stumbled right into the end zone and fallen head first most likely. Hell, he may have never even went to the ground...

 

[wick]

Dez wasn't falling down as he caught the ball. He high-pointed the ball, came down with two feet, and was then contacted by the defender.

Pet peeve: he didn't high point the ball, which was many dozens of feet in the air at its apex. That grammatical quibble aside, I think it's a tough sell to argue that he was not falling throughout the process of the catch, which then invoked the going to the ground clause of the catch rule, which for all practical purposes eliminates the football move part of the discussion. But yes, if you argue that he was not falling down from catch to ground, then he by definition would have had to have been making a football move.

 

[nathanlt]

Pet peeve: he didn't high point the ball, which was many dozens of feet in the air at its apex. That grammatical quibble aside, I think it's a tough sell to argue that he was not falling throughout the process of the catch, which then invoked the going to the ground clause of the catch rule, which for all practical purposes eliminates the football move part of the discussion. But yes, if you argue that he was not falling down from catch to ground, then he by definition would have had to have been making a football move.

For your argument to be right, you have to admit that turning upfield over the course of 5 yards is not a football move. Are you prepared to make that argument?

Additionally, when BOTH his elbows were down and the ball wasn't, that conclusively satisfies the phrase, "ALL the way to the ground". If not, then 'down by contact' has no meaning unless the ball touches the ground too.

 

[percyhoward]

Pet peeve: he didn't high point the ball, which was many dozens of feet in the air at its apex. That grammatical quibble aside, I think it's a tough sell to argue that he was not falling throughout the process of the catch, which then invoked the going to the ground clause of the catch rule, which for all practical purposes eliminates the football move part of the discussion. But yes, if you argue that he was not falling down from catch to ground, then he by definition would have had to have been making a football move.

"High-pointing" doesn't refer to the ball's highest point, it refers to the player's, of course.

And realize that what you're calling a "tough sell" is exactly how the play was ruled on the field.

 

[SultanOfSix]

You can't make this crap up. The fact that he shifts the ball into one hand out of two and tries to lunge or make a reach proves he has possession. If Dez caught it at the seven yard line, no lunge/reach, and he's down at the two yard line with first and goal.