Help me understand a "catch"

[cmoney23]

Last night Reed rips the ball out of Flournoy's hands/arms for a game sealing INT. (Let's forget the fact that the game was done but whatever)

I watched that reply a dozen times and I still don't understand how this was upheld.

He bobbles it, he tips it, and finally catches it... but the ball CLEARLY rolls on the ground.

They don't show the front view here (https://www.detroitlions.com/video/lions-vs-cowboys-full-highlights) but you can still see the laces roll on the ground... meaning the ball is "trapped" between the players body and the turf. (there are other replays of this that are even more obvious)

This reminds me of the INT Dak had earlier in the year against the Giants where, even more obviously, the ball rolls over the defenders arm and moves; because it is trapped between the ground and the player's body.

The game was over and it really doesn't matter but still, with the amount of money bet on points, TDs, INTs, Competitions, Etc. Why isn't this accurately reviewed/officiated... or is it being and I missed the memo where you can use the ground to catch the ball? (And yes, I know you can if the ball doesn't move)

 

[big dog cowboy]

Depends on the point spread and the current score of the game.

 

[Kevinicus]

The ball can spin, but still be in his control.

 

[McKDaddy]

Depends on the point spread and the current score of the game.

and if the networks need to juice ratings or "setup" a future game or games.

 

[goshann]

I thought it was a good call - didn’t see it hit the ground

 

[Chasing6]

Last night Reed rips the ball out of Flournoy's hands/arms for a game sealing INT. (Let's forget the fact that the game was done but whatever)

I watched that reply a dozen times and I still don't understand how this was upheld.

He bobbles it, he tips it, and finally catches it... but the ball CLEARLY rolls on the ground.

They don't show the front view here (https://www.detroitlions.com/video/lions-vs-cowboys-full-highlights) but you can still see the laces roll on the ground... meaning the ball is "trapped" between the players body and the turf. (there are other replays of this that are even more obvious)

This reminds me of the INT Dak had earlier in the year against the Giants where, even more obviously, the ball rolls over the defenders arm and moves; because it is trapped between the ground and the player's body.

The game was over and it really doesn't matter but still, with the amount of money bet on points, TDs, INTs, Competitions, Etc. Why isn't this accurately reviewed/officiated... or is it being and I missed the memo where you can use the ground to catch the ball? (And yes, I know you can if the ball doesn't move)

I am sure it is and cross referenced with Vegas to see which way they want to go on a close call.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

He got his hand under it, it didn’t seem to touch the ground. Or if it did he had it pretty well secured

 

[cmoney23]

The ball can spin, but still be in his control.

How?

 

[SpaceCowboy99]

He got his hand under it, it didn’t seem to touch the ground. Or if it did he had it pretty well secured

This.

I don't understand how you watched it 10 times and don't understand it? Maybe you should stop watching football. It's not for you.

 

[MarcusRock]

He got his hand under it, it didn’t seem to touch the ground. Or if it did he had it pretty well secured

As he dragged on the ground the ball did touch and appear to roll a little. But as you know, the ball can touch and move on the ground a little so long as it's controlled by the receiver.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

As he dragged on the ground the ball did touch and appear to roll a little. But as you know, the ball can touch and move on the ground a little so long as it's controlled by the receiver.

And then it’s additionally hazy if the refs initially called it a catch on the field. They would need irrefutable evidence to overturn. So no kinda coulda maybe stuff

 

[Doomsday]

He got his hand under it, it didn’t seem to touch the ground. Or if it did he had it pretty well secured

He rolled over the entire ball with the stitching clearly on the ground, no way is that a catch.

It is the 3rd interception for Dak this season where the defense didn't even catch the ball.

 

[Mr_437]

Reed made a great play. When is a Dallas CB gonna make a play like that?

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Last night Reed rips the ball out of Flournoy's hands/arms for a game sealing INT. (Let's forget the fact that the game was done but whatever)

I watched that reply a dozen times and I still don't understand how this was upheld.

He bobbles it, he tips it, and finally catches it... but the ball CLEARLY rolls on the ground.

They don't show the front view here (https://www.detroitlions.com/video/lions-vs-cowboys-full-highlights) but you can still see the laces roll on the ground... meaning the ball is "trapped" between the players body and the turf. (there are other replays of this that are even more obvious)

This reminds me of the INT Dak had earlier in the year against the Giants where, even more obviously, the ball rolls over the defenders arm and moves; because it is trapped between the ground and the player's body.

The game was over and it really doesn't matter but still, with the amount of money bet on points, TDs, INTs, Competitions, Etc. Why isn't this accurately reviewed/officiated... or is it being and I missed the memo where you can use the ground to catch the ball? (And yes, I know you can if the ball doesn't move)

well, the worst call was the fergi penalty, where he cooked the LB, got position and then got mugged...yet he was called for the penalty. at that point, we were in the game. get inside the 5, score a TD and its a different game, with a real chance (of course defense has to still come through).....I still don't get that call.

 

[VaqueroTD]

well, the worst call was the fergi penalty, where he cooked the LB, got position and then got mugged...yet he was called for the penalty. at that point, we were in the game. get inside the 5, score a TD and its a different game, with a real chance (of course defense has to still come through).....I still don't get that call.

I thought that challenge rules had progressed to a point where just about anything was fair game. That is what frustrated me. If that were less than 2 minutes, it would have automatically been reviewed, correct?

 

[Creeper]

Last night Reed rips the ball out of Flournoy's hands/arms for a game sealing INT. (Let's forget the fact that the game was done but whatever)

I watched that reply a dozen times and I still don't understand how this was upheld.

He bobbles it, he tips it, and finally catches it... but the ball CLEARLY rolls on the ground.

They don't show the front view here (https://www.detroitlions.com/video/lions-vs-cowboys-full-highlights) but you can still see the laces roll on the ground... meaning the ball is "trapped" between the players body and the turf. (there are other replays of this that are even more obvious)

This reminds me of the INT Dak had earlier in the year against the Giants where, even more obviously, the ball rolls over the defenders arm and moves; because it is trapped between the ground and the player's body.

The game was over and it really doesn't matter but still, with the amount of money bet on points, TDs, INTs, Competitions, Etc. Why isn't this accurately reviewed/officiated... or is it being and I missed the memo where you can use the ground to catch the ball? (And yes, I know you can if the ball doesn't move)

Supposedly, the ball can hit the ground but if the player has "control" it is a catch. This is another rule change that was intended to fix some other issues but in turn has created new issues. It is impossible to determine control of the ball if it hits the ground. They use the "ball moves" criteria to determine control. In my opinion, if it his the ground that the player does not have hands or arms underneath it, it should be incomplete. Hands on the side of the ball or on top of the ball should be incomplete even if the ball doesn't move. Is this perfect? No. But it removes some of the subjectivity from the decision. Asking refs to judge these things is what leads to inconsistent calls.

If teh tip of the ball touches the ground and the receiver has it in his hands, that should be complete. But if the die of the ball touches the ground it should be incomplete. Just my opinion.

The other rule I hate is the "forward progress" rule on fumbled. If a guy is wrapped up and not going anywhere that's the end of forward progress, right? If the ball comes out after that is should not be a fumble, right? But I see fumbles ruled all the time when it looks like forward progress has been stopped. Again, inconsistency is what people hate.

 

[CrownCowboy]

If the ball touches the ground at all it should be an incomplete pass like it was when football was real.

In today’s NFL the ball can touch the ground and you can’t hit anyone too hard or else it’s a penalty.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I thought that challenge rules had progressed to a point where just about anything was fair game. That is what frustrated me. If that were less than 2 minutes, it would have automatically been reviewed, correct?

I am not sure. I don't think so. now if he would have caught it and scored, then probably yes.

 

[CWR]

He got his hand under it, it didn’t seem to touch the ground. Or if it did he had it pretty well secured

That's a pic all day long. He had his hands under that ball. I dont see an argument from that replay.

 

[cmoney23]

That's a pic all day long. He had his hands under that ball. I dont see an argument from that replay.

That replay cuts right when the ball rolls! SMH