I do not see any difference between that play and the Dez play in 2014 *merged*

[MarcusRock]

We can't acquire Bigfoot. He has Tiffany Thompson in his contacts. Goodell would sasquatch that in a hurry. 12 game ban for each of the next 5 seasons. Then we get a Bigfoot in his contract year so at least we reap benefits for one season.

 

[G2]

I bet Bigfoot could create some serious separation.

 

[BlindFaith]

You are saying he caught it now? The way that rule has consistently been applied is if the receiver has a firm grasp on the ball the whole way such that there is never a moment the firm grasp is lost regardless of a slight movement. It doesn't apply to a ball popping out of the grasp and then being pulled back in.

Yep. Per the rule Marcus posted, it justifies it as a catch. My original understanding, just as you said, was wrong.

 

[BlindFaith]

I bet Bigfoot could create some serious separation.

Big foots natural position would probably be tight end. But we know how this team likes position flex.

 

[G2]

Big foots natural position would probably be tight end. But we know how this team likes position flex.

We do need a DT

 

[OmerV]

Yep. Per the rule Marcus posted, it justifies it as a catch. My original understanding, just as you said, was wrong.

So you think what happened with Dez was merely a "slight movement"? This has to be sarcasm.

 

[BlindFaith]

So you think what happened with Dez was merely a "slight movement"? This has to be sarcasm.

We are talking about the Clements catch in the super bowl.

Dez = no catch

 

[BlindFaith]

We do need a DT

Maybe left guard?

 

[G2]

Maybe left guard?

Much needed. Something tells me he would hold.

 

[Big_D]

Clement's catch can fall under the note in the catch rule that states:

"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."

Another vague rule that creates an opportunity for the NFL to go either way in these situations. The ball moved and he stepped out of bounds. Pretty cut and dry there. If the ball moves it's not possession.

 

[G2]

Another vague rule that creates an opportunity for the NFL to go either way in these situations. The ball moved and he stepped out of bounds. Pretty cut and dry there. If the ball moves it's not possession.

The ball can move as long as the WR has a hold of it.

 

[OmerV]

We are talking about the Clements catch in the super bowl.

Dez = no catch

lol - okay, I was confused. I guess I missed part of the discussion. I thought Clements catch was pretty iffy, but I haven't gone back and looked at it again. Ertz was a no brainer though. How anyone thinks that one looks identical to Dez's play I'll never know.

 

[Big_D]

The ball can move as long as the WR has a hold of it.

It wasn't clear possession. He didn't have full control. Dez and Ertz had more control. The ball was wobbling as he steps out. Just another crap call.

 

[BlindFaith]

Another vague rule that creates an opportunity for the NFL to go either way in these situations. The ball moved and he stepped out of bounds. Pretty cut and dry there. If the ball moves it's not possession.

Not cut and dry. As I learned.

 

[BlindFaith]

It wasn't clear possession. He didn't have full control. Dez and Ertz had more control. The ball was wobbling as he steps out. Just another crap call.

Clements wasn't going to the ground. Don't compare apple's to oranges.

 

[Big_D]

If were talking possession of the football those guys had it specially in comparison to a player who didn't and then stepped out.

 

[Big_D]

Where is "the ground can't cause a fumble" in all this?

 

[G2]

It wasn't clear possession. He didn't have full control. Dez and Ertz had more control. The ball was wobbling as he steps out. Just another crap call.

He was on his feet, rather big difference.

 

[BlindFaith]

Where is "the ground can't cause a fumble" in all this?

If they have already become a runner.

 

[OmerV]

lol - okay, I was confused. I guess I missed part of the discussion. I thought Clements catch was pretty iffy, but I haven't gone back and looked at it again. Ertz was a no brainer though. How anyone thinks that one looks identical to Dez's play I'll never know.

Replying to myself now. I went back and looked at the Clements catch and I believe the reason it was called complete is because he established possession before the bobble by being upright and having gotten 2 feet down before the bobble.