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

[Big_D]

He was on his feet, rather big difference.

He still stepped out of bounds WHILE the ball was moving.

 

[OmerV]

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.

I agree with you about the ball wobbling as he stepped out - I personally think that was more than just the "slight movement" that is allowed. However, he had the ball secured with 2 feet down and in an upright position before the bobble and before stepping out of bounds, so I think the ruling was that the touchdown had already been confirmed before the bobble and the step out.

 

[Big_D]

If they have already become a runner.

So 3 steps for Dez doesn't make him a runner?

 

[G2]

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.

That's what I thought.

 

[G2]

He still stepped out of bounds WHILE the ball was moving.

His 3rd step was out of bounds. He clearly caught the ball, had possession, took two steps and never lost possession. The ball CAN move.

 

[G2]

So 3 steps for Dez doesn't make him a runner?

He was going to the ground. AGAIN, big difference than being upright.

 

[OmerV]

That's what I thought.

At the time I thought they had screwed the call, but at the time I was only focused on the foot that stepped out and the bobble as that foot stepped out. Looking closer I can see that there wasn't a bobble until after he had established possession in the end zone.

 

[OmerV]

His 3rd step was out of bounds. He clearly caught the ball, had possession, took two steps and never lost possession. The ball CAN move.

Once a player establishes possession in the end zone not only can the ball move, he can flat out drop the ball because it's already a TD at that point.

 

[BlindFaith]

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.

It was a close call. Im ok with that being ruled a catch. But a judgement none the less.

 

[Big_D]

He was going to the ground. AGAIN, big difference than being upright.

Going to the ground because he was tripped up by the defender. If there's no defender he waltzes into the end zone with possession.

 

[Big_D]

I agree with you about the ball wobbling as he stepped out - I personally think that was more than just the "slight movement" that is allowed. However, he had the ball secured with 2 feet down and in an upright position before the bobble and before stepping out of bounds, so I think the ruling was that the touchdown had already been confirmed before the bobble and the step out.

He had the ball for less than a quarter of a second before it moves. it's basically moving the whole time.

 

[BlindFaith]

So 3 steps for Dez doesn't make him a runner?

OMG!!! Are you ****ing kidding me?!?!?

Go to page 1 of this thread and READ!!!

 

[OmerV]

Going to the ground because he was tripped up by the defender. If there's no defender he waltzes into the end zone with possession.

That's a perception, and based on your perception your interpretation of the rules would be correct. Many of us perceived it differently and feel Dez had no chance to stay upright regardless of the defender being there - that he was going to the ground all the way. That just boils down to a disparity in viewpoints.

 

[Big_D]

That's a perception, and based on your perception your interpretation of the rules would be correct. Many of us perceived it differently and feel Dez had no chance to stay upright regardless of the defender being there - that he was going to the ground all the way. That just boils down to a disparity in viewpoints.

The defenders leg trips him up! It's not perception, he didn't just freely go to the ground.

 

[OmerV]

He had the ball for less than a quarter of a second before it moves. it's basically moving the whole time.

"basically moving" isn't the same as moving the whole time, but I will grant that it is a very close call. I'm not sure I could really fault the refs either way they called it.

 

[Big_D]

"basically moving" isn't the same as moving the whole time, but I will grant that it is a very close call. I'm not sure I could really fault the refs either way they called it.

That's exactly the point. You can go either way with these calls. Did you think it was a catch when you were watching the game? I didn't then and I still don't. There's no clear rule on any off these scenarios. Just vague wording so the ref can call it how he wants.

 

[OmerV]

The defenders leg trips him up! It's not perception, he didn't just freely go to the ground.

Im sorry, but it is perception. My belief is that from the second he came down from his leap with is first foot he was off balance and going to the ground. You saw it your way, I saw it mine. That's what perception is.

 

[MarcusRock]

Going to the ground because he was tripped up by the defender. If there's no defender he waltzes into the end zone with possession.

You mean like this vastly similar play where the DB winds up nowhere near Dez? That's one funky waltz.

 

[OmerV]

That's exactly the point. You can go either way with these calls. Did you think it was a catch when you were watching the game? I didn't then and I still don't. There's no clear rule on any off these scenarios. Just vague wording so the ref can call it how he wants.

You can maybe go either way once in a while with these calls, but that doesn't apply to all of these calls. This play didn't mirror the Dez play, and neither did the Ertz play, which was the idea behind this entire thread.

 

[Big_D]

You mean like this vastly similar play where the DB winds up nowhere near Dez?

Was that a TD?? So he goes to the ground because he was tripped up and for some odd treason the same rules don't apply? He had full possession and was brought down as a runner. But now were pretending like the defender had nothing to do with it.

If the ball comes loose in that video it's clearly not a catch, but with the defender on him, it was.