McCarthy Says Dez Didn’t Catch It?

[OmerV]

Damn skippy. "In control" is a great qualifier.

Compare this:

To this:

Which lunge is more definitive and "in control?" I don't deny Dez' intention but he just didn't execute. That's as clear as day and "hope" can't change that.

Damn Skippy? Your tone seems to suggest I said something different than you are.

 

[DogFace]

The NFL said otherwise. I understand the arguments about the steps and the reach, but my personal belief is all that was taking place while in the process of going to the ground, and that the reach and lunge were not football moves, but rather just trying to do whatever he could since he was going to the ground anyway.

I think a football move was intended to mean something that a player does while in control of where his body was going, and that Dez did not have that kind of control.

The rule states. “Time” to make a football move. Bringing the ball down to his right shoulder, moving it to one hand to prepare for the reach demonstrates that time was very clearly there.

Dean explained it clearly in the video and very clearly explained in the Thomas catch why Dez’s play was a catch. Which is because he had two feet down prior to the reach. (Which Dez did) Thomas was also going to the ground, but just like Dez and unlike Calvin(in the example) he had competed the 3 step process and was a runner.

I’m not sure how it’s debatable. I respect your right to have personal feelings about it. I just don’t understand where they come from.

Again. Thomas (in the example) was also going to the ground

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

 

[OmerV]

The rule states. “Time” to make a football move. Bring to ball down to his right shoulder, moving it to one hand to prepare for the reach demonstrates that time was there very clearly.

Dean explained it clearly in the video and very clearly explained in the Thomas catch why Dez’s play was a catch. Which is because he had two feet down prior to the reach. (Which Dez did) Thomas was also going to the ground, but just like Dez and unlike Calvin(in the example) he had competed the 3 step process and was a runner.

I’m not sure how it’s debatable. I respect your right to have personal feelings about it. I just don’t understand where they come from.

Again. Thomas (in the example) was also going to the ground

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

Moving the ball from one side to another to prepare for a reach is something a person potentially could do while in the air - that could be done in the midst of a leap or a dive. Accordingly, that cannot be the necessary football move.

Again, Dean said it one way, the NFL said it another, the refs and review officials had their opinion … we are all just picking sides. I side with the idea that a "football move" was at that time something like a player having his feet under him solid enough that he could make a cut or make a move to avoid a tackle, not just moving the ball around as he was going to the ground.

 

[MarcusRock]

Damn Skippy? Your tone seems to suggest I said something different than you are.

Hahaha. No, "damn skippy" is old school slang for "you are speaking the absolute truth."

 

[OmerV]

Hahaha. No, "damn skippy" is old school slang for "you are speaking the absolute truth."

lol - okay. I thought it seemed more like "what the hell are you talking about".

By the way, your videos were a very good illustration of the difference.

 

[MarcusRock]

Moving the ball from one side to another to prepare for a reach is something a person potentially could do while in the air - that could be done in the midst of a leap or a dive. Accordingly, that cannot be the necessary football move.

Again, Dean said it one way, the NFL said it another, the refs and review officials had their opinion … we are all just picking sides. I side with the idea that a "football move" was at that time something like a player having his feet under him solid enough that he could make a cut or make a move to avoid a tackle, not just moving the ball around as he was going to the ground.

Exactly. That's why that main catch rule applied to a player that was UPRIGHT and the going to the ground rule was there for players falling in the process of attempting a catch. When regular football joes couldn't understand that, they re-worded the rule in 2015 to actually include the word "upright" but didn't change the essence of the rule which many CONSPIRACY! theorists try to claim as some admission of wrongdoing. So then they cling to "well so and so said something inconsistent in the past so you can't take what he says as accurate now." If you have to do that and can't cite the rules, you have no argument and are just trying to inject doubt and haze into the process to avoid a rule you can't disprove by the rules.

 

[G2]

Your opinion is worthless in light of what I quoted, particularly from Pereira’s flip-flopping.

And 2018 happened, because the NFL screwed the Steelers and Jesse Jones, when he caught it in 2017, which ‘coincidentally’ gave the Patriots home field advantage through the playoffs, if I remember correctly. They just pretended to make it a catch via 2018 rules when it was a catch by every stretch of the word already.

It's not an opinion. It's fact. Not a catch. Everyone understands it but a few still sore.

 

[G2]

Well, that would depend on what you call a football move. I still say that taking the ball from 2 hands to one and diving for the goal line with one hand and the ball would be a football move. I don't really see how anyone can argue that!

Under the old rule, not a catch. In it's entirety, not how some fans interpret parts of the rule.

 

[aikemirv]

Under the old rule, not a catch. In it's entirety, not how some fans interpret parts of the rule.

Again, there is a good argument that he was not going to the ground with the catch. Therefore, the going to the ground was part of the dive and the football move. It could have easily been ruled a catch by replay under the old rule!

 

[FloridaRob]

and while we are at it, don't forget Jerry Kramer moved 1 millionith of one second early in the Ice Bowl. It shoud have been a penalty. Call the commisioner.

 

[droopdog7]

It was a question that needed to be asked.

McCarthy said:

"It was a great catch, I can say now. It wasn't then - technically."

That's all we needed to know!

McCarthy completely correct. By today's rules it's a catch. Back then, no so much.

 

[G2]

McCarthy completely correct. By today's rules it's a catch. Back then, no so much.

Exactly.

 

[MarcusRock]

Again, there is a good argument that he was not going to the ground with the catch. Therefore, the going to the ground was part of the dive and the football move. It could have easily been ruled a catch by replay under the old rule!

Not when replay showed the ball hit the ground and came out of his possession.

But if you're going to talk dives or lunges, have you considered my examples? Which is more definitive below?

 

[droopdog7]

Again, there is a good argument that he was not going to the ground with the catch. Therefore, the going to the ground was part of the dive and the football move. It could have easily been ruled a catch by replay under the old rule!

I don't see that at all. How was he not going to the ground?

 

[droopdog7]

Not when replay showed the ball hit the ground and came out of his possession.

But if you're going to talk dives or lunges, have you considered my examples? Which is more definitive below?

Some really good examples. Colts guys much more clearly diving. Dez on the other hand was falling.

Put it this way...if Dez could have maintained his feet then why would be dive at all? Of course, he wouldn't. He would have just strode into the endzone.

 

[Jeffkills]

Gee do you still whine about the Ice Bowl too? Get over it.
.

Calm down; I’m not that old!!

But hell, why not?

We always get done dirty playing GB, including the Ice Bowl...

2 SB’s will make it all better...

 

[Jeffkills]

Ice Bowl Gate...

So quick to forget....

 

[aikemirv]

Not when replay showed the ball hit the ground and came out of his possession.

But if you're going to talk dives or lunges, have you considered my examples? Which is more definitive below?

Honestly, if you are not diving and reaching, you tuck the ball away. He obviously is diving and reaching otherwise he tucks the ball and rolls

 

[KJJ]

It was a question that needed to be asked.

McCarthy said:

"It was a great catch, I can say now. It wasn't then - technically."

That's all we needed to know!

McCarthy was right it wasn’t a catch then by rule but by rule it is now. The ridiculous rule they had in place at the time wiped out a great play.

 

[droopdog7]

Honestly, if you are not diving and reaching, you tuck the ball away. He obviously is diving and reaching otherwise he tucks the ball and rolls

Below is the language about a "football move" in the rule book from 2014. Lot's of people infer diving or reaching with the ball but it's certainly not in any way clear that even those would qualify as a football move.

And I'll give you reaching, but as other have stated, Dez was falling more than diving.

c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.).