It is currently Fri Jan 31, 2025 1:59 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 11:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:15 pm
Posts: 48806
Location: Bohemian Club Annual World Power Consolidation Conference & Golf Outing
pizza_Place: World Fluoridation Conspiracy Pizza & WINGS!
It was a catch.

It wasn't a fumble.

_________________
You know me like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:46 pm
Posts: 33874
pizza_Place: Gioacchino's
W_Z wrote:
This isn't the Packers, there's no thread.


I don't really care about football anymore and dislike packers and cowboys equally. Cowboys got hosed. That was a catch. He had possession, took 2 steps and reached for the end zone. At the very worst he was downed before the ball hit the ground.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 1:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
it was incomplete. the ground popped the ball out of his hands.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 1:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 6:09 pm
Posts: 11115
pizza_Place: Generic Pizza Store
if he wasn't at the goaline he doesnt have a need to reach out with the ball and he just makes the catch... in a weird way dez was punished for giving it his all to score a TD.... i think refs got it right per rule


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 1:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:46 pm
Posts: 33874
pizza_Place: Gioacchino's
IkeSouth wrote:
it was incomplete. the ground popped the ball out of his hands.


Ground cannot cause a fumble but can cause an incomplete? Stupid. In any case was down before the ball hit the ground. Worst call ever!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 1:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
Spaulding wrote:
IkeSouth wrote:
it was incomplete. the ground popped the ball out of his hands.


Ground cannot cause a fumble but can cause an incomplete? Stupid. In any case was down before the ball hit the ground. Worst call ever!


fumble means you had control and lost it

incomplete pass you never had control.

bryant started with control, but he never established himself. the two or three footsteps were during his fall to the ground. it would have been in his best interest to stay on his feet and take the mystery out of the play but he couldnt because he was falling. thats what nobody gets. because he was falling he was obligated to continue the catch to the ground. thats the rules. thats when the ball hit the ground, and it cannot legally do so because he was still in the act of the catch because he was falling down when he caught it.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 1:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:46 pm
Posts: 33874
pizza_Place: Gioacchino's
IkeSouth wrote:

fumble means you had control and lost it

incomplete pass you never had control.

bryant started with control, but he never established himself. the two or three footsteps were during his fall to the ground. it would have been in his best interest to stay on his feet and take the mystery out of the play but he couldnt because he was falling. thats what nobody gets. because he was falling he was obligated to continue the catch to the ground. thats the rules. thats when the ball hit the ground, and it cannot legally do so because he was still in the act of the catch because he was falling down when he caught it.


I think he had control of the ball. 6 more inches or so and it's a touchdown. The rule is ridiculous and I don't think it even applies here. I don't think he was falling and hit the ground, I think he was reaching to get it to the endzone. He could have brought it in, but was extending to get the td. That's what you don't get.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Quote:
It appears that referee Gene Steratore reached the right decision when taking away Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant’s 31-yard catch on fourth and two. It also appears that he incorrectly administered the reversal process.

Based on the game broadcast, Bryant landed (and failed to keep the ball from hitting the ground) with 4:36 to play in the fourth quarter. A full 30 seconds ticked off the clock before Packers coach Mike McCarthy threw the red challenge flag and Steratore called time out.

After Steratore returned from the replay machine with a Hochuli-esque explanation, Steratore forgot to say one thing: “Please re-set the game clock to four minutes and 36 seconds.”

If the pass was incomplete, the clock would have stopped both because the pass wasn’t caught and because the clock stops automatically on a change of possession. So whatever time was remaining when the ball came loose should have been restored once the call on the field was overturned.

It’s impossible to know how the extra 30 seconds would have altered the remainder of the game, but the fact remains that the Packers would have had more time to kill in order to keep the Cowboys from getting another crack at winning the game.

So while Steratore made a good application of a bad rule, he also apparently ignored a key aspect of the administration of the aftermath of the ruling. And that extra 30 seconds could have meant plenty to the remainder of the game.

If the NFL didn't throw last week's game they wouldn't have had to reciprocate this week as a make up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 11:42 am
Posts: 4805
pizza_Place: Home Run Inn
Spaulding wrote:
IkeSouth wrote:
it was incomplete. the ground popped the ball out of his hands.


Ground cannot cause a fumble but can cause an incomplete? Stupid. In any case was down before the ball hit the ground. Worst call ever!


You hit on a good inconsistency there. The rule should be either the ground cannot cause a fumble nor an incomplete pass or the ground can cause a fumble and make a pass incomplete with no catch. The latter seems correct. A ball carrier should have to maintain possession when hitting the ground for consistency sake.

It's asinine that the rule goes both ways for a run and a catch of a pass after two steps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37980
Location: ...
IkeSouth wrote:

fumble means you had control and lost it

incomplete pass you never had control.

bryant started with control, but he never established himself. the two or three footsteps were during his fall to the ground. it would have been in his best interest to stay on his feet and take the mystery out of the play but he couldnt because he was falling. thats what nobody gets. because he was falling he was obligated to continue the catch to the ground. thats the rules. thats when the ball hit the ground, and it cannot legally do so because he was still in the act of the catch because he was falling down when he caught it.


/thread


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
W_Z wrote:
This isn't the Packers, there's no thread.

I disagree


Also, didnt most Bears fans kinda say "Looked like a catch but we'll take the W" in regards to Calvin Johnson?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:50 am
Posts: 11255
Location: Schaumburg
pizza_Place: Palermo's
He never lost possession of the ball. He didn't heave a death grip on it, but he never lost possession.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:39 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Do you know which player a replay clearly showed that he didn't catch the ball? Randall Cobb. The ball clearly hit the ground and that was the reason he was able to secure it. For some reason they didn't overturn it.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33214
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Tad Queasy wrote:
He never lost possession of the ball. He didn't heave a death grip on it, but he never lost possession.


This was my thought. I agree with the all the football moves comments, but it seems to me that he had control through out regardless. Even when he hit the ground, it seems like he still had his hand(s) under the ball, then he rolled over and caught the ball.

The fact that Rozner is in for Mully just increases my pain of the Packers winning.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group