re: .

The fact that in both this play and the Calvin Johnson play, they had to go to the replay both to get the "correct" ruling (because I don't believe it is correct) tells you all you need to know about this "rule."

It's basically impossible for the refs to officiate and get right on the field. I think they got the call wrong, AND the rule that they are falling back on obviously needs to be changed.

I agree 100%. This article sums up my thoughts nicely.

LINK

quote:

---

Like many watching the game at the time, I was convinced that it was a great catch, but by the letter of the law, it should have been overturned because he did not control the ball going to the ground.

After the game, Mike Pereira, a former NFL official and the former vice president of officiating for the NFL, explained on FOX why the reversal was correct. But after listening to his explanation I am actually less convinced that the right call was made.

The issue comes with whether or not Bryant made "a football act" before losing control. If Bryant does make a football move, it is a catch. One example is stretching the ball towards the end zone, which it appears that Bryant did.

However, according to Pereira, it was not enough of a stretch.

"If you're going to the ground, you have to prove that you have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game and do so," said Pereira. "And part of that is stretching all the way out and to me even though he moved the ball a little bit forward, they are not going to consider that a football act."

And herein lies the problem.

Pereira admits Bryant stretches the ball towards the end zone, but apparently it wasn't enough. So, now the official must determine the degree of stretching and reaching by the receiver as if they don't have enough to worry about.

It would seem that the player either reaches with the ball or he doesn't and Bryant pretty clearly tried to stretch the ball forward only being limited in actual distance by his shoulder pads.

---

quote:

---

After the game, Bryant was just as confused as anyone, saying he reached for the goal line and didn't understand why it was overturned.

The NFL has one problem when something most observers agree is a great catch is being overturned on a technicality. They have another problem entirely when they are asking officials to judge degrees of stretching.

---

quote:

---

"If you're going to the ground, you have to prove that you have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game and do so," said Pereira. "And part of that is stretching all the way out and to me even though he moved the ball a little bit forward, they are not going to consider that a football act."

---

I agree with this

quote:

---

Bryant pretty clearly tried to stretch the ball forward only being limited in actual distance by his shoulder pads.

---

eh...

quote:

---

Bryant was just as confused as anyone, saying he reached for the goal line and didn't understand why it was overturned.

---

because you dropped the ball

I agree with everything there.

Minus the part about thinking it would be overturned after seeing the replay for the first time. My friend and I turned to each other immediately and said "reaching for the endzone is a football move, right?"

If there was a shred of doubt on either side on whether or not he reached for the end zone, that call can't be overturned.

Again, I think the "rule" is awful, but the replay officials also made the wrong judgement to overturn.

Yeah after two feet hit ground and a move back across defender towards pylon in different direction than Dez jumped up for ball he does trip over defender's legs and fall over defenders legs.

Yet still manages to make another adjustment to leap past defender and towards endzone while pivoting left shoulder and arm out towards goal line.

I know you are trolling. I have disliked any time I see a ref looking at the ball when player has taken 2 strides with ball (so original foot down touches a second time). It's not just catches with 2 strides called incomplete but catches and a fumble recovered by opposing team called incomplete.

If Running 2 strides towards endzone or away from defender tackling you is not a football move I am not sure what is.

quote:

---

I know you are trolling

---

not trolling...

quote:

---

If Running 2 strides towards endzone or away from defender tackling you is not a football move I am not sure what is.

---

none of this happened

quote:

---

Minus the part about thinking it would be overturned after seeing the replay for the first time. My friend and I turned to each other immediately and said "reaching for the endzone is a football move, right?"

---

Same here. I actually chuckled when McCarthy tossed the red flag because it seemed like a waste and Green Bay was obviously going to need that timeout when they got the ball back. I saw three steps and a stretch and assumed reviewing it was a waste of time.

This was such a gut wrenching loss and probably tops Romo's fumble in Seattle, in my book at least.

Let's say this...

If the ruling on the field was confirmed or stood as called, there would be A LOT less controversy about it today.

I wonder why that is?

quote:

---

If the ruling on the field was confirmed or stood as called, there would be A LOT less controversy about it today.

I wonder why that is?

---

same as last weeks call for Dallas

if they never throw the flag or keep the flag, not much controversy

Yes