- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/12/15 at 1:56 pm to Salmon
quote:
its a pretty common reaction to put your hands down to brace yourself when you fall
I think that's a reach. He was clearly trying to make a play with the ball.
quote:
so you agree he didn't make the catch..?
By the letter of the current rule, I see why they ruled the way they did. But I still think they got it wrong. And if what he did isn't a "catch" then the rule needs to be changed.
He got punished for being more athletic with the ball.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 1:56 pm to iwasthere
quote:
So, a football move doesn't apply.
quote:
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.
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.
Your browser does not support the video tag. Fox
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.
LINK
OK guy.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 1:56 pm to ATLsuTiger
When was part b completed and then how long is enough time since they don't actual have to do a move just hold ball long enough?
I think the right foot completes B, but some see a bobble possibly after first left foot so maybe second left that did last push competes B. Did he hold ball long enough to have had time to make a move regardless of what he did or what he intended?
How many body parts have to touch ground before its all way to the ground? A forearm, elbow, and left knee or thigh touchéd before hand with ball did and this was after 2 or 3 feet and a hand touched the ground.
I think the right foot completes B, but some see a bobble possibly after first left foot so maybe second left that did last push competes B. Did he hold ball long enough to have had time to make a move regardless of what he did or what he intended?
How many body parts have to touch ground before its all way to the ground? A forearm, elbow, and left knee or thigh touchéd before hand with ball did and this was after 2 or 3 feet and a hand touched the ground.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 1:57 pm to NorthGAVol
quote:
You're absolutely right, if he were laying out to make a catch rather than that what actually happened
He was going to the ground during the act of catching the ball. Doesn't matter if he lunged or not because he was going to the ground.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 1:57 pm to iwasthere
They assumed that a football move wasn't made.
Which, depending on if you feel he had secured the catch before he was going to the ground or not, matters greatly.
The rules are at the least sort of conflicting.
Which, depending on if you feel he had secured the catch before he was going to the ground or not, matters greatly.
The rules are at the least sort of conflicting.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 1:57 pm to Eighteen
quote:
And if what he did isn't a "catch" then the rule needs to be changed.
I don't get this
that wasn't a catch, I don't care about the NFL rule, I'm going by common sense
quote:
He got punished for being more athletic with the ball.
He got punished for not holding onto the ball
Posted on 1/12/15 at 1:58 pm to ATLsuTiger
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."
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.
This needs to be sticked and bolded at the top of every page so we don't have to keep playing it out over and over and over.
Iwasthere, you are wrong here.
This post was edited on 1/12/15 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 1/12/15 at 1:59 pm to Eighteen
quote:
Iwasthere, you are wrong here.
Yep.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 1:59 pm to ATLsuTiger
"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."
Bingo.
The review official assumed he wasn't making a football move. Lots of people today disagree. At the least, it is disputable.
Yet, they had 100% indisputable evidence? Pretty good stuff...
Bingo.
The review official assumed he wasn't making a football move. Lots of people today disagree. At the least, it is disputable.
Yet, they had 100% indisputable evidence? Pretty good stuff...
Posted on 1/12/15 at 2:01 pm to Salmon
Let's say he pushed himself forward with his right hand as he was hitting the ground and the ball would have broken the plane, would it be a TD?
I'm genuinely curious if that would have changed anything. Would pushing himself forward constitute a football move making it a catch and a TD, or would crossing the plane relieve him of this added "burden of proof" regarding the catch?
I'm genuinely curious if that would have changed anything. Would pushing himself forward constitute a football move making it a catch and a TD, or would crossing the plane relieve him of this added "burden of proof" regarding the catch?
Posted on 1/12/15 at 2:01 pm to ATLsuTiger
Pereira applied a specific rule, and thought it was a catch. This is the rule you linked. After he looked at it again, he then applied the going to the ground rule. He just tries to save face. Nowhere in the rule I pasted does it mention a football move. He can add all the words he wants to the rule, but that doesn't make him right.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 2:01 pm to Salmon
quote:
that wasn't a catch, I don't care about the NFL rule, I'm going by common sense
By my common sense, the catch was completed when he had both hands on the ball, landed on the ground with both feed and began spinning/getting tangled with the defended.
He then (again, my opinion) moved the ball to one hand and tried to get to the goal line.
I get that there is debate here. But this debate gets to the heart of the issue. It's up to the ref to determine if his "football move" was enough or not. Which if it's disputable, the play should've stood.
quote:
He got punished for not holding onto the ball
In the end, yes.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 2:03 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
The review official assumed he wasn't making a football move.
The review official felt that the move he saw was not a football move. The official saw the move and concluded that it was not a "football move". It was indisputable because he had a clear shot of the move. Whether you disagree with that doesn't make it disputable. He is going by his own definition of "football move"
there...that was my best attempt of tackling that position
Posted on 1/12/15 at 2:04 pm to iwasthere
That "going to the ground rule" simply does not apply if he makes a football move. Sorry you are stupid.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 2:06 pm to Eighteen
quote:
By my common sense, the catch was completed when he had both hands on the ball, landed on the ground with both feed and began spinning/getting tangled with the defended.
well sure, if he stays upright
but since he was falling to the ground, it would seem like common sense that he needed to keep control of the ball through contact with the ground
Posted on 1/12/15 at 2:09 pm to Salmon
I can see that position.
I think a more reasonable view would be to say "hey, I don't think he was making a football move, but he could have been. His intent could have been to try to score. So, I can't overturn this because I don't have indisputable evidence."
I just don't see how anyone can watch that reply and think he's not trying to score. He has the ball in two hands at his chest, and then moves it into one hand and extends it away from his chest.
As Scott Van Pelt said, I think he was desperately trying to score.
If he's trying to get across the plain with the football, that seems like a football move to me.
The rules, at the very least, are conflicting to me. I just don't see how that call doesn't stand.
Not that this matters in any way, but letting it stand also doesn't end the game. Green Bay still gets the ball back and likely scores
But overturning it essentially ends the game. Again, not that it matters. Just a point.
I think a more reasonable view would be to say "hey, I don't think he was making a football move, but he could have been. His intent could have been to try to score. So, I can't overturn this because I don't have indisputable evidence."
I just don't see how anyone can watch that reply and think he's not trying to score. He has the ball in two hands at his chest, and then moves it into one hand and extends it away from his chest.
As Scott Van Pelt said, I think he was desperately trying to score.
If he's trying to get across the plain with the football, that seems like a football move to me.
The rules, at the very least, are conflicting to me. I just don't see how that call doesn't stand.
Not that this matters in any way, but letting it stand also doesn't end the game. Green Bay still gets the ball back and likely scores
But overturning it essentially ends the game. Again, not that it matters. Just a point.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 2:11 pm to ATLsuTiger
quote:
That "going to the ground rule" simply does not apply if he makes a football move. Sorry you are stupid.
He could do every move in the book he wants, If he is going to the ground in the process of making the catch, that rule applies every time. Say what you want, make stuff up, call people names, but you are still wrong.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 2:17 pm to Salmon
To me, the Calvin Johnson play is entirely different.
He is in the end zone. There are no football moves to be made. All he has to do is catch and get two feet down. If he goes to the ground, he has to maintain possession. That makes perfect sense there.
He is in the end zone. There are no football moves to be made. All he has to do is catch and get two feet down. If he goes to the ground, he has to maintain possession. That makes perfect sense there.
Posted on 1/12/15 at 2:18 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
I just don't see how anyone can watch that reply and think he's not trying to score. He has the ball in two hands at his chest, and then moves it into one hand and extends it away from his chest.
When the refs look at the replay, they have to decide when he had possession. It is clear that when he first got his hands on it, it was knocked loose by the defender. Once they determine when he has control, they must make a decision. The decision's are, is he going to the ground or not. If going to the ground, he must maintain possession all the way through the process of contacting the ground. If he isn't going to the ground, then he must make a football move. They deemed he was going to the ground and lost control the ball when it hit the ground. Therefor, they reversed the call. It is actually simple, was he going t the ground or not. Him trying to lunge didn't make him go to the ground. he was going down so tried to lunge. The rules were applied correctly regardless if it is a stupid rule.
Page 44 of 47
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News