oldtimer Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Oh. And in another sport, Brett Hull's goal to win the Stanley Cup was good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 The bottom line is that it was a catch, Brady did fumble, and if you want to go back a week, it was interference on the Cowboys and should not have been reversed. The thing which surprises me is that they need irrefutable (or something like that) proof to reverse a call. I just did not see anything quite as clear as that to justify reversal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Welcome to the National Football Lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible Nectar Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) The call was correct within the league rule as written. How so? Is there some other written rule, other than that which is cited in the article linked by Oldie? The rule: "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete." Bryant lost control of the ball momentarily - it pops out of his hand when he (and the ball) hits the ground. That is, by rule, no catch. If the receiver falls after the catch, the ball CAN touch the ground, but it can't "wobble". So long as the receiver maintains a FIRM grip on the ball in the case of hitting the ground, it will be a catch. When the ball moves out of the grip of Bryant during the "crash" (ball hitting the ground) it was clear the call would be overturned, assuming correct application of the rule. Watch the video on the MSN link where Mike Pereira explains this. Edited January 11, 2015 by Audible Nectar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minermark Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 My FootBall pools are numbered squares, could care less who earns the right to get there till game day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Well there you go the ball hit the ground. No show me why it wasn't a fumble by Brady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground I would like to know more about the phrase, "when contacting the ground." When, exactly, is this moment in time? It seems to me the point of first contact means the ground "has been" contacted, and the player is no longer "contacting" the ground. I think the phrase is problematic, and I also think it is not consistent with the notion that the ground cannot cause a fumble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Then go back last week and show me where it wasn't interference in the Lions game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 And why should defensive holding be an automatic first down? The point is the league has screwed the game up so royally the fans have no idea what is what anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible Nectar Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground I would like to know more about the phrase, "when contacting the ground." When, exactly, is this moment in time? It seems to me the point of first contact means the ground "has been" contacted, and the player is no longer "contacting" the ground. I think the phrase is problematic, and I also think it is not consistent with the notion that the ground cannot cause a fumble. The phrasing does leave room for ambiguity - but the league interpretation of the rule since the change in 2010 has been consistent. The issue in this case is that when the ball hit the ground, and Bryant lost that "firm grip" on it, that invalidated the catch by league intent and interpretation of the rule. The phrase "the ground can't cause a fumble" is no longer valid in all cases, this one being such a case. This rule in question was changed, IIRC, prior to the 2010 season. It used to be that so long as a player had control of the ball with two feet down, it was okay if the collision with the ground dislodged the ball. That rule was changed four years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I love it. Four years ago, now there's some continuity for a century plus old game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground I would like to know more about the phrase, "when contacting the ground." When, exactly, is this moment in time? It seems to me the point of first contact means the ground "has been" contacted, and the player is no longer "contacting" the ground. I think the phrase is problematic, and I also think it is not consistent with the notion that the ground cannot cause a fumble. The phrasing does leave room for ambiguity - but the league interpretation of the rule since the change in 2010 has been consistent. The issue in this case is that when the ball hit the ground, and Bryant lost that "firm grip" on it, that invalidated the catch by league intent and interpretation of the rule. The phrase "the ground can't cause a fumble" is no longer valid in all cases, this one being such a case. This rule in question was changed, IIRC, prior to the 2010 season. It used to be that so long as a player had control of the ball with two feet down, it was okay if the collision with the ground dislodged the ball. That rule was changed four years ago. I know what you mean. It was just a surprising rule to me. I can only conceive that the intent of the rule is to determine clear possession. He had clear possession before ever contacting the ground. But it is what it is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible Nectar Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I love it. Four years ago, now there's some continuity for a century plus old game. I think this is what confuses people. I guess my understanding of this comes from watching too much NFL The first time I saw that play, I knew the catch was in serious doubt. Much like the "tuck rule", there is certainly reason to argue that the rule should be changed, or to argue whether "the rule should be the rule". When the officials call the play by the league rule, however, one cannot say the call was incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible Nectar Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground I would like to know more about the phrase, "when contacting the ground." When, exactly, is this moment in time? It seems to me the point of first contact means the ground "has been" contacted, and the player is no longer "contacting" the ground. I think the phrase is problematic, and I also think it is not consistent with the notion that the ground cannot cause a fumble. The phrasing does leave room for ambiguity - but the league interpretation of the rule since the change in 2010 has been consistent. The issue in this case is that when the ball hit the ground, and Bryant lost that "firm grip" on it, that invalidated the catch by league intent and interpretation of the rule. The phrase "the ground can't cause a fumble" is no longer valid in all cases, this one being such a case. This rule in question was changed, IIRC, prior to the 2010 season. It used to be that so long as a player had control of the ball with two feet down, it was okay if the collision with the ground dislodged the ball. That rule was changed four years ago. I know what you mean. It was just a surprising rule to me. I can only conceive that the intent of the rule is to determine clear possession. He had clear possession before ever contacting the ground. But it is what it is... He DID have possession before contacting the ground. That, however, is not enough. He must maintain control of the ball THROUGH the collision with the ground. This did not happen, therefore incomplete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Of course. The rules should have never existed in the first place. Much like many today. Not that much has changed in MLB, and people seem to like it. What you have in the NFL is an oligarchy that tweaks the game for the worse based on what fits their notion of what gives them the greatest chance of success until the rules get changed again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Here I go again...but seriously---the tuck rule? What the H was that about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete." See bold, above. ... but he went to the ground after he caught it. As you said, he DID possess it before he hit the ground. He was no longer "in the act" of catching a pass. It was caught. Edited January 12, 2015 by Jeff Matthews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 You have to catch it and not let it hit the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible Nectar Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete." See bold, above. ... but he went to the ground after he caught it. As you said, he DID possess it before he hit the ground. He was no longer "in the act" of catching a pass. It was caught. Keep reading - see ALL bold. The key is "through the process". Of course he caught the ball before he hit the ground, but possession must be maintained through the process of hitting the ground as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 A real sport just should not have to go through all of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.