Just for the sake of clarity, people need to understand something about this call. This call was NOT a 'simply by the rules' call, as so many people have been so quick to claim. This was a JUDGEMENT call, which means it was the OPPOSITE of a 'simply by the rulebook' call. Here's why: 1) the call could have gone either way, and it would have been 'the right call'. 2) This is because the judgement occurs NOT in regards to 'did the ball pop loose?' question - obviously, the ball popped up. The judgement occurs in determining the mysterious 'did he make a common football move' question. Common football move - according to whom? Depends on who you ask, doesn't it? According to this particular ref - the same one who famously robbed CJ of his touchdown a couple seasons ago - a 'common football move' apparently means more than simply controlling the ball for three steps and lunging toward the goal line. So what consititutes a 'common football move'? Maybe this is clearly spelled out in the rulebook, but I don't think so, at least if it is, I have not seen it. So, this means that the whole call was simply yet another (in my opinion) botched judgement call by the refs. And this rule WILL be changed during the offseason, because at least two playoff games this year have now had a dark cloud placed over them by the refs poor decisions. And yes, the call today was a poor decision by a misguided ref and poor application of a completely crappy rule. Had the call been upheld, nobody would have been surprised. It would have just been, 'oh well, McCarthy lost yet another challenge', and everyone would have just moved along. Maybe Dallas would have won, maybe not. Personally I was hoping to see them maybe eat some clock for a couple downs before punching it in on third down, but I know that would have been risky. And maybe Rodgers would have come down and at least got a FG to tie it. We'll never know, because the Refs screwed the pooch yet again. And yeah yeah I already know what the haters will say. 'He didn't hold onto the ball all the way through the catch.' I KNOW that. That's irrelevant. Had the ref 'judged' him to have made a 'common football move', then that would not have mattered. Whatever. Sucks that these games can't be decided on the field. And before you go screaming about Detroit, the situations are not similar. Neither the Cowboys or the refs caused Detroit's coach to wuss out and not go for it on 4th down. And neither of them caused Detroit's punter to shank the most critical punt of the year. Detroit still had plenty of opportunity to win. That's not true in this game.
It's completely understandable to disagree with the rule and feel that it was unfair. Dez had that ball. Unfortunately the rules are the rules and as a WR you should know what the rules are (no matter how unfair they might be). To disagree with the call itself is wrong. The call was correct. You would assume after the Calvin Johnson thing years ago teams would hammer the rule into their receivers. Dez is gonna regret for years not just coming down with it and trying to reach for the goaline instead of having 1st and goal on the 2.
If he's falling, he's falling... and its part of the catch. Ok like i said earlier if hes stumbling for 10 yds never gaining his balance then this rule still stands?
i no longer care if it was a catch just that i'm not crazy and seeing things. that angle just proves i'm not crazy. freeze the gif towards the end, that ball never touches the ground. the ball is attached to his hand, his elbow hits the turf first, then ball pops out from the force of impact of that elbow and not because it touches the ground. it would help if that pylon wasn't in the way for a more enhanced view.
I think you're definitely crazy... that ball clearly hits the ground. You don't need to remove the pylon, but if you do you'll see even more of ball hitting the ground. If it didn't hit the ground, it actually would have been a catch... read the ref's explanation above.
Doesn't matter... see the Calvin Johnson catch. "breaking the plane" doesn't apply to catches... you still have to fully keep possession of the ball throughout the entire catch, whether it happens in the end zone, in the middle of the field, or you're falling out-of-bounds.
Still would have been incomplete... http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81a77070/Controversial-call-on-Megatron-non-TD
In your amazingly hypothetical situation, where somebody can actually "stumble" for 10+ yards... then yes, it still stands. Fortunately, I don't think there will ever be a situation where a player is actually "falling/stumbling" like this for 10 yards... invariably in that situation, a "football"move would be made. Here's my hypothetical situation... lets say Bryant simply lets go of the ball before he hits the ground, and the Packers recover... is it then a fumble? IMO, that is why the rule really exists... refs had a hard time figuring out possession prior to turnovers.
You act like you've never seen a player stumble for ten yds. And yes its a fumble if his elbow hadnt hit the ground first.
I do think you're right on this part - there's no frame that actually shows the ball hitting the ground. When it would be there, the pylon is in the way. It's an assumption based on the way the ball turned and where we think the ball would have been. But its at least theoretically possible that the ball never actually touched the ground, in which case this would have been the wrong call.
I've never seen a player run, jump for a catch, get hit and fall as he's landing... and then stumble for 10 more yards. At that point, he would have had to "land", and the further advancement would have constituted a football move. Bryant never stuck any sort of landing in this case or had any sort of control of his body separate from the jumping/catching action. Its totally subjective if you would declare that a fumble... some refs would and some refs wouldn't, but that's why this rule is in place.
I believe the angle from the other sideline showed it pretty well... out of all the "definitive" things they considered in the review, the ball hitting the ground was never in question.
From Article 3 of the NFL Rulebook: Seems prett clear-cut to me. It has nothing to do with a "football move", it has to do with maintaining possession of the ball while going to the ground ... which Bryant didn't do.
Right, it doesn't... because Bryant never made one. People here think that Bryant caught the ball, ran those two steps, and lunged for the end-zone, and the lunge was the football move. It wasn't... he was falling and never maintained control when he finally landed.
this is the best frame grabs i could get. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/hoy_en_la_revolucion/16258750311" title="bryant catch or no catch by Kalel, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7550/16258750311_3f22d83918_b.jpg" width="751" height="422" alt="bryant catch or no catch"></a> from screen grab 2 to 3 it's the elbow that hits ground. by screen grab 5, the force from elbow pushes the ball into the helmet which pops the ball loose, back and to the left. the way i would call it as a coach ref would be a touchback for the packers had bryant never possessed it again or a td since it was a live ball and he regained it in the endzone. football gods did give the lions justice we can all agree on that one.
