Can anyone articulate what a catch is any more?

[mestevo]

The only question about that catch is his right foot, it's about as ridiculous of a catch as we'll ever see as it doesn't move or anything from his hand after that point. After his right foot hits he then hits the ball with his leg, hard to tell if that was enough to 'lose control' or not or if that just secured it further. It can move, he just can't lose control. Think it did the former, not the latter.

The initial double clutch made his initial 2 feet down irrelevant, it was his final two steps in the end zone that made it a catch, when it was in his hand and when he pinned it to his leg as he went to the ground.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ant-touchdown/

VP of officiating now says he wouldn't have called it a catch on the field.

[mestevo]

Yup, all comes down to the right foot.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[fugazi]

The short answer to the OP question? No.
The long answer? The NFL can call whatever the hello they want...

Fitzgerald's catch that McCarthy challenged was a catch? Because he was established as a runner? It looked just like some other "catches" that were not allowed to stand...

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by fugazi

The short answer to the OP question? No. The long answer? The NFL can call whatever the hello they want... Fitzgerald's catch that McCarthy challenged was a catch? Because he was established as a runner? It looked just like some other "catches" that were not allowed to stand...

Well we just got a link explaining what I originally thought... that Bryant's shouldn't have been ruled a catch (just couldn't be overturned).

Personally, I felt the same way about Fitz's "catch"... it was eerily similar to Dez Bryant's play before.

But again, this doesn't say there's a problem with the rules as stated because some of us here can call them. It's a problem with refs making the right call... which is true for just about every rule in the book, not just catches.

[mestevo]

I'm not sure that link really says that, just the opinion of the VP of officiating and that this was a failure of replay rather than the catch rules. Initial call probably relied heavily on the vantage point of the ref making it.

One of those plays that stands either way because of the right foot.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

I'm not sure that link really says that, just the opinion of the VP of officiating and that this was a failure of replay rather than the catch rules. Initial call probably relied heavily on the vantage point of the ref making it. One of those plays that stands either way because of the right foot. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure what you mean bc he didn't say it was a failure of the rules (and I'm not saying that either). He basically said he didn't believe it was a catch but bc that was the call on the field, it was too close to be overturned. That says it was all handled exactly as it should be but AFTER the refs screwed up the initial call.

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

I'm not sure what you mean bc he didn't say it was a failure of the rules (and I'm not saying that either). He basically said he didn't believe it was a catch but bc that was the call on the field, it was too close to be overturned. That says it was all handled exactly as it should be but AFTER the refs screwed up the initial call.

I think it's hard to say the refs screwed up the call when there are multiple camera angles and no indisputable proof is all.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk