1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Steratore strikes again...

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Pandarilla, Jan 12, 2015.

  1. VManis

    VManis Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,753
    9,844
    113
    Nov 10, 2010


    The only way he would be down is if he was contacted by another player and clearly the rule says that doesn't matter.
     
  2. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    45,652
    19,304
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    It's not though. The ground can not cause a fumble, but the ground can cause an incompletion when the player has not demonstrated control while falling to the ground. That's what's happening here.

    You said the rule complicates things earlier, but it doesn't complicate things though. It clarifies them in the NFL's eyes. That's why they claim they made and have the rule, and why they chose to keep the rule after the CJ incident a few years ago. The rule is there to determine whether it is a catch or not in these types of plays, where the player has lost control of the ball when impacting the ground while in the act of a catch. It's the only definitive way in the NFL competition comittee's eyes to make that ruling as per Blandino in several interviews heard on the radio today. The act of the catch is only completed when the player has posession, and establishes himself as a runner and makes a football move. That doesn't happen here, he's still completing the act of the catch because he's deemed to be falling to the ground.
     
  3. finwin

    finwin Active Member

    943
    194
    43
    Apr 30, 2013
    Jamestown, NC
    It's complete by Article 3 Item 1 because he never lost control of the ball as he was going to the ground. For it to be incomplete, he would have had to lose control of the ball prior to the ball hitting the ground.
    Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. 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.

    It's also complete by Article 3 item 4 because He maintained control after the ball touched the ground.
    Item 4: Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided
    that the player continues to maintain control.
     
  4. Desides

    Desides Well-Known Member

    38,949
    20,033
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    One handed control of the ball is demonstrated until such time that the player is down. That the ball becomes separated by 3 inches from the player's forearm while the player maintains a grip on the ball does not constitute losing control during the process of going to the ground. He's still holding it.
     
    Pandarilla and finwin like this.
  5. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    He does not have control all the way through b/c the play isn't over when he hits the ground. The ball bounces off the ground and comes out of the receivers hands. There is no way that that would be called a catch anytime in the last few years. The going to the ground rule doesn't complicate things. It actually makes things simpler. If the ball hits the ground and comes loose from the receivers hands as the picture above shows, it's not a catch. I don't agree with the rule b/c I believe the process of the catch is completed if the receiver controls the ball and gets to feet down, but that's not the rule. The rule is that if the receiver goes to the ground the catch is not completed until he shows control after hitting the ground. He simply can't let the ball hit the ground and lose control of it and still have it called a catch.
     
    brandon27 likes this.
  6. Desides

    Desides Well-Known Member

    38,949
    20,033
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    There is nothing about the act of receiving that extends the play beyond when the player is down.

    At this point, an argument could be made that giving the ball back to the referee can be considered losing possession and therefore is not a reception.
     
  7. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Bryant is going to the ground, so he has to maintain control even if he is down.
     
  8. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    45,652
    19,304
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    No, that's where you're missing it maybe. The fact that the ball becomes separated by 3 inches from the player's forearm, is loosing control. It's the same as if a guy is on the sideline gets both feet in and bobbles it out of bounds and it's called incomplete. You have to maintain complete control.
     
  9. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    You're missing the bold part. The ball bobbled in his arm. It almost popped out. That's not maintaining control. If the ball touched the ground but didn't move out of Dez's arm, didn't wiggle, didn't nudge, it's actually a catch.
     
  10. Desides

    Desides Well-Known Member

    38,949
    20,033
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    No, it is not losing control, because he still has a five fingered one handed grip on the ball. It's still fully in his control.
     
    Pandarilla likes this.
  11. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    No, because giving the ball to the referee is not part of the 'process of contacting the ground'.
     
  12. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    45,652
    19,304
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    Exactly!

    The only problem though with saying as long as it's in his hands and he has two feet down then is plays where the WR has the ball, with both feet down, then immediately is hit and looses posession prior to "making a football move" the play can then be ruled a turnover. However, they don't want that happening frequently, so the football move is required. Same with a play like this. If he hits the ground, looses the ball like he did, but lets say he doesn't end up with it, and a Packer's player does. Should it really be a turnover? Probably not, because then people would argue the opposite, that it wasn't a catch and he didnt have complete control. It's all in what you want to see. So, this way.. .the rule is there, the rule says if it's bobbled as he hits the ground and doesnt complete the catch all the way through to the ground, its not a catch. Same way it says you have to catch it, show posession establish yourself as a runner in the open field then make a move prior to establishing posession in a normal type of play in open field.

    The rule is there to say what is a catch, and what isn't in that instance because they wanted to avoid it being ruled a turnover, if it wasn't a "complete catch". Those were Blandino's words on the radio this morning as to why the competition comittee wanted it kept the way it was after the CJ play.
     
  13. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Really the only point to debate was whether Bryant contacting the ground was part of the catch, or whether contacting the ground was a football move by Bryant. IMO its clear that Bryant going to the ground was part of the catching process. Once that is initiated, he needs to maintain control throughout the entire process of contacting the ground.
     
  14. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    45,652
    19,304
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    Really? Take a look at this picture.

    [​IMG]

    That's not fully in his control after he hits the ground with it...

    I'm really not sure what the argument is here. Other than you just simply don't agree with the rule... The right call was made.
     
  15. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    This is not control, one-handed or otherwise. The ball is not touching either hand.
     
  16. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University

    Why doesn't tne "if his arm is under it" rule apply here? I don't think the ball ever hit the ground without him having possession of it. Who cares if it bounced in the air when he fell, he regained possesion without it hitting the ground.
     
  17. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    Nor is it touching the ground, he is allowed to regain possesion.
     
    Paul 13 likes this.
  18. finwin

    finwin Active Member

    943
    194
    43
    Apr 30, 2013
    Jamestown, NC
    They need to clarify what maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. I believe that statement applied to losing the ball after he hits the ground. If maintain control means the ball can't move after it hits the ground then it's incomplete, but he "maintained control" of the ball before and after it hit the ground.
     
  19. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    45,652
    19,304
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    Because the ground can cause an incompletion (because of the rule we're discussing) unlike how the ground can not cause a fumble.

    He lost posession of it when he, and the ball hit the ground. That makes it incomplete.
     
    rafael likes this.
  20. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    That is simply wrong. The rule says that the player must show control when going to the ground. Unless you haven't watched football the last few years, you must have noticed the refs watching receivers after they hit the ground to make sure they maintained control. They don't look away once an elbow or knee hits the ground. They don't disregard everything after that point. The refs have made that explanation a 1000 times. "The receiver did/or did not control the ball through the process of going to the ground". They do not say that the receiver had control until the point when he was down. If you believe the play is over at that point you are simply wrong.
     
    brandon27 and Stringer Bell like this.
  21. jw3102

    jw3102 season ticket holder

    7,760
    3,486
    113
    Sep 4, 2010
    Maui, Hawaii
    I just hope all of you who know the rules better than the referee who made the call and the former referees who agreed it was not a catch, become NFL referees next year.

    With the knowledge and understanding you all seem to have concerning the rules of the game. I am sure that if you are hired, we will never again have to worry about inaccurate calls being made in an NFL game again.

    I hope all of you have already sent in your applications to the NFL and that you will be hired before next season. I so look forward to games where the referees know all the rules and they never make an error on any play during the game.

    I have no idea how the NFL hires so many incompetent referees, when it is apparent we have individuals on this forum who would do a much better job when it comes to rules interpretation during the game. Obviously the games are fixed and the NFL only hires those referees who will be in on the fix. :lol:
     
  22. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University

    You mean the ref that had a Birdseye view of it and initially ruled it a catch? I'm not disagreeing with the rule as much as Iam with the claim he didn't have control of the ball when the nose hit the ground. You see those calls upheld on a weekly basis.
     
    Pandarilla likes this.
  23. GridIronKing34

    GridIronKing34 Silently Judging You

    23,388
    16,296
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    Denver, CO
    I believe the process ended once Bryant made a football move with complete control of the ball to extend the ball towards the pylon.

    People want to treat it like the Calvin Johnson situation but Johnson made that catch in the endzone where he HAD to complete the process.

    Had he just not tried to extend the ball to score then this would never been an issue... he would just be down at the one. People are arguing over their own interpretation of "going to the ground" and where the process of the catch ended. I understand both sides of the argument however if people want to scream "RULE BOOK!" at those that disagree with the interpretation then I can't help them.
     
  24. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,560
    4,133
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Well said.
     
    Pandarilla likes this.
  25. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    45,652
    19,304
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    By the way the NFL has claimed their decision was based upon this rule... I believe that even if he had crossed the goal line with the ball but then lost posession of it in the exact same manner he did, they should still have ruled it an incomplete pass. The only thing changing in that example is the field position. Based upon the same situation playing out, 2 more yards down the field into the endzone, then to me if they are claiming he does not maintain posession to the ground while completing the catch, the same ruling would still be made, because he still would have to have established posession according to the rule, endzone or not. The process of the catch has to be completed regardless of where you are by my understanding.
     
  26. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Bryant was clearly always falling so the football move was irrelevant. Had he not tried to extend the ball then possibly it would not have hit the ground and that would have made all the difference. But the position on the filed made no difference. Whether he was in the endzone, in the middle of the field or on the sidelines falling out of bounds he would always have had to maintain control while going to the ground.
     
    brandon27 likes this.
  27. Paul 13

    Paul 13 Chaotic Neutral & Unstable Genius Staff Member

    85,620
    51,681
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    ball never hit the ground. :shifty:
     
  28. GridIronKing34

    GridIronKing34 Silently Judging You

    23,388
    16,296
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    Denver, CO
    Disagree but to each their own.
     
    resnor likes this.
  29. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    That picture isn't of what is in dispute. It's when the ball popped loose leading to that picture. Regardless, my opinion from watching the replay more than i care to admit, is that Bryant was in control after the ball was in his hands, he attempted to run, and was tripped up by the defender. That is different than a receiver making a diving grab at the ball, and having to hold on to it after he hits the ground. Bryant wasn't diving to make the catch. He wasn't going to the ground as a result of his effort on the catch. This play will live on in infamy, and we'll all go our graves with our beliefs on it being a catch/not a catch unchanged.
     
  30. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    45,652
    19,304
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    He wasn't attempting to run though. He was still coming down from the jump, and re-establishing his position in the field while falling in the NFL's eyes. He is going to the ground as a result of his effort on the catch, because he never re-established his own position and balance after coming down to the ground. That's how it was viewed by the NFL.
     
    Colorado Dolfan likes this.
  31. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    Rather you agree with what happened or not, I think it is safe to say that it's not overturned (indisputable evidence) if the officials had not been under fire for the P.I. The prior week.
     
  32. VManis

    VManis Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    5,753
    9,844
    113
    Nov 10, 2010
    You and me both:lol:

    I agree with your logic but I see a player stumbling forward due to his momentum from his leap. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
     
  33. vcip

    vcip New Member

    5
    1
    0
    Oct 7, 2014
    if that is not a catch I gues i have not been watching football for 40+ years. Cowboys got boned plain & simple
     
  34. vcip

    vcip New Member

    5
    1
    0
    Oct 7, 2014
    If the Patsies no way its overturned. NO WAY!
     
    Fin-Omenal likes this.
  35. shamegame13

    shamegame13 Madison & Surtain

    3,451
    903
    113
    Dec 15, 2014
    The same way Detroit got boned by the refs in the game last week against Dallas? When Dallas avoided 2 penalties on 1 play that you could argue cost Detroit the game?

    This call could of gone either way but I'm glad it happened to Dallas after that BS last week.

    And by NFL rule, its still not a catch.
     
  36. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    https://vine.co/v/ODZBIg1dV9I

    SOOO this play was challenged and upheld as a catch earlier in the game.....I was rooting for the Pack, they still would've won imo, but that call and this play are a pretty good example of the agenda.
     
    Pandarilla likes this.
  37. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    That was not complete
     
  38. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,936
    10,264
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    U calling the dude who posted that a liar!?!?! There was a play in question where COBB had the nose of the ball hit the ground but had his arm around the ball, but it was ruled a catch.
     
  39. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    40 years ago it was a catch. But the rules changed a few years back and now you have to control after you hit the ground.
     
  40. shamegame13

    shamegame13 Madison & Surtain

    3,451
    903
    113
    Dec 15, 2014
    The same refs agenda that tried marking Witten for a first down when he was clearly 1 1/2 yards away from a first down?
     

Share This Page