Sharky's NFL play of the week

[Three]

I knew the reason but wanted to see you say it. The problem with your analogy though is that, if you watched the game (bet you did), you heard replay guru Mike Herrera immediately say that Dez Bryant's "catch call" would be reversed and you also saw the replay that showed the obvious NON control of the ball by Dez. It's a bad rule that will be changed before next season (without doubt being Jerry Jones' son is on the rules committee.)

I don't have a dog in this fight but the rule says if you make a football move you don't have to control the ball through the ground. 4 steps and stretching for the goal line is a football move. It was close but that is what I saw. I figured whichever way it was called on the field would stand because it was so much of a judgement call as to whether or not Dez stretched for the goal line. He didn't totally get his arm straught but he only didn't keep the ball through contact with the ground because he stretched for the goal line. That was quite clear. I think whichever way the call was made on the field should have stood. The only way a call on the field should have been overturned was if they ruled it wasn't a catch. When DEz stretched for the goal line he made a "football move" and was then a runner not a receiver trying to catch the ball. The call could have been made either way but the fact that stretching for the goal line IS a "football move" it should have only been overturned if it was ruled incomplete on the field. I am not sure that should have been overturned either but the clear "football move" of stretching for the goal line was pretty obvious. If Dez wasn't doing that the ball would have been much more secure and would not have moved upon contact with the ground. Here is the rule:

COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete
(by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

It says (a), (b) must be done and it is a catch if he as the ball long enough to do any act in (c) and it is agreed by te NFL stretching for the goal line is in the etc part of (c). Note 1 points out you need not perform any of these acts but control the ball long enough to do one of these "football moves".

Here is some of the video that the replay refs decided the call on:

http://www.packers.com/media-center/...1-228dd3bb15ba

What I see is Dez catch the ball get 3 feet down and while he is going to the ground with the ball first in his right hand primarily then in both hands see the goal line and rather than secure the ball to his body with both hands to ensure control through the ground through contact with the ground take a 4th "step" on his right hand and stretch the ball ahead of his body with his left. The two questions that must be answered:
1) Was that a "football move"?
My judgement call on this one would be yes.
2) If not did he have time to make a "football move"?

This one is much closer call but I would still have to answer yes or go with the call that was made on the field. He had time to switch which hand had primary control of the ball and take a step on the other after getting 3 steps on his feet. Would not the time to lateral the ball be the same time to switch control of the ball from one hand to the other and use his now free stronger hand and arm to try to take a 4th step on his hand with the ball ahead of his body rather than pulled to his body in order to secure it for a simple catch? This is either a catch or to close to overturn the judgement of the officials on the field. That is just my opinion. I look at it again. Left foot, right foot, ball switched to left hand, left foot, right hand and the last thing done before striking the ground with his chest is to stretch the ball from under his body to ahead of his body to try to reach the goal line while fighting to keep his body off the ground with his right arm.

I think both questions 1 and 2 were satisfied. He could have pitched it rather than switching control of the ball from his strong hand to his weak side in order to use his strong arm to take a 4th step. I would not have been surprised if either complete or incomplete called on the field were not overturned by replay but the only call I felt should be overturned would have been a ruling on the field of incomplete. They finally defined a catch so there was next to no judgement involved in the decision. Then this bad replay officiating. I am just glad I don't have a dog in this fight.

[Exoter175]

Math Demon,
I knew the reason but wanted to see you say it. The problem with your analogy though is that, if you watched the game (bet you did), you heard replay guru Mike Herrera immediately say that Dez Bryant's "catch call" would be reversed and you also saw the replay that showed the obvious NON control of the ball by Dez. It's a bad rule that will be changed before next season (without doubt being Jerry Jones' son is on the rules committee.)

It isn't a "bad" rule, and its one that recently got attention after the Calvin Johnson incident of years pass. Dez "lost" the call when he lost control of the ball going to the ground, or rather, lost the call when the ball had touched the ground and he then lost control of the ball.

If at any single point the ball touches the ground during a "catching process" in which "football move" hasn't been truly established due to "control" or mid-air/leaping is involved, the call will and should be incomplete.

That Dez Bryan call was the most beautiful call I've ever seen. Not because I wanted the Packers to win, or because they "changed" the ruling, but because they went back to the book and called it how it happened. 10 years prior, that was a catch. In this day and age with replay and a much finer ruling on things, there's no chance of something like that ever being ruled a catch after a review like that.

[ZenKinG]

It isn't a "bad" rule, and its one that recently got attention after the Calvin Johnson incident of years pass. Dez "lost" the call when he lost control of the ball going to the ground, or rather, lost the call when the ball had touched the ground and he then lost control of the ball.

If at any single point the ball touches the ground during a "catching process" in which "football move" hasn't been truly established due to "control" or mid-air/leaping is involved, the call will and should be incomplete.

That Dez Bryan call was the most beautiful call I've ever seen. Not because I wanted the Packers to win, or because they "changed" the ruling, but because they went back to the book and called it how it happened. 10 years prior, that was a catch. In this day and age with replay and a much finer ruling on things, there's no chance of something like that ever being ruled a catch after a review like that.

The part of the rule I hate the most is the 'process of making a catch' Because Dez had full control of the ball when his knee and elbow touched the ground and the play should've been deemed dead right after that. But the 'process of making a catch' goes all the way until you hit the ground which I find rather stupid.

[Three]

Well ZK. The person you quote in your post is wrong, a football move is not required. What is required is enough time to make a football move. If a football move is made they obviously had time to do it. The following is quoted from the NFL rule book. See Rule 8, section 1, article 3, Part c, Note 1. Many people don't know this part of the rule. All they know is what announcers tell them.

COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete
(by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

[Three]

But the 'process of making a catch' goes all the way until you hit the ground which I find rather stupid.

It all depends on whether you see him use on hand to make an extra step to stretch the ball to the goal line or if you see him use one hand to break his fall and would have gone down like that anywhere else on the field. I submit that in the middle of the field he would have secured the ball going down and not put it above his shoulder after putting it from one hand to the other at chest level and having the ball under his chest before laying out to get the ball to the goal line. If you see him as making that extra effort to get the ball to the goal line it is a catch. If you see it as the normal way he would catch it at a point well short of the goal line he must control the ball trough contact with the ground unless he had enough time to make a football move. That is pretty hard to say he definitely had the ball tat long. I do not see Dez catching the ball like that in the middle of the field. By the time he hit the ground the ball would either be secured with both hands and/or secured against his body. The last thing he does before his elbow or knee hits the ground is stretch the ball forward from at chest level.

[Aslan]

It isn't a "bad" rule, and its one that recently got attention after the Calvin Johnson incident of years pass. Dez "lost" the call when he lost control of the ball going to the ground, or rather, lost the call when the ball had touched the ground and he then lost control of the ball.

If at any single point the ball touches the ground during a "catching process" in which "football move" hasn't been truly established due to "control" or mid-air/leaping is involved, the call will and should be incomplete.

That Dez Bryan call was the most beautiful call I've ever seen. Not because I wanted the Packers to win, or because they "changed" the ruling, but because they went back to the book and called it how it happened. 10 years prior, that was a catch. In this day and age with replay and a much finer ruling on things, there's no chance of something like that ever being ruled a catch after a review like that.

It seemed to me that the catching of the ball and the move to the inzone were happening simultaneously. I did not see it as a catch and then a move to the inzone, but a catch in progress as he leaped for the inzone, the ball hitting the ground before he had the ball long enough to constitute control. I guarantee you that if at the moment the ball hit the ground it was hit out of his hands by the defense, it would have been called an incomplete pass, because control had not yet been established.

[Math Demon]

Math Demon,
I knew the reason but wanted to see you say it. The problem with your analogy though is that, if you watched the game (bet you did), you heard replay guru Mike Herrera immediately say that Dez Bryant's "catch call" would be reversed and you also saw the replay that showed the obvious NON control of the ball by Dez. It's a bad rule that will be changed before next season (without doubt being Jerry Jones' son is on the rules committee.)
But the fact remains that IT IS a rule right now and rules aren't made to be broken.
I have no desire for a pissing match with you about this but you took an unnecessary cheap shot at me. You think you were pissed?
Why would you lose respect for Rodgers because of the Dallas game? Did he make the call reversal? Why would you dislike the Packers? Did they make the call reversal? Make sense man!!!
Now, by saying that you wished season ending injury to Rodgers, you've shown everyone here your lack of character and credibility. Tell me just ONE thing he did that was classless and/or reason for you to wish season ending injury for HIM---------------YOU CAN"T!!!!!!!!!!!!
The fact that you'd wish season ending injury to any player could indicate a need for help. It's out there.
I'll not "talk" further with a person having that mentality.

muffdiver

muff,

You still don't get it!

I have much, much less of a problem with the Dez overturned catch than with your "buddy" (real, fictional, hallucinated, or delusional) -- who speaks here only through you -- spouting all that nonsense.

From my perspective, your stupid "buddy" equals Packers fans equal GB Packers equal Rodgers. Any injury to Rodgers injures your "buddy", and the rest of the Mother Packer fans.

BTW, my buddy says that that poster's buddy is stupid for spouting all that nonsense!

[Three]

It seemed to me that the catching of the ball and the move to the inzone were happening simultaneously. I did not see it as a catch and then a move to the inzone, but a catch in progress as he leaped for the inzone, the ball hitting the ground before he had the ball long enough to constitute control. I guarantee you that if at the moment the ball hit the ground it was hit out of his hands by the defense, it would have been called an incomplete pass, because control had not yet been established.

That is why I am surprised the call was overturned. It was such a judgement call and could have been judged both ways depending on if you viewed it as reaching for the endzone. If you saw him stretch for the endzone the ball was down when either his knee or elbow hit the ground. Both happened before the ball hit the ground. If you didn't judge it as him stretching the ball forward for the endzone he had to maintain possession through the ground unless he had control the ball long enough to make a football move. That is not a set time. It depends on the refs judgement of what that player could have done on that play. Could he have stretched the ball for the goal line. It should be obvious to everyone whether you thought he did or not that he had the time to do so.

[muffdiver]

Tthree,
Being you know game rules, you also know the criteria for replay call reversals, I'm sure. You'd probably agree that the reason for replay challenges is to ultimately make sure calls are correct. You probably heard the network replay guru (think his name is Mike Herrera) immediately say that the "catch call" would be reversed. You also know the conclusive evidence that's needed for reversal thing.
I'm sure that fans in Texas saw it differently but please answer this-----------------it's now been 10 days since that GB/Dallas game. In that 10 days, how many pundits (national) have you seen/heard say that Dallas got screwed on that call? Percentage (again, national pundits) is probably less than 5%. Right? (if 95% feel they got it right, they probably got it right)
Point is, many (including me) question whether or not the "catch rule" as it stands today is a good rule. The call reversal was made on the basis of the rule as it's now written.
Not meaning to be repetitive, but in case you didn't read my earlier post, I believe that Jerry Jones' son is on the rules committee and that alone would ensure attention to this rule in the upcoming off season.

[Three]

Results of NFL investigation 11 of the 12 footballs provided by the Pats for their offense to use were under inflated by not a little but exactly 2 pounds each!!! Not a random amount but each to a specific amount but one ball inflated properly to kick with. The Colts intercepted a pass and after handling the ball on one play the under inflation was obvious to the defender. Brady who makes a living handling the football on every play says that he heard everything after the accusation while laughing. I doubt even the dumbest out there would believe Brady didn't know that every football he threw was an under inflated football just from handling it. If I were NFL commish I would have the Pats forfeit the game. They keep getting caught cheating over and over again. Just think all the times they got away with it. And now we know Brady was in on it. Belichick gets a lifetime ban that he must appeal. Pats forfeit their next 11 draft picks. One for each under inflated football. Everyone says it isn't fair to punish the entire team for the actions of one player when punishments are handed out. Well most of the Pats team had to be aware of this one. If the Pats are really as good as everyone says why do they feel the need to constantly find new ways to cheat? The answer seems to be that they are only that good because they cheat. The refs also should have been able to tell the footballs were under inflated. Especially the ones that handled the ball on each down. If you allow them to cheat constantly with no consequences the game of football IS fixed. And the Pats are the one that that cheat and the league and the refs help them by not taking the integrity of the game seriously.

List of a few of the Pats rule violations and rule scandals that aided them to be win in recent years:

1) Spy-gate: illegally videotaped opponents from 2002 to 2007. Result 3 SB victories (Brady's only 3) and a SB loss and an unfair advantage for 6 years of play in the NFL including Brady's run in the first 5 years of his career.
2) Injury report-gate: Belicheck is guilty consistently of filing false injury reports.
3) Snowplow-gate: Result win in division rivalry game in December 1982.
4) Tuck rule-gate: Result win in the divisional playoff game in January 2002.
5) Deception-gate: Squeak out a win in the division round and win in Conference Championship both in January 2015.
6) Inflate-gate: Result win in conference championship game in January 2015.

I think there should be a plaque over Bilichecks desk saying,
If you aren't cheating you aren't trying.

It seems to be his motto and modus operandi.

Well these are the times I can remember off the top of my head where the Pats got caught with cheating. I am sure they got away with cheating much more often than they got caught. The 3 years the won the SB with Brady under center they cheated to get there. This year both playoff games were won while they were cheating. Only 1 of 2 of Brady's SB losses came in years that didn't include any of these cheating scandals but since they got caught cheating in 7 of Brady's 12 season's (just the ones I could remember off the top of my head) they probably cheated those years as well.

Now that begs the question would the Pats have won any SB under Brady without cheating. They point to Brady turning the team around when he started but that is about the time systematic cheating started as well. Now the Pats will have played in 6 of the last 14 SB after the one coming up. Only one can be attributed to a year without a cheating scandal. That doesn't mean they didn't ceate. It only means they didn't get caught. At least from what I can remember off the top of my head. There are other accusations of cheating but I only put the proven ones that I could remember off the top of my head.

[moo321]

I think there's strong value on the Patriots here.

[Three]

I think there's strong value on the Patriots here.

Care to elaborate.

I got NE +1 with good odds and an open ended teaser on NE +1.5 teased to +7.5 (the odds were pretty bad on this line but the odds disappear in a teaser and what a number to tease!) right after the Pats game was over figuring the line would move a lot and there was value there but I really haven't started looking at the matchups yet. The odds are good (-105) on lines of SEA +1.5 and +2 right now. The odds I am seeing on O/U bets suggest that more action is being placed on the under right now. I guess I need to start looking at the game to decide the best way to capitalize on the value going forward.

[muffdiver]

Belicheck's defense will be that shriveled up balls are the norm at this time of the year.