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.