PonyFans.com

ponyboy wrote:Then the rules are stupid. Unbelievable.

Yes, every time they try and fix a previous bad call or interpretation, they make it worse and more complicated - the law of unintended consequences. They are trying to legislated for every contingency and you just can't do it. I tweeted out that when the networks have to employ a former ref as part of the broadcast team, the rules are too complicated.

NFL has gotten to be as bad as golf in this regard.

A catch should be possession and two feet down or a body part down, end of story. What the hell is a football move anyway.

This whole thing started from that Titans Super Bowl catch controversy and is getting more ridiculous by the year. To have a Calvin Johnson rule and all that BS is just cray. But I expect the NFL to make the rule more complicated in addressing this rather than simplifying.

The NFL is getting way off track with all its public service stuff, its PC PR efforts, and it's constant tinkering with rules.

+1 , couldn't agree more.

two things come to mind regarding the call. A) IIRC the rule states that if the player is 'stretching' with the ball it is a complete pass (the replay booth claims he wasn't stretching enough ? really? much stretching is enough? ) and B) all calls on the field and reviewed in the booth are supposed to be 'incontrovertible'. I doubt if this was.

Conspiracy theory has it that Goodell told the refs to do all they could to keep Dallas from winning in order to compensate for the prior weeks goof. However the weekly letter received by the Cowboys regarding officiating stated that there were 7 major missed calls that would have favored the Cowboys.

Red, where do you get this stuff? Don't read what people speculate, read the facts. It had nothing to do with stretching the ball. He went to the air. If you do so you have to complete the reception to the ground without the ball hitting the ground and moving. When he came down, regardless of steps, stretch, twists, turns, he had to go to the ground. When he did, the ball hit the ground and moved. Rule says incomplete pass. Rule sucks. Rule needs to be changed. But the interpretation of the rule was correct.

that info was actually posted by a former NFL official who explained the complete rule. Guess I will need to see if I can find the actual rule and post it in its' entirety.

Also, was the call on the field not a completed pass? There was no problem until the gb coach contested the decision.. Again, was the call 'completely incontrovertible'?

redpony wrote:that info was actually posted by a former NFL official who explained the complete rule. Guess I will need to see if I can find the actual rule and post it in its' entirety.

Also, was the call on the field not a completed pass? There was no problem until the gb coach contested the decision.. Again, was the call 'completely incontrovertible'?

I actually audibly laughed when the challenge flag was thrown because I thought it was so black and white that it was a catch. I even went as far as to say they're going to get the ball back with likely less than 3 minutes, why burn your last time out?

mrydel wrote:Red, where do you get this stuff? Don't read what people speculate, read the facts. It had nothing to do with stretching the ball. He went to the air. If you do so you have to complete the reception to the ground without the ball hitting the ground and moving. When he came down, regardless of steps, stretch, twists, turns, he had to go to the ground. When he did, the ball hit the ground and moved. Rule says incomplete pass. Rule sucks. Rule needs to be changed. But the interpretation of the rule was correct.

Mrydel, where do you get this stuff? Stretching the ball was absolutely relevant and Red is right that the NFL has said that he just did not stretch it enough:

NFL Network's Rich Eisen then asked Blandino if he and officials considered Bryant's lunge for the end zone to be a "football move."
"Yeah, absolutely," Blandino said. "We looked at that aspect of it and in order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line. This is all part of in our view, all part of his momentum in going to the ground and he lost the ball when he hit the ground. That in our view made it incomplete and we feel like it’s a consistent application of the rule as it has been written over the last couple of years."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/smackblog/chi-jermaine-gresham-dez-bryant-catch-20150112-story.html

i can't take anymore football until the smu spring game.
did not watch the college game last night.
will not watch the nfl playoffs or super bowl.
done with the nfl until the cowboys play this fall.

the nfl is on the verge of becoming pro wrestling.

direct from the NFL rule book.
"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."

redpony wrote:direct from the NFL rule book.
"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."

well there ya have it

what if the ref comes over and hits him with a folding chair?

READ THE RIGHT RULE.

I am done with this argument. NFL has decided not to overturn the game result.

agree- the rules are conflicting. We could all cuss and discuss this issue til the cows come home and nothing is going to change. except there might be a lot less people watching the super bowl as the game is likely to be a real snoozer.

mrydel wrote:READ THE RIGHT RULE.

I am done with this argument. NFL has decided not to overturn the game result.

Smart stance to take after I post the quote from the head of officiating that completely contradicts your oft repeated statement that the reach has nothing to do with the call.

You are reading the incomplete/complete rule. Read the going to the ground rule. Again I am done.