The Bobcat Nation

This happened again. On the review on the complete/incomplete pass to Bryant, he once again went onto the field w/o a helmet. That is two weeks in a row. I thought that was a 15 yard penalty.

RickRund wrote:This happened again. On the review on the complete/incomplete pass to Bryant, he once again went onto the field w/o a helmet. That is two weeks in a row. I thought that was a 15 yard penalty.

it's not actually the rule. it is the officials discretion when it comes to players on the sideline coming on the field.

that play made me sad. from what i've seen they got it "right" based on the rule but it's just awful. this coming from a vikes fan that hates both the cowboys and packers. just don't see how a guy can make a play like that, come down with two feet, lunge for the goal line, and because the the ball moves it's all for naught. oh ya...and the fact that they called it a catch and then over-ruled it is tough to watch.

two weeks in a row i had to watch the officials be WAY too big of a part in the outcome of the game.

ilovethecats wrote:

RickRund wrote:This happened again. On the review on the complete/incomplete pass to Bryant, he once again went onto the field w/o a helmet. That is two weeks in a row. I thought that was a 15 yard penalty.

it's not actually the rule. it is the officials discretion when it comes to players on the sideline coming on the field.

that play made me sad. from what i've seen they got it "right" based on the rule but it's just awful. this coming from a vikes fan that hates both the cowboys and packers. just don't see how a guy can make a play like that, come down with two feet, lunge for the goal line, and because the the ball moves it's all for naught. oh ya...and the fact that they called it a catch and then over-ruled it is tough to watch.

two weeks in a row i had to watch the officials be WAY too big of a part in the outcome of the game.

This time the officials got it right. Last week was bizarre and never explained.

So I wonder if the infraction is coming on the field and THEN removing the helmet. I didn't really see what Dez did.
Can't tell you how much I dislike the "boys".....

And now the call on the punt where they overturned the fumble. There have been some interesting and difficult calls.

[img]http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/01 ... 86cd7a.jpg[/img][img]http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/01 ... d57b01.jpg[/img]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RickRund wrote:So I wonder if the infraction is coming on the field and THEN removing the helmet. I didn't really see what Dez did.
Can't tell you how much I dislike the "boys".....

And now the call on the punt where they overturned the fumble. There have been some interesting and difficult calls.

The head of officials for the NFL was on the NFL Network and explained the punt play.

The call on the field was fumble, not a muff. A fumble indicates that the player had control of the ball and lost control, a muff indicates that the player never had control.
In review there was not enough evidence to say that he never had control and overturn the call from fumble to muff. Then since there is no evidence of loss of control before he contacted the ground with his knee, he was down at that point. The rule is different for a punt returner that for a receiver, contrary to what the guy (expert official) said during the game.

He also said that if the call on the field had been a muff it might have gone the other way, since control was really uncertain either way.

On the catch play I think it has been explained above, but he did make a point that the rule is written so that the first priority of a receiver is to secure the ball, and that the so called 3rd step was just his toe hitting the ground, also that the reach for the goal line is minimal and they felt that it was just momentum of his body. After the ball contacts the ground it comes completely loose from the receivers hands as he rolls over.

cats2506 wrote:

RickRund wrote:So I wonder if the infraction is coming on the field and THEN removing the helmet. I didn't really see what Dez did.
Can't tell you how much I dislike the "boys".....

And now the call on the punt where they overturned the fumble. There have been some interesting and difficult calls.

The head of officials for the NFL was on the NFL Network and explained the punt play.

The call on the field was fumble, not a muff. A fumble indicates that the player had control of the ball and lost control, a muff indicates that the player never had control.
In review there was not enough evidence to say that he never had control and overturn the call from fumble to muff. Then since there is no evidence of loss of control before he contacted the ground with his knee, he was down at that point. The rule is different for a punt returner that for a receiver, contrary to what the guy (expert official) said during the game.

So, your saying these rules are so confusing that no one actually knows what they are doing? Does that mean the Big Sky refs are actually pretty good, as they don't know what they are doing many times?

allcat wrote:

cats2506 wrote:

RickRund wrote:So I wonder if the infraction is coming on the field and THEN removing the helmet. I didn't really see what Dez did.
Can't tell you how much I dislike the "boys".....

And now the call on the punt where they overturned the fumble. There have been some interesting and difficult calls.

The head of officials for the NFL was on the NFL Network and explained the punt play.

The call on the field was fumble, not a muff. A fumble indicates that the player had control of the ball and lost control, a muff indicates that the player never had control.
In review there was not enough evidence to say that he never had control and overturn the call from fumble to muff. Then since there is no evidence of loss of control before he contacted the ground with his knee, he was down at that point. The rule is different for a punt returner that for a receiver, contrary to what the guy (expert official) said during the game.

So, your saying these rules are so confusing that no one actually knows what they are doing? Does that mean the Big Sky refs are actually pretty good, as they don't know what they are doing many times?

Hate to say it, but I called the final result for both plays almost immediately.

After watching the reviews, I think that Bryant made that catch and the refs got it wrong.

TIrwin24 wrote:After watching the reviews, I think that Bryant made that catch and the refs got it wrong.

Read the rules I posted. They made the right call.

Supposedly they will review that rule in the off season. I think the current rule is dumb and cost my Lions a win in 2010 against the Bears-Thus the Calvin Johnson rule.

Yes, as per the rule, it was incomplete. However, in the eyes of any sports fan (sans Dallas haters) and anyone who knows basic physics or how football is played, that was absolutely a catch.

CatBlitz wrote:Yes, as per the rule, it was incomplete. However, in the eyes of any sports fan (sans Dallas haters) and anyone who knows basic physics or how football is played, that was absolutely a catch.

I thought it was incomplete and I never hate Dallas when they lose.

allcat wrote:

CatBlitz wrote:Yes, as per the rule, it was incomplete. However, in the eyes of any sports fan (sans Dallas haters) and anyone who knows basic physics or how football is played, that was absolutely a catch.

I thought it was incomplete and I never hate Dallas when they lose.

So how many step and how long would you like a receiver to hold the ball for it to be incomplete?

CatBlitz wrote:

allcat wrote:

CatBlitz wrote:Yes, as per the rule, it was incomplete. However, in the eyes of any sports fan (sans Dallas haters) and anyone who knows basic physics or how football is played, that was absolutely a catch.

I thought it was incomplete and I never hate Dallas when they lose.

So how many step and how long would you like a receiver to hold the ball for it to be incomplete?

Are we still talking specifically about Dallas, or is this general question?

allcat wrote:

CatBlitz wrote:

allcat wrote:

CatBlitz wrote:Yes, as per the rule, it was incomplete. However, in the eyes of any sports fan (sans Dallas haters) and anyone who knows basic physics or how football is played, that was absolutely a catch.

I thought it was incomplete and I never hate Dallas when they lose.

So how many step and how long would you like a receiver to hold the ball for it to be incomplete?

Are we still talking specifically about Dallas, or is this general question?

General question but it can be compared to Dez's catch after we establish what actually constitutes what people think a catch is...

CatBlitz wrote:

allcat wrote:

CatBlitz wrote:

allcat wrote:

CatBlitz wrote:Yes, as per the rule, it was incomplete. However, in the eyes of any sports fan (sans Dallas haters) and anyone who knows basic physics or how football is played, that was absolutely a catch.

I thought it was incomplete and I never hate Dallas when they lose.

So how many step and how long would you like a receiver to hold the ball for it to be incomplete?

Are we still talking specifically about Dallas, or is this general question?

General question but it can be compared to Dez's catch after we establish what actually constitutes what people think a catch is...

General, then yes it should be a catch. I do agree with keeping the rule, when it pertains to Dallas (you do realize they are America's team and as such should be held to a higher standard than the rest of the world).

The NFL really needs to eliminate some of the inconsistencies in the rules governing what constitutes a legal catch. For example, the standard is lower if the receiver gets the ball across the goal line, or even if he's reaching for the goal lne, than if he remains in the field of play, and that makes no sense to me. The standard should be the same, regardless of whether the receiver gets the ball into the EZ, is reaching for the EZ, or is nowhere near the EZ.

John K wrote:The NFL really needs to eliminate some of the inconsistencies in the rules governing what constitutes a legal catch. For example, the standard is lower if the receiver gets the ball across the goal line, or even if he's reaching for the goal lne, than if he remains in the field of play, and that makes no sense to me. The standard should be the same, regardless of whether the receiver gets the ball into the EZ, is reaching for the EZ, or is nowhere near the EZ.

And what gets me is even if the guy catches it, comes down in bounds with both feet and falls out of bounds but the ball hits the ground at some point, that area not even in the field of play is governing a play after the fact. That makes no sense to me.

Sorry to bring "the catch that never was" up again but I still have not completely healed from that overturned call.

Quick question for discussion as it relates to that specific play......if Dez does everything the same except as he is falling towards the goal line a defender punches the ball out before he hits the ground, is it ruled a fumble or incomplete pass?

Discuss.