Watched the video again. Its is his right forearm. His elbow and the ball hit simultaneously. Unless I'm mistaken the forearm counts just like the elbow or knee. He was down with the ball. Ball was still in control when he hit, the ball popping out should have been a non-factor. Ground causing a fumble.

 

Someone that's more video savvy, please pull it up. Maybe others don't see it that way.

 

Like UKMF said, this is a much more plausible argument than the football move. The issue here is that you have to definitively show that he established possession before hitting the ground. I don't think that can be done.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]48525[/ATTACH]

 

Here's his forearm. Would that not constitute controlling the ball to the ground considering he would be down with possession?

 

To me, and it's not easy to see, that appears to be his hand and wrist, which is not considered down. It looks like his forearm is still not touching. Hard to tell.

Here's his forearm. Would that not constitute controlling the ball to the ground considering he would be down with possession?

 

Not according to the rulebook.

The Dez play will most likely get the rules committee to re-examine the way the rule is worded and enforced.

 

However, changing it is easier said than done.

 

How would you write the rule so that it seems fair and accurate?

 

Loaded question.

 

I wouldn't.

Bottom line is, I would remove the entire language of "Football Move" out of the rule all together.

 

That is just stupid language that should never have been in there.

 

Let me explain.

 

If you have to make a football move, you need to describe what a "Football Move" is in the rules so you know what to look for. Example. If a receiver makes a catch and after 2 steps goes out of bounds....is simply taking 2 steps a "Football move" If so then why even say football move and just say must take 2 steps or have 2 feet in bounds before going out of bounds.

 

There isn't a "football move" made when you go out of bounds right after the catch unless you are toe tapping.

 

Football move would be gone.

 

It doesn't say football move in the rule. Are we this many posts in and you all haven't actually read the rule? :lol2:

My question is that would anyone on here or anywhere else have complained if they upheld the catch ruling? I don't think so.

 

I don't see how anyone could watch that play and not think that Dez caught that pass. I just can't. He clearly had the ball in his hands, and moves it to one hand to stretch it out. I just don't see otherwise.

 

He caught that pass.

 

No, he didn't. He lost control when the ball hit the ground.

It doesn't say football move in the rule. Are we this many posts in and you all haven't actually read the rule? :lol2:

 

Mike Pereira was quoted as saying it's a factor in the call.

 

Pereira said he would overrule the call on the field of a complete pass. “I don’t think he (Bryant) made a football move with it (the ball),” Pereira said. “So when he hit the ground, the ball touched the ground then came loose….I would reverse it to an incomplete pass.”

 

Raissman's Upon Further Review: Buck and Aikman pass on Dez - NY Daily News

Here's his forearm. Would that not constitute controlling the ball to the ground considering he would be down with possession?

 

Because the rules for "ground cannot cause a fumble" and "going to the ground in the process of making a catch" are different. While going to the ground in the process, he has to maintain control throughout contact with the ground. He did not. Incomplete.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]48525[/ATTACH]

 

Here's his forearm. Would that not constitute controlling the ball to the ground considering he would be down with possession?

It doesn't matter. As the rule is written currently he has to maintain control of the ball when he goes to the ground, doesn't matter what part of his body hit first.

 

Mike Pereira was quoted as saying it's a factor in the call.

 

Pereira said he would overrule the call on the field of a complete pass. “I don’t think he (Bryant) made a football move with it (the ball),” Pereira said. “So when he hit the ground, the ball touched the ground then came loose….I would reverse it to an incomplete pass.”

 

Raissman's Upon Further Review: Buck and Aikman pass on Dez - NY Daily News

 

That's fine but people are saying they would take the words "football move" out. They can't. It's not in the rule.

 

And they do examples of what they mean in the rule.

Here is my issue with the rule(s).

 

1. By definition of the rule, I think they got it right (the rule needs modified)

 

2. He took 3 steps with the football in his hands (granted as he was falling, but its still steps) if only 2 feet have to be inbounds to catch a ball going out of bounds, then 3 steps should be a completed coach.

 

3. IMO as it looked (and going with the above) it was a catch, that was fumbled and recovered by the offensive player.

Shocking ... but I am going to agree with HB - eliminate the football move language.

 

1. Change the language to say that if you fall to the ground during the process of making a catch, you must maintain control of the ball without the ball hitting the ground. If the ball hits the ground and you lose control, incomplete.

 

2. If you are not falling to the ground, you must have complete control of the ball, not be falling to the ground and take a third step (two feet down, then a step with the foot hitting the ground again) while maintaining control of the ball.

 

3. If you are bobbling the ball, it is not a catch until you have two feet down and take a third step after you gain complete control of the ball.

 

I see this language as being how the plays are being called now but clearer language. Under this language, Bryant's play is an incomplete pass and it should be incomplete. You cannot have the ground knock a ball loose and have it be a catch.

Trico made a good point todag about catches and I tend to

agree. If the ball touches the ground it is not a catch period. Just like in baseball.

To me, and it's not easy to see, that appears to be his hand and wrist, which is not considered down. It looks like his forearm is still not touching. Hard to tell.

 

The wrist is like the elbow. Down when it hits.

The wrist is like the elbow. Down when it hits.

 

But still, according to the dumb rule... It doesn't matter. Because Dez was not running after the catch. He was falling during the catch... Meaning there is no down by contact that trumps the "completing the act of the catch" part of the equation. Ball hit the ground as he fell... It didn't hit the ground after he ran under control and was then down by contact... If that was so, the ground cannot cause a fumble... However, the ground can cause an incompletion... That's what the ruling was here.