Dallas v Greenbay...

Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
DoWhat said:
Seattle doesn't look as good as they did last year, but I think they will still beat GB.
Click to expand...

How? They toyed with Carolina awhile and then cleaned them out. They are every bit as good, in my view, AND, unlike last year, this year they KNOW they're that good. :shrug: Their ability to man handle receivers at the line and take away that quick bail out people like Rogers and Brady HAVE to have, man, with that pass rush and now their really good linebacker is back, I forget his name.

Repeat, I think.
 
DoWhat

DoWhat

Deplorable
PREMO Member
Larry Gude said:
How? They toyed with Carolina awhile and then cleaned them out. They are every bit as good, in my view, AND, unlike last year, this year they KNOW they're that good. :shrug: Their ability to man handle receivers at the line and take away that quick bail out people like Rogers and Brady HAVE to have, man, with that pass rush and now their really good linebacker is back, I forget his name.

Repeat, I think.
Click to expand...
Seattle will lose to Indy in the Super Bowl.
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
Larry Gude said:
I don't know how they salvage this because he did take 3 steps and he did, clearly, lunge for the end zone and, isn't that the qualifier; if you make a football move, you're good to go?

Seems to me the Calvin Johnson one, we took steps but, was simply on his way to the ground.

All in all a poorly reffed game though I can't hold them responsible for that play as they called it a catch. But, the TWO plays GB players clearly lunged at Romo's knees, early, no call, man!
Click to expand...

I'm with you on what should be considered a catch. But that's not how they've been calling it. I've seen it a number of times, it usually doesn't get much attention because it's during regular season games and not necessarily near the end of a close game like this. They have a very broad interpretation of what going to the ground means. Even worse, the rule is based on such a subjective standard that it can't possibly be called consistently. The rule needs to be - control of the ball and 2 feet down. That's at least somewhat reasonably enforceable. Even the football move part makes it a bad - hard to consistently interpret, and too subjective - rule.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Tilted said:
I'm with you on what should be considered a catch. But that's not how they've been calling it. I've seen it a number of times, it usually doesn't get much attention because it's during regular season games and not necessarily near the end of a close game like this. They have a very broad interpretation of what going to the ground means. Even worse, the rule is based on such a subjective standard that it can't possibly be called consistently. The rule needs to be - control of the ball and 2 feet down. That's at least somewhat reasonably enforceable. Even the football move part makes it a bad - hard to consistently interpret, and too subjective - rule.
Click to expand...

According to that, they blew the call in the Denver/Indy game on the punt in what was a pivotal moment for Denver so, this issue will be big news.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Tilted said:
Even the football move part makes it a bad - hard to consistently interpret, and too subjective - rule.
Click to expand...

In my view, there is ZERO doubt Bryant was making a lunge for the goal line. If that is a football move, if that is the case, then the rule is maybe OK and they simply blew the call. :shrug:
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
Larry Gude said:
In my view, there is ZERO doubt Bryant was making a lunge for the goal line. If that is a football move, if that is the case, then the rule is maybe OK and they simply blew the call. :shrug:
Click to expand...

That's not how the rule works though. The going to the ground provision operates separately from the 3 baseline requirements for a catch (i.e. control, two feet down, and time to make a football move). If the receiver is determined to have been going to the ground, having made a football move doesn't eliminate the requirement that he maintain control throughout the process.

In other words, the rule is set up kinda like this: For it to be a catch, the receiver has to do x, y, and z (z is the football move part). Additionally, if the receiver goes to the ground while making the catch, then he has to do m for it to be a catch (m is the maintains control all the way through or regains control if the ball never hit the ground part).

So the issue in this case was that Bryant was considered to be going to the ground during the act of making the catch. The football move thing doesn't matter. Actually, if anything it would cut the other way - i.e., if the diving for the end zone was the football move (or the time for a football move) needed to complete the act of making the catch, then he was going to the ground during the act of making the catch. So he had to maintain control.

It's the rule that's the problem here - at least, the broad interpretation of what going to the ground during the act of catching the ball means. The rule is bad. In some circumstances, such as this one, its enforcement defies common sense.
 
itsbob

itsbob

I bowl overhand
I honestly didn't think New England was going to make it past the first week.. but now against Indy? Seattle v New England in the Super Bowl.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Tilted said:
That's not how the rule works though. The going to the ground provision operates separately from the 3 baseline requirements for a catch (i.e. control, two feet down, and time to make a football move). If the receiver is determined to have been going to the ground, having made a football move doesn't eliminate the requirement that he maintain control throughout the process.

In other words, the rule is set up kinda like this: For it to be a catch, the receiver has to do x, y, and z (z is the football move part). Additionally, if the receiver goes to the ground while making the catch, then he has to do m for it to be a catch (m is the maintains control all the way through or regains control if the ball never hit the ground part).

So the issue in this case was that Bryant was considered to be going to the ground during the act of making the catch. The football move thing doesn't matter. Actually, if anything it would cut the other way - i.e., if the diving for the end zone was the football move (or the time for a football move) needed to complete the act of making the catch, then he was going to the ground during the act of making the catch. So he had to maintain control.

It's the rule that's the problem here - at least, the broad interpretation of what going to the ground during the act of catching the ball means. The rule is bad. In some circumstances, such as this one, its enforcement defies common sense.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. For arguments sake, in my view, he wasn't 'going to the ground'. He caught the ball and THEN took steps (3 of them) to the end zone and THEN lunged for the end zone. In my view, if he'd have been at mid field and well beyond what he needed for a first down, he'd have not tried to move forward and focused solely on the catch and just landing. That he clearly was trying to do something besides land has to move the play beyond 'going to the ground'.

FWIW, he, Bryant, seemed to understand it was a no catch as per his understanding because his reaction was a good bit more subdued than I was expecting.
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
Larry Gude said:
Gotcha. For arguments sake, in my view, he wasn't 'going to the ground'. He caught the ball and THEN took steps (3 of them) to the end zone and THEN lunged for the end zone. In my view, if he'd have been at mid field and well beyond what he needed for a first down, he'd have not tried to move forward and focused solely on the catch and just landing. That he clearly was trying to do something besides land has to move the play beyond 'going to the ground'.

FWIW, he, Bryant, seemed to understand it was a no catch as per his understanding because his reaction was a good bit more subdued than I was expecting.
Click to expand...

Hey, again, we're in agreement about how the play should be looked at. To my mind, he completed the catch before he went to the ground. But this is how they've interpreted the requirements of a reception - the going to the ground part has been broadly construed, turning the common sense notion of making a catch somewhat askew. That was the problem in this case, but I also think the football move component of a reception is problematic from a consistency of enforcement standpoint. That's part of why the reception rule, as it's currently constructed and interpreted, is a bad rule. It's too subjective, and that cuts against consistency. Control and 2 feet (or other body part) would be much better I think. There's still some subjectivity left, of course; but it's cleaner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top