quote:

ORIGINAL: SoMnFan

Final, definitive proof that the people who run Da Raiders are Knucking Futs.
Looking at Shanahan, Rexy, or Trestman.
Are
You
Serious
I was a proud Raider lover in the glory days. They've been more embarassing than the TWolves the last decade however.
Hard to believe you can screw up the good thing they had going there.
Great fan base
Great location
Great legacy
That they've basically erased frm memory. Idiots. And now they're gonna make it even worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoMnFan

Love seeing Edelman, Amendola, Beasley, Welker , Nelson types succeed.
My boy Thielen still has a shot.
They're irreplaceable during playoff games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

I'm copying this comment from an ESPN comment section. It's exactly how I feel about the controversial play:

This was the wrong call. Here's why, in a longer explanation; the problem with applying that rule to Bryant's catch is that Bryant wasn't "in the act of catching a pass" when he reached to get the ball in the end zone. He had already secured the ball away from the defender and was making a move forward, stumbling/running with the ball in an effort to gain more yards. At that point, to apply the rule in this situation and deny Bryant the catch, basically goes against the purpose of the rule, which is to make sure that a person has control of the ball in a "to-the-ground" type situation of catching a difficult pass. The purpose of the rule is not to deny a player a catch for attempting to get more yards in the process of moving his legs/body forward. In this particular case, the call is even more obvious because Bryant was doing what a lot of players do, which is reach a bit farther to try to score a touchdown. His reaching towards the end zone further broke the act of catching the pass and made it clear that he was no longer catching the pass. His act had transformed into a move towards the end zone, separate from and subsequent to catching the pass.

To conclude, Bryant was no longer in the act of catching the pass, since his stumbling/running towards the end zone broke the act of catching the pass and transformed it into a running or independently moving after-the-catch act. This means that the rule cited by the NFL wouldn't apply in this situation, and the ball would be placed where it hit the turf. Any other intrepretation of the situation would go against both the actual letter of the rule (the actual words written) and the purpose of the rule.

-Sean Davidson

quote:

Stupid rule, but correct call.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sixthwi

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

I'm copying this comment from an ESPN comment section. It's exactly how I feel about the controversial play:

This was the wrong call. Here's why, in a longer explanation; the problem with applying that rule to Bryant's catch is that Bryant wasn't "in the act of catching a pass" when he reached to get the ball in the end zone. He had already secured the ball away from the defender and was making a move forward, stumbling/running with the ball in an effort to gain more yards. At that point, to apply the rule in this situation and deny Bryant the catch, basically goes against the purpose of the rule, which is to make sure that a person has control of the ball in a "to-the-ground" type situation of catching a difficult pass. The purpose of the rule is not to deny a player a catch for attempting to get more yards in the process of moving his legs/body forward. In this particular case, the call is even more obvious because Bryant was doing what a lot of players do, which is reach a bit farther to try to score a touchdown. His reaching towards the end zone further broke the act of catching the pass and made it clear that he was no longer catching the pass. His act had transformed into a move towards the end zone, separate from and subsequent to catching the pass.

To conclude, Bryant was no longer in the act of catching the pass, since his stumbling/running towards the end zone broke the act of catching the pass and transformed it into a running or independently moving after-the-catch act. This means that the rule cited by the NFL wouldn't apply in this situation, and the ball would be placed where it hit the turf. Any other intrepretation of the situation would go against both the actual letter of the rule (the actual words written) and the purpose of the rule.

-Sean Davidson

That's baloney - the instance everyone mentions is the Calvin Johnson non-TD against the Bears. Johnson wasn't "in the act of catching a pass" either. He caught the ball in the end zone
He lost the ball when he rolled over. Stupid rule, but correct call.

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

quote:

ORIGINAL: sixthwi

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

I'm copying this comment from an ESPN comment section. It's exactly how I feel about the controversial play:

This was the wrong call. Here's why, in a longer explanation; the problem with applying that rule to Bryant's catch is that Bryant wasn't "in the act of catching a pass" when he reached to get the ball in the end zone. He had already secured the ball away from the defender and was making a move forward, stumbling/running with the ball in an effort to gain more yards. At that point, to apply the rule in this situation and deny Bryant the catch, basically goes against the purpose of the rule, which is to make sure that a person has control of the ball in a "to-the-ground" type situation of catching a difficult pass. The purpose of the rule is not to deny a player a catch for attempting to get more yards in the process of moving his legs/body forward. In this particular case, the call is even more obvious because Bryant was doing what a lot of players do, which is reach a bit farther to try to score a touchdown. His reaching towards the end zone further broke the act of catching the pass and made it clear that he was no longer catching the pass. His act had transformed into a move towards the end zone, separate from and subsequent to catching the pass.

To conclude, Bryant was no longer in the act of catching the pass, since his stumbling/running towards the end zone broke the act of catching the pass and transformed it into a running or independently moving after-the-catch act. This means that the rule cited by the NFL wouldn't apply in this situation, and the ball would be placed where it hit the turf. Any other intrepretation of the situation would go against both the actual letter of the rule (the actual words written) and the purpose of the rule.

-Sean Davidson

That's baloney - the instance everyone mentions is the Calvin Johnson non-TD against the Bears. Johnson wasn't "in the act of catching a pass" either. He caught the ball in the end zone
He lost the ball when he rolled over. Stupid rule, but correct call.

Proof that Bryant had control - He had his mind on getting the ball over the goalline. A guy that doesn't have control of the ball would just be worried about making the catch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr. Ed

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

quote:

ORIGINAL: sixthwi

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

I'm copying this comment from an ESPN comment section. It's exactly how I feel about the controversial play:

This was the wrong call. Here's why, in a longer explanation; the problem with applying that rule to Bryant's catch is that Bryant wasn't "in the act of catching a pass" when he reached to get the ball in the end zone. He had already secured the ball away from the defender and was making a move forward, stumbling/running with the ball in an effort to gain more yards. At that point, to apply the rule in this situation and deny Bryant the catch, basically goes against the purpose of the rule, which is to make sure that a person has control of the ball in a "to-the-ground" type situation of catching a difficult pass. The purpose of the rule is not to deny a player a catch for attempting to get more yards in the process of moving his legs/body forward. In this particular case, the call is even more obvious because Bryant was doing what a lot of players do, which is reach a bit farther to try to score a touchdown. His reaching towards the end zone further broke the act of catching the pass and made it clear that he was no longer catching the pass. His act had transformed into a move towards the end zone, separate from and subsequent to catching the pass.

To conclude, Bryant was no longer in the act of catching the pass, since his stumbling/running towards the end zone broke the act of catching the pass and transformed it into a running or independently moving after-the-catch act. This means that the rule cited by the NFL wouldn't apply in this situation, and the ball would be placed where it hit the turf. Any other intrepretation of the situation would go against both the actual letter of the rule (the actual words written) and the purpose of the rule.

-Sean Davidson

That's baloney - the instance everyone mentions is the Calvin Johnson non-TD against the Bears. Johnson wasn't "in the act of catching a pass" either. He caught the ball in the end zone
He lost the ball when he rolled over. Stupid rule, but correct call.

Proof that Bryant had control - He had his mind on getting the ball over the goalline. A guy that doesn't have control of the ball would just be worried about making the catch.

But can you see that in the replay? He hadn't truly established "Making a football move" because he had not even landed on the ground. Which makes this rule incredibly stupid.

If the receiver has control before hitting the ground, then IMO the ground can't cause an incompletion, just like the ground can't cause a fumble when tackled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoMnFan

I've watched it a hundred times
And to me it's the WRONG call, every time.
It's not painful to me, because it screws Dallas, but it was still wrong, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr. Ed

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

quote:

ORIGINAL: sixthwi

quote:

ORIGINAL: twinsfan

I'm copying this comment from an ESPN comment section. It's exactly how I feel about the controversial play:

This was the wrong call. Here's why, in a longer explanation; the problem with applying that rule to Bryant's catch is that Bryant wasn't "in the act of catching a pass" when he reached to get the ball in the end zone. He had already secured the ball away from the defender and was making a move forward, stumbling/running with the ball in an effort to gain more yards. At that point, to apply the rule in this situation and deny Bryant the catch, basically goes against the purpose of the rule, which is to make sure that a person has control of the ball in a "to-the-ground" type situation of catching a difficult pass. The purpose of the rule is not to deny a player a catch for attempting to get more yards in the process of moving his legs/body forward. In this particular case, the call is even more obvious because Bryant was doing what a lot of players do, which is reach a bit farther to try to score a touchdown. His reaching towards the end zone further broke the act of catching the pass and made it clear that he was no longer catching the pass. His act had transformed into a move towards the end zone, separate from and subsequent to catching the pass.

To conclude, Bryant was no longer in the act of catching the pass, since his stumbling/running towards the end zone broke the act of catching the pass and transformed it into a running or independently moving after-the-catch act. This means that the rule cited by the NFL wouldn't apply in this situation, and the ball would be placed where it hit the turf. Any other intrepretation of the situation would go against both the actual letter of the rule (the actual words written) and the purpose of the rule.

-Sean Davidson

That's baloney - the instance everyone mentions is the Calvin Johnson non-TD against the Bears. Johnson wasn't "in the act of catching a pass" either. He caught the ball in the end zone
He lost the ball when he rolled over. Stupid rule, but correct call.

Proof that Bryant had control - He had his mind on getting the ball over the goalline. A guy that doesn't have control of the ball would just be worried about making the catch.

But can you see that in the replay? He hadn't truly established "Making a football move" because he had not even landed on the ground. Which makes this rule incredibly stupid.

If the receiver has control before hitting the ground, then IMO the ground can't cause an incompletion, just like the ground can't cause a fumble when tackled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr. Ed

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoMnFan

I've watched it a hundred times
And to me it's the WRONG call, every time.
It's not painful to me, because it screws Dallas, but it was still wrong, IMO.

They're sticking to "the letter of the rule", which makes it a stupid call period.

Stupid to have to "determine a football move", stupid to have control and stretch and have it called incomplete.

The technicality of the rules in several cases is ridiculous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoMnFan

I've watched it a hundred times
And to me it's the WRONG call, every time.
It's not painful to me, because it screws Dallas, but it was still wrong, IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sixthwi

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoMnFan

I've watched it a hundred times
And to me it's the WRONG call, every time.
It's not painful to me, because it screws Dallas, but it was still wrong, IMO.

I think you know me well enough and if I thought it was the wrong call I'd admit it, but technically I think it was the right call. I saw the Calvin Johnson no-catch live and that was just as much a catch as Bryant's. If I hear any current or former ref say something different then maybe I'd change my mind but I haven't heard any.