oldschool Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 Is a football move no longer a part of of what constitutes a catch when figuring out if a player fumbled or if it's an incomplete pass? Pretty sure it is, and if so then it should apply to every situation. When a guy shows possession and makes a football move it is a catch. If that is not the case then the rules are inconsistent. ? I'm saying I don't like the concept of a football move. Two feet down and possession should be all you need. The rule is what it is though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 The whole idea behind the "making a football move" rule was the result of plays where a receiver had caught the ball with two feet in bounds while going to the ground...but as he hit the ground, the ball popped out. At that time, it was up to the official's judgement to decide whether the receiver had held the ball long enough to constitute "possession". The rule was designed to eliminate the subjective nature of those calls and make the referee's decision cut-and-dried: did the receiver maintain control throughout the process of going to the ground, or not? IMO, the rule is the lesser of two evils. It's not a great rule, and it does require some interpretation as to exactly what constitutes a "football move" (whatever that is)....but at least it does establish a specific guideline as to what constitutes a catch. It's not great, but it's better than what we had before, which left it up to the referee's discretion as to what was or was not a catch. The Bryant play is one of those rare plays that falls within the gray area of the rule, and thus highlight's the rule's shortcoming. It is no longer up to the official to determine whether the player maintained control for an appropriate length of time....but he does have to make an interpretation as to exactly what constitutes a "football move". I'm kind of surprised that Bryant himself has not been subject to more criticism. Above all else, his primary responsibility on that play is to complete the catch and convert the first down. Above all else, he has to make the catch....but he didn't. Rather than securing the ball to his body and establishing possession, Bryant chose to double down, extending the ball in one hand while still going to the ground, thus exponentially increasing his chances of losing control of the ball when he landed.....which is exactly what happened. Rather than taking what he already had, he tried to do too much and it backfired on him. I'm not saying it was a bad decision....it was just a much greater risk. And given the situation at that point in the game, I'd rather see a guy make absolutely sure he had fulfilled his primary responsibility before trying to do something more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 The whole idea behind the "making a football move" rule was the result of plays where a receiver had caught the ball with two feet in bounds while going to the ground...but as he hit the ground, the ball popped out. At that time, it was up to the official's judgement to decide whether the receiver had held the ball long enough to constitute "possession". The rule was designed to eliminate the subjective nature of those calls and make the referee's decision cut-and-dried: did the receiver maintain control throughout the process of going to the ground, or not? IMO, the rule is the lesser of two evils. It's not a great rule, and it does require some interpretation as to exactly what constitutes a "football move" (whatever that is)....but at least it does establish a specific guideline as to what constitutes a catch. It's not great, but it's better than what we had before, which left it up to the referee's discretion as to what was or was not a catch. The Bryant play is one of those rare plays that falls within the gray area of the rule, and thus highlight's the rule's shortcoming. It is no longer up to the official to determine whether the player maintained control for an appropriate length of time....but he does have to make an interpretation as to exactly what constitutes a "football move". I'm kind of surprised that Bryant himself has not been subject to more criticism. Above all else, his primary responsibility on that play is to complete the catch and convert the first down. Above all else, he has to make the catch....but he didn't. Rather than securing the ball to his body and establishing possession, Bryant chose to double down, extending the ball in one hand while still going to the ground, thus exponentially increasing his chances of losing control of the ball when he landed.....which is exactly what happened. Rather than taking what he already had, he tried to do too much and it backfired on him. I'm not saying it was a bad decision....it was just a much greater risk. And given the situation at that point in the game, I'd rather see a guy make absolutely sure he had fulfilled his primary responsibility before trying to do something more. This is an awesome explanation Nine. Well done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 NFLN actually had a good breakdown, a WR said they are actually taught to catch the ball and secure the catch in that situation first and foremost. Bryant has caught some flack over not catching the ball before worrying about scoring. Catch the ball, bring it in and go to the ground and you have 1st and goal from the 2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenIsLegend Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 I think part of the problem is in Dez Bryant's mentality. He is a gamer and wanted to be the hero of the game. If he does his job and what he is taught to do, the Cowboys may very well be playing Seattle. It's interesting to think about in that light. Dez Bryant and his (possible) selfish attitude may have caused the Cowboys a legit shot at a Super Bowl title. They were extremely dangerous with all the talent they had on offense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charleytolar Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 Of course the other possibility is that Bryant thought he had already secured the catch: two hands and then tucked away.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 ? I'm saying I don't like the concept of a football move. Two feet down and possession should be all you need. The rule is what it is though. Ah. Well nine just explained it to a T. What he said makes a lot of sense, but the end result still sucks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.