PDA

View Full Version : Bryants "catch" Yes or no?


ScottXray
01-10-2016, 06:47 AM
Martavus Bryantt made that spectacular play that the officials ruled was a touchdown. Then replay review confirmed it.

While I agree that it was a fantastic play....I just don't see how the review did not overturn the touchdown. To my eyes ther were at least two times that Bryant bobbled the ball during the catch. He caught it against his body with one hand and got two feet down. But the ball was sliding down his front and he clearly did lose control of it as it rotated completely to his ass. At one point the replay showed air between his body ( ass) and his hand AND the ball simultaneously. If there is air around the ball that is not control. So when he did finally pin it to his rear end he was starting his flip and ony had ONB foot on the ground. He never got two feet down again and flipped out of the end zone.

According to the rules that is a no catch. I simply have no idea how the league review called that a TD.

Unless , of course, the games ARE fixed and the Steelers needed the points.

Horrible call.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
01-10-2016, 06:49 AM
Vontaze Burfict is a linebacker for the bengals.

Ratboy
01-10-2016, 06:53 AM
Do you mean Bryant? No it wasn't a catch.

ScottXray
01-10-2016, 07:03 AM
ooops...Yes ...I meant Bryant. Stupid is as as stupid does.

Edited to correct player/play


Terrific play...Not a catch , not a TD. Unbelievable.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
01-10-2016, 07:03 AM
It was absolutely a catch. It didn't move in one hand.

Two feet down.

Touchdown.

Uncle Bill
01-10-2016, 07:09 AM
I thought the exact same thing. Amazing effort, but no way did he have possession while he was in bounds. The whole situation with the NFL rule book and the refs has become laughable. On any given play that is reviewed, there is rarely agreement between the on-field refs, the announcing team, or the network's ex-official (Mike Carey/Mike Pereira). I hate to think anything is fixed, but sometimes you have to wonder; a lot of plays seem cut-and-dried after review, but the rules are so open to interpretation ("football move", "defenseless receiver", etc.) that refs can rule however they want...

Gcver2ver3
01-10-2016, 07:09 AM
glad to see this thread...

i was starting to think i was in the twilight zone because i was certain that was NOT a catch according to nfl rules...

but no one else seemed to think so on the broadcast so i started to second guess...

Uncle Bill
01-10-2016, 07:12 AM
It was absolutely a catch. It didn't move in one hand.

Two feet down.

Touchdown.

Huh? The ball was moving the entire time, until he finally controlled it when he was out of bounds. He had the ball against his leg the entire time, but to say he was in control of the ball is a huge stretch. Honestly, though, I really don't know what constitutes a catch these days...

Gutless Drunk
01-10-2016, 07:29 AM
By definition if the ball is moving all over his body he does not have "control" and did not until he was well out of bounds. By their convoluted rules it is no catch.

WolfpackGuy
01-10-2016, 07:38 AM
Both feet in and control of the ball never happened at the same time.

No catch.

strafen
01-10-2016, 07:43 AM
That was a catch in my opinion, and an awesome one too. That was incredible!

Pony Boy
01-10-2016, 07:48 AM
If it was Thomas or Sanders, I would definitely say yes it was a catch

ScottXray
01-10-2016, 07:49 AM
That was a catch in my opinion, and an awesome one too. That was incredible!

I said it was an incredible play. But by the rules ( not your opinion) it was not a catch. This is the main problem with the officials . The rules let them call it whatever way they want.

NFL really needs to simplify the rule book. Don't let officials decide games.

Bronx33
01-10-2016, 07:52 AM
He used his taint to secure that ball ( its was perfection) does anybody have the clip?

SVine
01-10-2016, 08:04 AM
Terrible call. I can conclusively tell the ball was still bobbling after Bryant left his feet going out of the back of the endzone.

The purpose of replay is to see that, and that was a horrible fail.

Sometimes I wonder if, while the network goes to commercial during the review, the review people also take a break during the commercial break.

Gutless Drunk
01-10-2016, 08:06 AM
https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/lOFCQTOb_I5pJR4S74TmyoTOk4w=/1000x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/5890599/butttd.0.gif

Rohirrim
01-10-2016, 08:09 AM
I see how it could go either way.

SVine
01-10-2016, 08:11 AM
Huh? The ball was moving the entire time, until he finally controlled it when he was out of bounds. He had the ball against his leg the entire time, but to say he was in control of the ball is a huge stretch. Honestly, though, I really don't know what constitutes a catch these days...

I think it can be argued that if you pin the ball against the back of your leg, and the ball does not move, this can constitute control. However, that is not what happened. The ball clearly bobbled a couple times AFTER Bryant left his feet going out of the back of the endzone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/martavis-bryant-touchdown-crotch-catch_5691d0fbe4b0c8beacf74e60

SVine
01-10-2016, 08:13 AM
I see how it could go either way.

You can clearly see the ball float off his hand before he pinned it against his thigh during his flip.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
01-10-2016, 08:14 AM
The problem is that nobody even knows what the catch rules are anymore, since the league has made such a disaster of it.

Bronx33
01-10-2016, 08:17 AM
I see how it could go either way.


Ya its a tough one they basically said he had possession and two feet in before he did his somersault its close either way.

Rohirrim
01-10-2016, 08:17 AM
You can clearly see the ball float off his hand before he pinned it against his thigh during his flip.

Yeah, but he only has to show a millisecond of control in bounds and then control the ball all the way through after that, which he did. Once they called it a catch, I could see how they wouldn't overturn it. On the other hand, if they had overturned it, I could have agreed with that as well. It's just one of those gray areas in football. Has been for many years. If it was DT or Sanders, I'd call it a catch. If it was Gronk, no.

SVine
01-10-2016, 08:19 AM
Yeah, but he only has to show a millisecond of control in bounds and then control the ball all the way through after that, which he did. Once they called it a catch, I could see how they wouldn't overturn it. On the other hand, if they had overturned it, I could have agreed with that as well. It's just one of those gray areas in football. Has been for many years. If it was DT or Sanders, I'd call it a catch. If it was Gronk, no.

You consider juggling the ball against the back of your thigh control?

footstepsfrom#27
01-10-2016, 08:33 AM
The issue is, did he have control at the time both feet were in bounds. He did not. He gains control only as he's in mid air somersaulting out if bounds.

Bronx33
01-10-2016, 08:37 AM
The issue is, did he have control at the time both feet were in bounds. He did not. He gains control only as he's in mid air somersaulting out if bounds.

I look at it that way after looking at it 100 times ( I need to find a slow motion clip)

Dedhed
01-10-2016, 08:40 AM
You consider juggling the ball against the back of your thigh control?

It wasn't juggling.

Bronx33
01-10-2016, 08:44 AM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2606505-martavis-bryant-makes-incredible-td-catch-in-steelers-bengals-wild-card-game

BroncsCheer
01-10-2016, 08:59 AM
Martavus Bryantt made that spectacular play that the officials ruled was a touchdown. Then replay review confirmed it.

While I agree that it was a fantastic play....I just don't see how the review did not overturn the touchdown. To my eyes ther were at least two times that Bryant bobbled the ball during the catch. He caught it against his body with one hand and got two feet down. But the ball was sliding down his front and he clearly did lose control of it as it rotated completely to his ass. At one point the replay showed air between his body ( ass) and his hand AND the ball simultaneously. If there is air around the ball that is not control. So when he did finally pin it to his rear end he was starting his flip and ony had ONB foot on the ground. He never got two feet down again and flipped out of the end zone.

According to the rules that is a no catch. I simply have no idea how the league review called that a TD.

Unless , of course, the games ARE fixed and the Steelers needed the points.

Horrible call.

Agreed

He was never both IN the end zone and IN possession of the ball

Horrible call

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2016, 09:01 AM
Huh? The ball was moving the entire time, until he finally controlled it when he was out of bounds. He had the ball against his leg the entire time, but to say he was in control of the ball is a huge stretch. Honestly, though, I really don't know what constitutes a catch these days...

I guess as long as one hand is touching the ball in some way the whole time, it's a catch. *If you're a Steeler*

Bronx33
01-10-2016, 09:01 AM
Watched it in slow mo when he does manage to pin it against his leg he only got one foot in, the link I posted is in slow mo sorry I couldn't get it to imbed.

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2016, 09:03 AM
Watched it in slow mo when he does manage to pin it against his leg he only got one foot in, the link I posted is in slow mo.

It looks much worse from behind where you can see it roll against his leg as he tries to pin it down. That's not possession.

Gutless Drunk
01-10-2016, 09:03 AM
Watched it in slow mo when he does manage to pin it against his leg he only got one foot in, the link I posted is in slow mo sorry I couldn't get it to imbed.

<iframe src="https://vine.co/v/ihL3723gggU/embed/simple" width="600" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe><script src="https://platform.vine.co/static/scripts/embed.js"></script>

Gutless Drunk
01-10-2016, 09:04 AM
Horrible call, must be because it is the Steelers and looked cool?

Bronx33
01-10-2016, 09:06 AM
It looks much worse from behind where you can see it roll against his leg as he tries to pin it down. That's not possession.

Even if he did manage to control it he still only got one foot in .

Atwater His Ass
01-10-2016, 09:11 AM
Amazing effort and play, but no catch for me. Was a bit shocked it was upheld. But hey, that's the NFL these days. Nobody knows what is and what isn't. Yay!

UKBronco
01-10-2016, 09:12 AM
Regardless of the outcome, the guy dropped a simple TD pass to put himself in a position to have to 'catch' it in this manner.

Great recovery, but I don't see that as clear possession. I don't know how it got ruled a TD in realtime, if it's ruled incomplete then there is no way that gets reversed to a TD.

I'd like the NFL to do something about Joey Porter too, but after the NFL not suspending Cody Wallace for the cheap shot on Bruton; I suspect that they are this years 'Chosen Ones'.

GreatBronco16
01-10-2016, 09:14 AM
<iframe src="https://vine.co/v/ihL3723gggU/embed/simple" width="600" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe><script src="https://platform.vine.co/static/scripts/embed.js"></script>


Wow, that's not control with both feet in bounds. The ball is still moving when his right foot is down, and only gets complete control with the left foot down, then flips out of the endzone. Man what a terrible call.

Bronx33
01-10-2016, 09:17 AM
The replay booth is worthless imo might as well got back to judgment calls only.

SVine
01-10-2016, 09:18 AM
It looks much worse from behind where you can see it roll against his leg as he tries to pin it down. That's not possession.

Yes, there was one camera angle directly behind the Steelers endzone (obviously the camera was zoomed in a bunch) where you can clearly see the ball rolling against his leg as Bryant was doing his flip. For some reason, this angle hasn't been widely shown. Gutless Drunk's giff clearly showed it too.

ColoradoDarin
01-10-2016, 09:22 AM
Because, Steelers.

Rohirrim
01-10-2016, 09:24 AM
Because, Steelers.

We will have to convincingly kick their asses and leave no room for the refs.

DBroncos4life
01-10-2016, 10:35 AM
If it's at one part of the body....back of leg, equals control and two feet in it should be a TD. While he is in the air he shifts it too his chest he still keeps control before ever touching out. So wouldn't it just be he never lost control during the process of going to the ground?

IndelibleScribe
01-10-2016, 10:39 AM
That was a catch. Way too many convoluted rules on what is and is not a catch. If he came down with two feet in bounds and the ball is in his hands or snagged against his body then it should be a catch.

wolf754life
01-10-2016, 10:40 AM
He only gets one foot down with control

No catch

kappys
01-10-2016, 11:24 AM
He had control, thus catch

HAT
01-10-2016, 11:28 AM
Of course catch.

ScottXray
01-10-2016, 11:34 AM
That was a catch. Way too many convoluted rules on what is and is not a catch. If he came down with two feet in bounds and the ball is in his hands or snagged against his body then it should be a catch.

Agree. But the current rules say it was not.
The rule should be changed. No football move , no interpretation by the refs.

Lets the refs decide games and there fore put in the fix according to who the NFL likes this or any year.
.

Jason in LA
01-10-2016, 12:10 PM
I'd say it's a catch. He had control of the ball with it pinned against his leg, and then he got both feet down and maintained control and he tumbled out of the endzone.

misturanderson
01-10-2016, 08:51 PM
I'd say it's a catch. He had control of the ball with it pinned against his leg, and then he got both feet down and maintained control and he tumbled out of the endzone.

I'm not sure what you're watching to say that those things happened in that order.

Doggcow
01-10-2016, 08:52 PM
TBH I thought it was DEFINITELY A NO. But who ****ing knows what a catch is.

jmz313
01-11-2016, 06:23 AM
It wasn't a legit catch but the whole game was a 3 ring circus. Sadly, reminiscent of the 2005 Steelers. That team shouldn't of even made it outta the WC round against tier other dirty rival.