Ketch's 10 Thoughts From The Weekend (About those vacant positions...)

[DiCehawk]

If you think that's a catch, then either (1) you haven't been watching the NFL for the last 4 years; or (2) you are a Cowboys fan.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by exit-left:
As I have come to understand the "catch" situation--The rule book requires that a player who catches the ball and begins the process of falling to the ground (FALLING TO THE GROUND) must have control the football all the way through hitting the ground and rolling/stopping movement. If this is not done then it is no catch, no matter what football moves were possible. This is not a regular catch, but when falling to the ground. So, nothing counts if this specific part of the rule is not completed (you can think of it as a prerequisite in this case). The football does move slightly as it touches the ground even though it seems Bryant has"control" of it. It might not seem right, but it is the rule and therefore not a catch by rule; that is why there will be no apology. Don't let your emotions get in the way of your understanding. Write to your congressman.

That is completely wrong

But, thanks for playing.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by DiCehawk:

If you think that's a catch, then either (1) you haven't been watching the NFL for the last 4 years; or (2) you are a Cowboys fan.

Another guy that should probably mix in some homework before coming into my neighborhood with weak talking points.

Do your homework.

 

[CPHornfan]

Norvell could be headed to Wisconsin

http://www.buckys5thquarter.com/2015/1/12/7535993/jay-norvell-interview-wisconsin-badgers-texas-longhorns

 

[sundance7]

Originally posted by DiCehawk:

If you think that's a catch, then either (1) you haven't been watching the NFL for the last 4 years; or (2) you are a Cowboys fan.

And you are an idiot.

 

[exit-left]

Is this what you are talking about?
Some would argue that Bryant satisfied the league's definition of a catch based on Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the rule book. According to the wording of that Article, a catch occurs when a player has secured control of the ball in his hands, he is inbounds and he has maintained "control of the ball long enough … to enable him to perform any act common to the game."

In this case, Bryant took two steps and lunged toward the goal line. Why was this not an "act common to the game"? Because, by NFL rules, Bryant did it while going to the ground. He never established himself as "upright." Steratore, in Sunday's official pool report, said: "In our judgment, [Bryant] … continued to fall and never had another act common to the game." By Kevin Seifert | ESPN.com

On twitter Dez Bryant said the ground did help him control the ball.

Also see the process rule which the NFL and refs are referring to as the determining factor.

The NFL made the rules.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by exit-left:
Is this what you are talking about?
Some would argue that Bryant satisfied the league's definition of a catch based on Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the rule book. According to the wording of that Article, a catch occurs when a player has secured control of the ball in his hands, he is inbounds and he has maintained "control of the ball long enough … to enable him to perform any act common to the game."

In this case, Bryant took two steps and lunged toward the goal line. Why was this not an "act common to the game"? Because, by NFL rules, Bryant did it while going to the ground. He never established himself as "upright." Steratore, in Sunday's official pool report, said: "In our judgment, [Bryant] … continued to fall and never had another act common to the game." By Kevin Seifert | ESPN.com

On twitter Dez Bryant said the ground did help him control the ball.

Also see the process rule which the NFL and refs are referring to as the determining factor.

The NFL made the rules.

Threes steps, changed hands with the ball and lunged. he made a football move.

The football move overrides everything else.