Jump to content

That Going To The Ground Rule Needs To Be Changed


Bart2Ryan+beyond
 Share

Recommended Posts

Before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I grew up bitterly despising Dallas. During the 1982 NFC Championship Game between Dallas and Washington, I vividly remember screaming at the TV 'pizz blood Danny White!!!' (after Dexter Manley has sacked him).

Also, based on the rule that currently exists, the call against Bryant was interpreted correctly - it was an incompletion based on today's rule. Dallas had plenty of other opportunities to win this game and while they didn't blow this game by an stretch, they did let it slip through their fingers. This call was not the reason they lost.

But, I'm sorry, Bryant catches the ball in the air, clearly has possession as at gets at least two, if not three steps on the ground and then, as he is falling to the ground his right elbow hits the ground before his left arm hits the ground (that caused the bobble of the ball).

So to summarize - Bryant catches the ball in the air, clearly gains possession with at least two feet on the ground, falls to the ground and his right elbow hits the ground - yet it's incomplete.

Again, I'm not debating the interpretation of the current rule (that was correct), but I've been watching the NFL for 40 years and prior to this stupid rule, that would've and should've been ruled a catch. It is a fundamental affront to basic football and I ask us to each think how we'd feel tight now if that call went against our teams.

How in the world the brainiacs in the NFL came up with this rule is beyond me - I've never liked it - and to see it basically decide a playoff game is the perfect reason why the NFL needs to re-examine that rule.

Edited by Bart2Ryan+beyond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got to maintain possession all the way through when you hit the ground. Why is that so hard to grasp? He went up to catch the ball. He caught the ball. On the way down from the catch, he let the ball hit the ground. It's the rule, not a catch.

Now, I have never been a fan of the rule either, and won't cry if it gets changed. But it is the rule(just like holding and impeding a catch while you are not actively going for the ball also)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got to maintain possession all the way through when you hit the ground. Why is that so hard to grasp? He went up to catch the ball. He caught the ball. On the way down from the catch, he let the ball hit the ground. It's the rule, not a catch.

Now, I have never been a fan of the rule either, and won't cry if it gets changed. But it is the rule(just like holding and impeding a catch while you are not actively going for the ball also)

I think it's obvious that I grasp what the rule is and why it was correctly applied today. What discussion I'm trying to start is why after decades of catches like Bryant made today that the NFL, just 5 years ago or whenever it was, decided that it should be incomplete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with the OP's stance on the rule, I think it's a bad rule. I think it may have been called the 'Calvin Johnson rule' before, in the DET@CHI game in 2010 Calvin Johnson caught a deep pass in the end zone and it was called incomplete I believe for a similar reason to this one.

I believe it was the right call by the letter of the rule so I don't think the Cowboys were screwed by the refs, but I think it's a bad rule.

I do think the rule should change.

You should also be able to decline false starts

I agree with not being able to decline those. With presnap penalties, the play gets blown dead so some offensive players may not have been trying hard like they would have if the play hadn't been blown dead, making it easier for the defense to make the stop.

There should be a time when the play is over IMO, and when the whistle blows the play should stop, and whatever happens after it shouldn't count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with the OP's stance on the rule, I think it's a bad rule. I think it may have been called the 'Calvin Johnson rule' before, in the DET@CHI game in 2010 Calvin Johnson caught a deep pass in the end zone and it was called incomplete I believe for a similar reason to this one.

I believe it was the right call by the letter of the rule so I don't think the Cowboys were screwed by the refs, but I think it's a bad rule.

I do think the rule should change.

I agree with not being able to decline those. With presnap penalties, the play gets blown dead so some offensive players may not have been trying hard like they would have if the play hadn't been blown dead, making it easier for the defense to make the stop.

There should be a time when the play is over IMO, and when the whistle blows the play should stop, and whatever happens after it shouldn't count.

I'm just saying if Dallas makes that retry on their FG attempt before the half then all they need is a field goal for the game... Dallas would've taken it 27-26

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule is the rule. No one knows better than Dez that he cannot let the ball hit the ground. It was the right call and I have no problem with it. If you want the catch do not let the ball hit the ground. What happened to the last 3 minutes of the game? That for for she/rave mainly and a little of v2dbtr

I knew if we left the game in the defense's hands it was over. Our weakness was clear today

Green Bay's defense made plays when it had to and Dallas' didn't. Its that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was with a gimpy Rodgers too. Imagine if he was able to scramble as well?

Lol. You just can't help yourself can you. Ugh...its going to be a looooong offseason.

From having the 4th worst defense ever to making it to the divisional round...Ill take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying if Dallas makes that retry on their FG attempt before the half then all they need is a field goal for the game... Dallas would've taken it 27-26

I understand that, but even so when penalties are called presnap, the play is blown dead, and it doesn't seem fair to count anything that happens on the play.

Who knows, Bailey may have heard the whistle blow and thought of it as a 'practice kick'.

Plus, it's hard to say what would have happened after that, the change in score likely effects the play calling and etc., although I agree DAL probably wins. They'd have gone up 17-7, and GB wouldn't have had the great field position they had and IMO likely doesn't get a FG before the half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was with a gimpy Rodgers too. Imagine if he was able to scramble as well?

Romo was hurt as well, as I said in a previous post the 'and that was with the handicap of Rodger's injury' card shouldn't fly, because Romo was hurt too, and he also is more effective when he can scramble.

Lol. You just can't help yourself can you. Ugh...its going to be a looooong offseason.

From having the 4th worst defense ever to making it to the divisional round...Ill take it.

No worries, AFF set him straight lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. You just can't help yourself can you. Ugh...its going to be a looooong offseason.

From having the 4th worst defense ever to making it to the divisional round...Ill take it.

You guys had a great season, much better than ours. Congrats!!

Lol. You just can't help yourself can you. Ugh...its going to be a looooong offseason.

From having the 4th worst defense ever to making it to the divisional round...Ill take it.

You guys had a great season, much better than ours. Congrats!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the original posters question:

I don't mind the rule, because there are SO many rules that favor the offense in today's NFL, requiring those who catch the ball to maintain possession all the way to the ground is not really asking too much imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule is pretty clear. That was not a catch per the rules. BUT I HATE THIS RULE. As a fan of the game, that was catch purely by the eye test the rules notwithstanding.

This is on par with the infamous "Tuck Rule". Pure garbage and the Raiders were robbed of a trip to the Super Bowl with that foolishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the original posters question:

I don't mind the rule, because there are SO many rules that favor the offense in today's NFL, requiring those who catch the ball to maintain possession all the way to the ground is not really asking too much imho.

That is a good point. Though I don't like the rule, there are many rules that seem to strongly favor a WR over a DB, and I think they benefit a WR far more than this rule benefits a DB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the original posters question:

I don't mind the rule, because there are SO many rules that favor the offense in today's NFL, requiring those who catch the ball to maintain possession all the way to the ground is not really asking too much imho.

You raise a good point and that is the only reason to keep the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule is pretty clear. That was not a catch per the rules. BUT I HATE THIS RULE. As a fan of the game, that was catch purely by the eye test the rules notwithstanding.

This is on par with the infamous "Tuck Rule". Pure garbage and the Raiders were robbed of a trip to the Super Bowl with that foolishness.

I despise the Raiders almost as much as I do the Boys but the tuck rule is truly a WTF rule as as ever existed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...