• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

so.......did Janis "catch" that pass?

T

TazManianDevil

Active member
Member
Forefather
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
712
Reaction score
212
Points
43
I know I know......back in the old days that's a catch without a doubt.

but according to today's rules.....how is that a catch? didn't look like he maintained control. Blandino comes out and say's Martavis Bryant's catch wasn't a catch BUT this one was?

I mean I understand it was hard to over turn such a call after how the game turned out at the end.....with Rodgers facing 4th & 20 in his own endzone.....the impossible comeback....the magic....which is good for the sport...but there's no way you can tell me that is a catch by today's standards.


btw......today's standards suck.....no one has any clue what is a catch and what is not. NFL needs to simplify the rule. You have it in your hands and two feet down in bounds....should be a catch regardless if the ball is moving around or not.
 
The "if the ball moves" criteria is ridiculous as I'm sure every ball moves a little (fractions of an inch). Technically, they're all incompletions. IMO, the rule should be does the ball leave the body and hands (is there air between the receiver and ball). A clear bobble.

The fact that the ball can hit the ground and still be a catch, but it can't move even if it doesn't hit the ground is kind of absurd.
 
To me, it was a catch. I can't see where Bryant's TD last week was a catch. Then again, what the hell do I know?
 
Troglodyte said:
The "if the ball moves" criteria is ridiculous as I'm sure every ball moves a little (fractions of an inch). Technically, they're all incompletions. IMO, the rule should be does the ball leave the body and hands (is there air between the receiver and ball). A clear bobble.

The fact that the ball can hit the ground and still be a catch, but it can't move even if it doesn't hit the ground is kind of absurd.
Click to expand...

Yeah that should be the rule. At the end of the play if the receiver is down, in bounds and the ball has not touched the ground it should be a catch.
 
NFL best simplify the catch rule, along with some of the other b.s. the powers that be have brought into this sport. If the NFL isn't careful, they are rapidly heading down they road of a total cluster muck. Ala, Nascar, totally unwatchable. With all the b.s. Brian France has loaded on a once humble proud sport.
 
Like most I don't really know what the criteria is for a catch that isn't absolutely clear and unchallenged by a defender. Howver, the endzone grab by Janis looked good to me and if he was wearing a Steeler uniform I would INSIST today that is was a beautiful one too. Hell if MB's grab was complete then Janis' has too be good. Never touched the ground and he "controlled" it even as the Cardinals were trying to punch it out.
 
I thought it was a catch. There was nothing in the video to indicate conclusively that the ball ever hit the ground.

I would like someone to explain how Bryant's catch was not a catch. He pinned the ball to the back of his leg, got two feet down and maintained control of the football throughout the process of completing the catch. There is nothing in the video evidence I've seen to indicate otherwise.
 
Stainless said:
I thought it was a catch. There was nothing in the video to indicate conclusively that the ball ever hit the ground.

I would like someone to explain how Bryant's catch was not a catch. He pinned the ball to the back of his leg, got two feet down and maintained control of the football throughout the process of completing the catch. There is nothing in the video evidence I've seen to indicate otherwise.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a catch because he is a Steeler. Case closed.
 
I'm sure there are instances of incorrect review calls, in fact there just are cases. However, that is a highly trained official on the head set with a supervisor looking at a slow motion. They know all the criteria. Id say if they get it wrong which is probably 1 time in 50 or more it is something very subjective where a big argument could be made either way. As far a s the Janis catch. The guy knocked the ball loose and I just didn't see it hit the ground. Maybe I missed something, but that was a catch. Bryant's had a lot of subjectivity, but like I said the ref knows the criteria.
 
He caught it and that's that. The NFL and its 57 reasons why something didn't happen rules even though we saw it happen needs to go.
 
It was ruled a catch in real time, there was no conclusive evidence otherwise, therefore it is a catch and a touchdown. The rules are irrelevant after the decision is made on the field and after replay. Since the player was on the ground and the ball was punched out after he landed, it would have been ruled down my contact in the field of play so why should it not be considered in the receiver's possession just because it was in the end zone?
 
I agree with all of you guys but isnt he suppose to maintain control throughout the catch ?
 
TazManianDevil said:
I agree with all of you guys but isnt he suppose to maintain control throughout the catch ?
Click to expand...

only if it touches the ground or he touches out of bounds... if the thing lands on his gut and stays there... its live till he either grabs it, someone else does, or its dead from touching the ground or out of bounds
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top