The Butt "catch"

[CJ2etc]

Someone please explain to me how that is called a TD? He never had control of the football until he rolls over 10 yds out of bounds. How in the world is that called a catch?

If you are juggling the ball and step out of bounds and then get control of it it is an incomplete pass.

How on earth is that called a TD in the first place, let alone uphold the call on replay?

NFL is now the WWF

[InTheJungleNow9]

I am 100% on board with you, bud. And it is crazy that in all the hoopla surrounding the penalties at the end of the game everyone seems to have forgotten that play. I have never seen a more blatant incomplete pass upheld as complete in my life. Total garbage.

[GreenCornBengal]

I can admit he may have had 'control' when he hugged the ball to his butt, but even then, there was only 1 foot in bounds.

There wasn't even any discussion about it on air.

I thought it was very questionable and deserved a longer look..

But, that is the story of last night isn't it?!

[motoarch]

Hill doesn't fumble and it doesn't matter so who cares. It was an awesome catch and if had been us I would argue it should count all day.

[thegimp]

i lost my shit on that call and had to leave my seat and watch the game at a concession stand for an hour...how is that a catch and not Eifert's td, Calvin Johnson, Des Bryant....

[motoarch]

(01-10-2016, 05:16 PM)thegimp Wrote: i lost my shit on that call and had to leave my seat and watch the game at a concession stand for an hour...how is that a catch and not Eifert's td, Calvin Johnson, Des Bryant....

Because in all of though cases the receiver lost possession.  Bryant never lost possession and the ball never touched the ground.

[fisherscatfan]

(01-10-2016, 05:09 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: I can admit he may have had 'control' when he hugged the ball to his butt, but even then, there was only 1 foot in bounds.

There wasn't even any discussion about it on air.

I thought it was very questionable and deserved a longer look..

But, that is the story of last night isn't it?!

I have to admit I went frame by frame cause I was so sure he had one foot in but if the say he controlled it against his back leg he had two feet in.

To me the biggest story is the no call on Bernard.  If the call is made, it is likely first down at the 10-11 yard line. Bengals get 3 or 7 there, whole different game.

[CJ2etc]

(01-10-2016, 05:16 PM)thegimp Wrote: i lost my shit on that call and had to leave my seat and watch the game at a concession stand for an hour...how is that a catch and not Eifert's td, Calvin Johnson, Des Bryant....

Agree.  My whole section had not doubt that it would be overturned.  Needless to say we were stunned wihen it was upheld.  The fix was in and that is really where you could feel the atmosphere turning much more bitter.  If that was our guy catching it no doubt it is incomplete but the Steelers get ever call and no call.  Makes me sick.

[jfkbengals]

(01-10-2016, 05:09 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: I can admit he may have had 'control' when he hugged the ball to his butt, but even then, there was only 1 foot in bounds.

There wasn't even any discussion about it on air.

I thought it was very questionable and deserved a longer look..

But, that is the story of last night isn't it?!

That's what I was yelling about.  He had three feet inbounds, but both hands came off of the ball after the second foot.  Then he pinned it against his thigh and never lost control again, but he only had one foot down then!

[InTheJungleNow9]

(01-10-2016, 05:19 PM)motoarch Wrote: Because in all of though cases the receiver lost possession.  Bryant never lost possession and the ball never touched the ground.

Yeah, it wasn't the same as those plays.  What it was was a receiver bobbling the ball as he went out of bounds and not getting two feet in with clear possession.  Doesn't matter that it never touched the ground.  Receivers bobble all the time on the sidelines, then secure the ball when they are out of bounds and they are never called catches.  That was not a catch.

[CJ2etc]

(01-10-2016, 05:20 PM)fisherscatfan Wrote: I have to admit I went frame by frame cause I was so sure he had one foot in but if the say he controlled it against his back leg he had two feet in.

The problem was that the ball was moving - he never actually controlled the  ball until he was well out of bounds.  It is an incomplete pass.

[jfkbengals]

(01-10-2016, 05:19 PM)motoarch Wrote: Because in all of though cases the receiver lost possession.  Bryant never lost possession and the ball never touched the ground.

But he did after step two.  The replay was clear, the ball was in the air just next to the back of his thigh.  After he pinned it in place he only had one foot in.

[fisherscatfan]

(01-10-2016, 05:24 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: But he did after step two.  The replay was clear, the ball was in the air just next to the back of his thigh.  After he pinned it in place he only had one foot in.

Hell I don't think the league knows what a catch is anymore.  I think (think don't know) they let it stand thinking the ball never moved after he pinned it.  He pulled it in more but the ball didn't appear to me to move.  I didn't think so at first and I was screaming so loud I had to sit down because I got light headed.  After watching back I don't think they would have overturned either way if it was called incomplete.  Not looking to argue just what I saw.

[thegimp]

(01-10-2016, 05:19 PM)motoarch Wrote: Because in all of though cases the receiver lost possession.  Bryant never lost possession and the ball never touched the ground.

but he never had possession, the ball changes hands at the top of the catch, then is falling out of his right hand as he moves it behind him, once the ball is pinned to his back side he pushes off with his left foot and does a flip...it is debatable whether he has his left foot in, but he certainly does not control the ball while getting both feet in, so whether the hits the ground or not is a moot point 

[thegimp]

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/story/_/id/14539902/martavis-bryant-eye-popping-touchdown-catch-6-photos

the third picture...its not a catch

[GreenCornBengal]

Somewhere, Dez Bryant is flipping a Gatorade table.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-10-2016, 05:24 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: But he did after step two.  The replay was clear, the ball was in the air just next to the back of his thigh.  After he pinned it in place he only had one foot in.

That is how I saw it, as well.  Was pretty surprised that the catch was upheld.

[Thundercloud]

Not a catch. Ball is moving, and no control before he's out.

[jfkbengals]

(01-10-2016, 05:36 PM)thegimp Wrote: http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/story/_/id/14539902/martavis-bryant-eye-popping-touchdown-catch-6-photos

the third picture...its not a catch

That still doesn't really show it, but a few frames before or after that still you could see daylight all the way around the ball.  The hand was not on it.

[Stonyhands]

Watching it in slow motion on my 120" HD screen I can clearly see the ball rolling up and down the back of his leg while he's getting his 1st of two feet down. There's absolutely no way he had control of that until after his leg came up and stopped the ball from coming out. Coincidentally they say that same leg was one of his two feet he got in bounds with control.

Not even sure how that is physically possible. That foot couldn't have been down when he had control as it was that same leg that had to come up to ensure he didn't lose the football.

It doesn't matter the media is super biased. PFT is bashing our team and coaches. There's article after article about how dirty Burfict is yet never a mention about Porter coming on the field or Decastro's eye gouge in the last meeting. I think Mike Brown must have been the only owner who voted against full time refs. As such this team will never be on the side that gets favorable calls.