Martavis Bryant's catch? (1 Viewer)

[lod01]

Looked like a catch. Can't believe they called it one. Think they did just because it was such a cool catch.

Kind of agree; no way was that a legal catch according to the standard thats been applied that last couple of years. but it was to cool to over rule!

Should have been the on field ruling by the ref. 'Catch is too cool to overrule, touchdown'.

 

[T with T]

That was not a catch, when the ball stopped moving he had one foot in, it is clear. I do not know what people are seeing.

But since it was called a catch, it was a sick catch like people have said. Highlight reel one for sure.

Totally agree, living near Detroit and seeing the Calvin Johnson Process rule garbage how is this a td and Calvin vs Bears isn't? I don't know what people are seeing I mean if they want to give the kid the TD for effort im all for it, because to say the least it was an amazing catch but he had 1 foot down after ball stopped bobbling that is a fact.

 

[Run It Up]

Looked like a catch. Can't believe they called it one. Think they did just because it was such a cool catch.

Kind of agree; no way was that a legal catch according to the standard thats been applied that last couple of years. but it was to cool to over rule!

Should have been the on field ruling by the ref. 'Catch is too cool to overrule, touchdown'.

This is probably what happened. The boys in NY let em know it was too cool to overturn.

 

[Steelers4Life]

I actually expected it to be overturned until the view from the back corner of the endzone was shown. I don't think it would've been reversed to a TD if it hadn't been called one, either.

Bryant had 3 feet land in the endzone - left, right, and left again. He definitely didn't control it when his first left foot came down, but it does look like by the time his right foot comes up, he already has it pinned against his hamstring. Does that foot count? It apparently does because he never loses control of it when his left foot lands or during the flip, and he gets up with complete control of the ball too. And even if he didn't, it was close enough that it's far from indisputable evidence to overturn the TD call.

Of course the ball moves because it's pinned to his leg, which is moving. That's not a bobble, he wasn't trying to adjust the ball. He never loses control of the ball at all, which is probably why there are very, very few people who've said it wasn't a catch. Some will, and that's OK, because some don't think he had it pinned to his right leg soon enough.

 

[Godsbrother]

In real time I thought it was a TD and began celebrating and then I quickly remembered this is the NFL and you never know what is a catch and what isn't so I calmed myself down and waited. After seeing it on IR I thought it was a fantastic play but for sure it would overturned. I was absolutely shocked they let it stand.

It only proves that the NFL has no idea what really constitutes a catch. They can't even apply their own rules consistently. They should just do away with IR entirely and go with the play as originally called. Sure you are going to get a few calls wrong but at least you'll know instantly whether or not the pass is complete.

 

[Das Boot]

better catch then ODBs?

Not even close imo. Only reason he had to flip around was cause he didnt control it when he first got his hands on it. It should have been routine.

The defender hit his arm and almost knocked if off the ball - without the contact from the defense it would have been a routine catch.

As was, it was amazing he was able to keep control of it at all, regardless of one's opinion of how the catch rule should be applied to it.

 

[Das Boot]

better catch then ODBs?

Not even close imo. Only reason he had to flip around was cause he didnt control it when he first got his hands on it. It should have been routine.

The defender hit his arm and almost knocked if off the ball - without the contact from the defense it would have been a routine catch.

As was, it was amazing he was able to keep control of it at all, regardless of one's opinion of how the catch rule should be applied to it.

P.S. Much more spectacular and impressive than ODB's catch IMO.

ODB's catch was amazingly athletic, but I've never seen a catch like Bryant's... I had to watch the replay several times just to figure out exactly how the hell he did it.

 

[dirtyjay]

better catch then ODBs?

Not even close imo. Only reason he had to flip around was cause he didnt control it when he first got his hands on it. It should have been routine.

The defender hit his arm and almost knocked if off the ball - without the contact from the defense it would have been a routine catch.

As was, it was amazing he was able to keep control of it at all, regardless of one's opinion of how the catch rule should be applied to it.

He didnt keep control of it.

 

[cobalt_27]

better catch then ODBs?

Not even close imo. Only reason he had to flip around was cause he didnt control it when he first got his hands on it. It should have been routine.

The defender hit his arm and almost knocked if off the ball - without the contact from the defense it would have been a routine catch.

As was, it was amazing he was able to keep control of it at all, regardless of one's opinion of how the catch rule should be applied to it.

He didnt keep control of it.

But he did

 

[Rove!]

He had it pinned against his leg"..control, two feet....maintained control through the process of going to the ground....catch

 

[Deamon]

better catch then ODBs?

Not even close imo. Only reason he had to flip around was cause he didnt control it when he first got his hands on it. It should have been routine.

The defender hit his arm and almost knocked if off the ball - without the contact from the defense it would have been a routine catch.

As was, it was amazing he was able to keep control of it at all, regardless of one's opinion of how the catch rule should be applied to it.

P.S. Much more spectacular and impressive than ODB's catch IMO.

ODB's catch was amazingly athletic, but I've never seen a catch like Bryant's... I had to watch the replay several times just to figure out exactly how the hell he did it.

exactly. I still can't believe it when I watch it and can't believe more people aren't talking about it.

 

[dirtyjay]

better catch then ODBs?

Not even close imo. Only reason he had to flip around was cause he didnt control it when he first got his hands on it. It should have been routine.

The defender hit his arm and almost knocked if off the ball - without the contact from the defense it would have been a routine catch.

As was, it was amazing he was able to keep control of it at all, regardless of one's opinion of how the catch rule should be applied to it.

P.S. Much more spectacular and impressive than ODB's catch IMO.

ODB's catch was amazingly athletic, but I've never seen a catch like Bryant's... I had to watch the replay several times just to figure out exactly how the hell he did it.

exactly. I still can't believe it when I watch it and can't believe more people aren't talking about it.

They are not talking about it because many know it wasnt a catch so they are not going to glorify it.

Some no catches get glorified, but this was so obvious the NFL probably made a phone call and said please dont talk about this much.

But I have no dispute after seeing a lot of your posts, A Giants player could discover the cure for cancer and you would hate him.

 

[Pipes]

He had it pinned against his leg"..control, two feet....maintained control through the process of going to the ground....catch

I don't think it was pinned to his leg until he was beginning to flip over with only 1 foot down. Still impressive though

 

[Deamon]

better catch then ODBs?

Not even close imo. Only reason he had to flip around was cause he didnt control it when he first got his hands on it. It should have been routine.

The defender hit his arm and almost knocked if off the ball - without the contact from the defense it would have been a routine catch.

As was, it was amazing he was able to keep control of it at all, regardless of one's opinion of how the catch rule should be applied to it.

P.S. Much more spectacular and impressive than ODB's catch IMO.

ODB's catch was amazingly athletic, but I've never seen a catch like Bryant's... I had to watch the replay several times just to figure out exactly how the hell he did it.

exactly. I still can't believe it when I watch it and can't believe more people aren't talking about it.

They are not talking about it because many know it wasnt a catch so they are not going to glorify it.

Some no catches get glorified, but this was so obvious the NFL probably made a phone call and said please dont talk about this much.

But I have no dispute after seeing a lot of your posts, A Giants player could discover the cure for cancer and you would hate him.

There is absolutely no personal feelings towards OBJ/Giants when discussing this catch. I have no problem saying his catch was the greatest of all time, and how amazing of a player he is. I simply posed the question.

I highly doubt it was obvious that the NFL made a phone call and said not to talk about it much. I still think it was a catch, and comparing the two, if I were just to look at both objectively I'd say the MB one was more spectacular/exciting/shocking

 

[lod01]

There is absolutely no personal feelings towards OBJ/Giants when discussing this catch. I have no problem saying his catch was the greatest of all time, and how amazing of a player he is. I simply posed the question.


I highly doubt it was obvious that the NFL made a phone call and said not to talk about it much. I still think it was a catch, and comparing the two, if I were just to look at both objectively I'd say the MB one was more spectacular/exciting/shocking

Bryant's is way cooler to watch.

OBJ is is more impressive because he actually caught it. Bryant should have caught it as a routine catch, toe tap, TD but by bobbling it at the start, it turned into a comical looking TD.

Which one do I watch over and over? Bryant's cause it's funny as hell.

 

[Casting Couch]

Looked like a catch. Can't believe they called it one. Think they did just because it was such a cool catch.

Kind of agree; no way was that a legal catch according to the standard thats been applied that last couple of years. but it was to cool to over rule!

Just looked at it in slo-mo, his thigh was moving but the ball was pinned against the back of the thigh 2 feet down, no bobble, imo.

CATCH

 

[lod01]

Looked like a catch. Can't believe they called it one. Think they did just because it was such a cool catch.

Kind of agree; no way was that a legal catch according to the standard thats been applied that last couple of years. but it was to cool to over rule!

Just looked at it in slo-mo, his thigh was moving but the ball was pinned against the back of the thigh 2 feet down, no bobble, imo.

CATCH

That is the definition of a circus catch because it is so clown like.

 

[Dizzy]

OBJ's catch was the greatest of all time IMO, when it happened. These super tacky gloves now are starting to dilute it for me a bit on a weekly basis. Still, his body angle and to pull it back... that was special.

 

[lod01]

OBJ's catch was the greatest of all time IMO, when it happened. These super tacky gloves now are starting to dilute it for me a bit on a weekly basis. Still, his body angle and to pull it back... that was special.

So can he catch the same without the gloves? if he can't then it's no different than guys in the 70' & 80's wearing stickum. The gloves are helping them catch the ball.

They can't take away the gloves like they did stickum because it makes the game exciting. if it was stickum invented in the past 10 years, it would be allowed. RATINGS matter.

 

[Dizzy]

OBJ's catch was the greatest of all time IMO, when it happened. These super tacky gloves now are starting to dilute it for me a bit on a weekly basis. Still, his body angle and to pull it back... that was special.

So can he catch the same without the gloves? if he can't then it's no different than guys in the 70' & 80's wearing stickum. The gloves are helping them catch the ball?

Yes. That's a fairly well known fact at this point. Even at the time of the catch there were comments like "when talent meets technology."

 

[Pipes]

Looked like a catch. Can't believe they called it one. Think they did just because it was such a cool catch.

Kind of agree; no way was that a legal catch according to the standard thats been applied that last couple of years. but it was to cool to over rule!

Just looked at it in slo-mo, his thigh was moving but the ball was pinned against the back of the thigh 2 feet down, no bobble, imo.

CATCH

I see it differently...the ball is against the outside of the backside of his leg when he had 2 feet down by the time he flips over the ball is pinned tightly against the inside part of his hamstring. That tells me the ball moved after he had 2 feet down.

 

[Franknbeans]

Looked like a catch. Can't believe they called it one. Think they did just because it was such a cool catch.

Kind of agree; no way was that a legal catch according to the standard thats been applied that last couple of years. but it was to cool to over rule!

Just looked at it in slo-mo, his thigh was moving but the ball was pinned against the back of the thigh 2 feet down, no bobble, imo.

CATCH

still awesome

 

[dirtyjay]

This is about seeing things differently, their are two camps. Those with good vision, realize it isnt a catch. And those with bad eye sight, the people who think its a catch,

Looked like a catch. Can't believe they called it one. Think they did just because it was such a cool catch.

Kind of agree; no way was that a legal catch according to the standard thats been applied that last couple of years. but it was to cool to over rule!

Just looked at it in slo-mo, his thigh was moving but the ball was pinned against the back of the thigh 2 feet down, no bobble, imo.

CATCH

So when he is rolling the ball up his leg after the other foot came up, that is control?

You must have written the catch rule in the NFL.

 

[ghostguy123]

Whatever the rules currently are, or whatever they change them to, hopefully it will state whatever it needs to state so that THAT is a catch. That was amazing.

Maybe the only thing the rule book should say about catches is "ref discretion". That is basically what they are doing now anyway. Have one guy linked up in some office somewhere who reviews all challenges, TDs, and interceptions for all the games each week. It's a terrible idea, but it's better than what we have now.

 

[Buzzbait]

Back in the day (good lord I sound like my Dad) there was little debate on what was a catch. You just knew. You'd see a play and there was little debate if it was/wasn't a catch. Now, with these new s****y rules the refs, announcers, fans, experts all have a different opinion. Debates go on for days and weeks and the nuance of the rule is cut, pasted, highlighted and dissected.

Can the NFL please strip it back down and make it more simple and CONSISTENT? Same thing goes for the whole leading with the crown/defenseless receiver BS.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Looked like a catch. Can't believe they called it one. Think they did just because it was such a cool catch.

Kind of agree; no way was that a legal catch according to the standard thats been applied that last couple of years. but it was to cool to over rule!

Just looked at it in slo-mo, his thigh was moving but the ball was pinned against the back of the thigh 2 feet down, no bobble, imo.

CATCH

Based on the rules that have been in place, the ball CAN move as long as it's still under his control.. If you want to argue that the ball can't be under control if it moves, be my guest. That's a separate issue altogether.

His leg was moving, so as long as he has the ball pinned against his leg, the ball will be moving with his leg. But his hand never left the ball and it was always pinned to his leg. So per the rules, that's control and a catch.

Fans have disputed it since Sunday, but 99% of the officials who've chimed in and NFL analysts have consistently called it a catch.

 

[Dizzy]

If the NFL would just go back to older film/TV technology, all their "catch" problems would be solved. There would be no more frame-by-frame shots with detail sharp enough to see the laces on the football stretching. Everything's a blur, rulings on the field stand.

 

[ghostguy123]

Yeah, everything in super slow motion makes it look like people do not have control the entire time.

Or make them watch at regular speed.

Anything is better than now where it's all a guess.

 

[Buzzbait]

Looked like a catch. Can't believe they called it one. Think they did just because it was such a cool catch.

Kind of agree; no way was that a legal catch according to the standard thats been applied that last couple of years. but it was to cool to over rule!

Just looked at it in slo-mo, his thigh was moving but the ball was pinned against the back of the thigh 2 feet down, no bobble, imo.

CATCH

Listening to ESPN (radio) & Mad Dog Sports it's been more like 60/40 (catch/no catch) when I listen. It hasn't been anywhere close to 99%. Just look at this thread!

 

[lod01]

About the only thing right about this complete the catch BS, is that they have to have 'definitive' proof to over rule it. So at least they aren't coming out of the replay booth and saying, 'we are changing this play because we are pretty sure we had it wrong'.

 

[Joe Summer]

Back in the day (good lord I sound like my Dad) there was little debate on what was a catch. You just knew.

That's because super-slo-mo HD cameras didn't exist.

 

[msudaisy26]

I noticed a lot of people knocking OBJ's catch because of the gloves. I am asking because I don't know, but don't all receivers wear those gloves? Does Bryant wear those gloves?

 

[Jack Burton]

That didnt look like a catch to me. By the time he had coralled it he was already out of the end zone.

 

[Jack White]

Looked like a catch. Can't believe they called it one. Think they did just because it was such a cool catch.

Kind of agree; no way was that a legal catch according to the standard thats been applied that last couple of years. but it was to cool to over rule!

Just looked at it in slo-mo, his thigh was moving but the ball was pinned against the back of the thigh 2 feet down, no bobble, imo.

CATCH

Good explanation. It was a catch all the way.

 

[Deamon]

I noticed a lot of people knocking OBJ's catch because of the gloves. I am asking because I don't know, but don't all receivers wear those gloves? Does Bryant wear those gloves?

yes but they didn't used to.

 

[menobrown]

That didnt look like a catch to me. By the time he had coralled it he was already out of the end zone.

Watched Sound FX last night and they had Jeremy Hill miked up. So for what it's worth, straight from a Bengals players mouth and not a Steeler homer, he is recorded as initially saying it was getting overturned and then watching the replay and saying something like "oh no, that's a catch".....he also felt he did not fumble until he saw the replay and when he did he said something like "yea it came out".