No way would the Panthers ever get that favorable TD review

[Snake]

Same as they would have called fumble on that rapestbuger sack when the ball was clearly moving and the other player had possession before he was down.  Honestly the fix was in,  and it's clear the Skins and Vikings have no chance unless they blow the other team out. 

[AviationMX]

not a catch, at least it wasn't completed and secure in bounds. Maybe if he had sucked it up his bung hole, but he had to move the ball around his leg to secure it.

Has having NY review the plays helped at all? and don't get me started on pass interference (or pushing off) and "making an athletic move" crap. This season we have learned that coaches, players and zebras still don't understand the rules as they stand today...  

[Snake]

16 minutes ago, TheRed said:

I understand where you guys are coming from as far as bias goes, we've seen it with different teams, not just ours.

But this need to continually make ourselves victims is kind of getting ridiculous, and quite frankly pitiful. If we want a Lombardi Trophy, we're going to have to overcome a few bad calls most likely. It's bullshit I know, but that's just the way it is right now in this league.

Dude we went 15-1. We made it through pleanty of bad calls. It just gets old when you clearly are dominating a team and the refs are giving them 45 yards off of flags.  The Steelers and Bengals was a super good game but just call it fairly because fans don't want to see refs end games. 

[TheRed]

8 minutes ago, Snake said:

Dude we went 15-1. We made it through pleanty of bad calls.

That was basically my point.

You don't get to 15 wins without a few calls going your way.

Regardless, if our team wants that Lombardi, it's not the refs who are going to prevent that. We need to keep our foot on the gas at all times so we do not allow bad calls to become a factor. We did that a few times in the regular season, and it almost cost us a couple of wins.

[panthermonium]

I think the silly part to this is concluding the Panthers would never get a call like this.  We're 15-1. I'm pretty sure we've gotten a call or two in our favor along the way that shouldn't have been. Don't buy into that mindset at all. 

I thought there was movement and it shouldn't have been ruled a catch (based off of the rules that constitute a catch).  However,  the rule is so jacked it wouldn't be surprising if refs interpret it differently from one another.  Maybe Hochili's crew calls it different.  I don't know.  I don't think though Bryant got the call cuz he's a Steelers and if it was Ginn he wouldn't have cuz he's a Panther.  Nah. 

[TheRumGone]

I thought it was a catch. Looked like he had control of it on his leg but I didn't really look at it again after the initial replay.

[PanthersATL]

Finally saw the replay (thanks GIFs).

Is it a catch?  Yes.

Is it a catch IN BOUNDS? Definitely not.  I would say he "had control" somewhere around when the 2nd foot hit the ground.  With the first foot? No way - too much movement on the ball.  If he had dragged his other toe or something, then we'd be having a different conversation.

[PanthersATL]

On the other hand -- aren't we happy that the Bengals lost after those two personal attack penalties?

[CelibatePimp]

It was a catch.

Quote

Note 3: If a player has controlof the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose controlof the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

from the NFL rule book

http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2015-nfl-rulebook/#section-1-approved-ruling-%28a.r.%29

 

Control does not mean the ball cannot move. That is what you guys are struggling with.

[TheRed]

7 minutes ago, CelibatePimp said:

It was a catch.

from the NFL rule book

http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2015-nfl-rulebook/#section-1-approved-ruling-%28a.r.%29

 

Control does not mean the ball cannot move. That is what you guys are struggling with.

With only one foot in?

[Udogg]

1 minute ago, TheRed said:

With only one foot in?

I think he is saying the entire act of moving the ball to his leg can be defined as control depending on your interpretation.  So lets say at beginning where it first touches his hands it's a catch, then moving down to his leg there is "slight movement" however the ball stay there and he maintains control throughout the catch and the ball doesn't move anymore.

I think if it was more than that slight jiggle or the ball moved further down his leg then they would have ruled differently (maybe).  However that ball stuck once it hit his leg and he maintained through the catch so....

As far as the original point, would we have gotten that call?  Not sure, on that one.

[TheRed]

Just now, Udogg said:

I think he is saying the entire act of moving the ball to his leg can be defined as control depending on your interpretation.  So lets say at beginning where it first touches his hands it's a catch, then moving down to his leg there is "slight movement" however the ball stay there and he maintains control throughout the catch and the ball doesn't move anymore.

I think if it was more than that slight jiggle or the ball moved further down his leg then they would have ruled differently (maybe).  However that ball stuck once it hit his leg and he maintained through the catch so....

As far as the original point, would we have gotten that call?  Not sure, on that one.

I get that. The rules are confusing as hell unfortunately.

I would call that a little more than "slight" movement myself.

From what I see, he catches it, takes one step, then begins to lose control of the ball, and then takes 2 more steps as he regains control, if you can even consider that actually regaining control.

It's a tough call.

[OriginalPantherDan]

2 hours ago, GhostP. said:

It was a catch and some of you guys are something else .. Always comparing lol .. Like it or not it was a catch and a hell of one on top of that 

It was a catch, yes, but an OOB catch. 

[CPantherKing]

You all are confusing two separate parts of the "process of a catch".

1) Gaining control.

2) Maintaining control.

What most of you are arguing about is maintaining control. As long as a receiver establishes control of the ball in play the receiver can have the ball move while in the process of maintaining control.

The "gaining control" of the catch occurs when Bryant high points the ball with both hands.

He can bobble the ball and the ball is allowed to move after this point through the process of the catch.

So, he gains control of the ball.

Next he gets 2 feet down in bounds. (The ball can move while trying to maintain control at this point).

Finally, he must maintain control after he has contacted the ground without the ball contacting the ground to aid the process of the catch.

From the NFL Rule Book:

" If a player goes to the ground out of bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, or there is no possession.

" If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."

After gaining control when the receiver high points the ball, the receiver is allowed to have the ball move in the process of maintaining control of the catch as the receiver pulls the ball into the body while going to the ground. He never lost control of the ball. Movement of the ball while in the process of maintaining control does not demonstrate loss of control. The ball would have had to hit the ground and moved or his hand would have had to lose complete contact with the ball for him to have lost control of the ball.

Understand the process of the catch. 1) Gain control. 2) Two feet or body part other than hands in bounds. 3) maintain control.

The fact that you all are in agreement that this debate centers around ball movement while in the hands of Bryant demonstrate you all believe he initially gained control of the ball. You can not argue about ball movement while in the hands of Bryant if you believe he never initially gained control of the ball.

This is a catch.