NFL says Bryant`s tumbling TD catch was no good

About time we got away with one.

How many times over the years have we got apologies for bad officiating that cost us?

 

What say you Jimmy Two Times.

 

Not sure why not.
The ball never left his body.

 

I think it's because of not having two feet in maybe?

 

I agree , but it should be a catch..The spirit of the Law as it stands now the ball was moving and after he got control one foot was off the ground...With that said,,it was a great catch.....

 

I wonder if they will also come out and talk about how Shazier's should have stood? No? Oh well. I'm just gonna drop this mic and walk away.

 

He caught the ball.
never dropped it.
NFL is getting ridiculous with some of their interpretations a week after the games.

 

I read that the guy said that from looking at it on the replay, he thought it probably wasn't a TD... but that he wouldn't have overturned it if he was the ref, since it was too close to call. That's not exactly the same as coming out and saying it shouldn't have counted.

I think it should have counted, replay or not, because although the ball moves some, it's always pinned against his body. It's never loose, it just slides around, always pinned.

 

The NFL was wrong

 

I think it was a catch. Ball never moved in his hand. I see it as no different than a one handed catch where the ball never moves.

 

It was a catch of EPIC PROPORTIONS!

 

Lets just make sure cincitucky knows we cheated them. Packman will take his apology back and put out another mofo rant

 

Why come out and say that now other that to stir crap? Somebody with the NFL needs to figure out just what a catch it.

 

cant find a link on that catch or anything on nfl.com

 

He would have bent over just one more inch, he's of had a tripod in sheesh

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...d-martavis-bryant-td-vs-bengals-wasnt-a-catch

 

Once again the headliner misleads and that's all the football idiots will say for the next 10 years!

Blandino didn't say it shouldn't have counted. He said there's not enough to overturn the call on the field. He even admits it looked like it moved, but he had control. His issue seems to be when control was deemed to have happened in relation to the footwork. He's really trying to be in the middle so he doesn't lock his refs into anything later on.

 

As if the refs didn't already have too much impact on games...

 

Luckily the replay ref who I'm sure watched it over and over in slow motion decided it was a catch.

 

I don't remember which radio guy it was, but he was talking about the 18 person committe being assembled to review the "what is a catch" rule. His answer was simple "if he catches the ball, it's a catch".

 

I have no clue what a catch is anymore. Literally no clue. That looked like a catch clear as day with every replay showing it. I'm never convinced anything is a catch anymore.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...d-martavis-bryant-td-vs-bengals-wasnt-a-catch

Basically the guy is saying "its not a catch but I can't tell you exactly why it's not a catch, I just don't think it's a catch. But there's not enough on replay that tells me that it ought to be overturned. But I just don't think it's a catch."

 

It's really like the rule book is now written by a team of lawyers or something.