I wanted Green Bay to win but Dallas was robbed. The receiver had plenty of control of the ball in my opinion.
I think the officials and the NFL err on these calls in a “letting perfect be the enemy of good” manner. I think the receiver should be allowed to be a touch sloppy as catches in the NFL are hard to make. As long as the receiver isn’t obviously bobbling the ball I say “COMPLETE – FIRST DOWN!”.
I also think you shouldn’t be able to take a knee, I think you should have to run a play. So I might not see things as the NFL does.
What I saw is the receiver had control, then the defender knocked it loose a bit, and then the receiver regained control and maintained it until the ball hit the ground when it came a bit loose again but the receiver never let the ball completely loose, he even kept the ball in his hands after the ground caused to ball to move around in his hands. If that’s what happened, what was insufficient in the receiver’s effort? I know there are rules about amount of steps and “full control” while going to the ground and all, but I think all that’s catch-robbing and does not advance the spirit of the game or properly reward the receiver for doing all they can in a tough situation.
Is this a new or recent rule? A decade or two ago that was a catch no question. And I remember when I was young this type of play was often ruled a touchdown. Not that it should be called one today, but maybe the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction?
To me he had the ball cradled in his left hand against his left forearm for plenty of time as he came down with the ball — you see that clearly in the replay. Also, the receiver stood up with the ball in his hands after hitting the ground, the ball never came completely loose or fully away from him or airborne in any way at any point after the receiver “caught” the ball. To me, even considering the rule as best as I understand it, the receiver had enough control (in his left hand as I noted above) to rule it complete. AND: wasn’t he down, his knee down, before his hands and the ball hit the ground?
But I am not an official nor an expert on this rule. I’m just a viewer. One of the commentators said during the post-game show, “common sense says this is a complete catch” but that the “letter of the law” says otherwise. So if common sense, a viewer who isn’t rooting for Dallas (me), and the official making the call on the field right in front of the play all say “complete” why should there be a rule that doesn’t make it so? Time to revisit this rule I say and have been saying for a few years. Also, the receiver clearly showed a greater athletic effort than the defender, so in that match-up alone I think the call should favor the offense rather than the defense. I know it doesn’t exactly work that way, but I’m sure you get what I’m saying.
Again, I think the rule is asking for 100% perfection from the receiver, and isn’t willing to give the receiver or the official who originally called the play on the field the benefit of the doubt or even wiggle room to say the receiver’s effort was more than good enough. And you’d think the NFL would want to see more complete catches, not fewer.