The DK Catch at the end of the game

[HawkGA]

This topic was getting a bit of discussion in the Game Day Forum but I wanted to bring it here now that Game Day is over.

The Browns didn't have a challenge or timeout left and this was just outside of 2 minutes, so they couldn't challenge, but was it a catch? Check this video at about the 14 minute mark.

[youtube]BaIllhXngBw[/youtube]

 

[Rat]

Probably a catch, but given the constant ambiguity of what actually constitutes a catch, I wouldn't have trusted it to hold up in review. I'm glad we didn't have to find out.

 

[chris98251]

He maintained possession but I don't think he had control going out of bounds. Ball was moving in what I saw.

 

[kidhawk]

EDIT: Delted Original post as I was thinking of a different, albeit great catch yesterday.

The one that he had stripped was one of those plays that I think doesn't get overturned no matter which way it's called. It was just impossible to say definitively by any of the replays that I saw.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

IMO it would have been a difficult call to overturn. IMO the ball was stripped out after he stepped out of bounds.

To me it was one of those if it was called incomplete or a fumble, it would have stood that way........and because it was called a catch, it would have been hard to overturn.

 

[HawkGA]

[urltargetblank]https://www.seahawks.com/video/2019-week-6-dk-metcalf-extends-for-grab-on-sideline[/urltargetblank]


There's a GREAT view of that catch at the link above. It was (IMO) 100% a catch and I don't see how it could have been overturned.

Thanks Kid, but different catch. That one was definitely a catch, but comes much earlier in the came. The play I'm referring to (and I've fixed the link above) is the first down that basically sealed the game. DK catches it, but he does have the ball stripped out.

I certainly like the way the call went. I'm not sure how it would have gone if it was reviewed. Even in the replay I in the video I linked to, which gives a much better view than anything shown during the game, it's tough to see the ball and when DK would be ruled out of bounds versus the ball coming out.

 

[JustTheTip]

[urltargetblank]https://www.seahawks.com/video/2019-week-6-dk-metcalf-extends-for-grab-on-sideline[/urltargetblank]


There's a GREAT view of that catch at the link above. It was (IMO) 100% a catch and I don't see how it could have been overturned.

What comes up with that link for me is not the same play as the one being discussed here.

 

[HawkGA]

IMO it would have been a difficult call to overturn. IMO the ball was stripped out after he stepped out of bounds.

To me it was one of those if it was called incomplete or a fumble, it would have stood that way........and because it was called a catch, it would have been hard to overturn.

I think this is probably correct. Even on the video above it's tough to see where the ball is. It definitely gets stripped out but he is likely down and/or out of bounds by the time it happens.

 

[kidhawk]

[urltargetblank]https://www.seahawks.com/video/2019-week-6-dk-metcalf-extends-for-grab-on-sideline[/urltargetblank]


There's a GREAT view of that catch at the link above. It was (IMO) 100% a catch and I don't see how it could have been overturned.

Thanks Kid, but different catch. That one was definitely a catch, but comes much earlier in the came. The play I'm referring to (and I've fixed the link above) is the first down that basically sealed the game. DK catches it, but he does have the ball stripped out.

I certainly like the way the call went. I'm not sure how it would have gone if it was reviewed. Even in the replay I in the video I linked to, which gives a much better view than anything shown during the game, it's tough to see the ball and when DK would be ruled out of bounds versus the ball coming out.

Yeah I caught that when I re-read the post and it said close to the 2 minute mark and edited my post. I will say that guy has had some fantastic plays and is exceeding what I expected of him in his rookie year.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

IMO it would have been a difficult call to overturn. IMO the ball was stripped out after he stepped out of bounds.

To me it was one of those if it was called incomplete or a fumble, it would have stood that way........and because it was called a catch, it would have been hard to overturn.

Completely agree

 

[Barakas]

That was a catch. DK caught the ball fully upright, he wasn't going to the ground so as soon as he secured it with both feet on the ground it's a catch. THEN the defender hit him and forced him to the ground. In that process he may have stripped it but it still looks like he stripped it after DK had a knee on the ground.

Regardless the football went out of bounds so at the most it would have been a catch following by a fumble with the ball going out of bounds which still would have resulted in a Seahawks first down.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

He caught it, it then got knocked out. Meh. Excuses are for losers, like the Browns.

 

[HawkStrong]

That was a catch. DK caught the ball fully upright, he wasn't going to the ground so as soon as he secured it with both feet on the ground it's a catch. THEN the defender hit him and forced him to the ground. In that process he may have stripped it but it still looks like he stripped it after DK had a knee on the ground.

Regardless the football went out of bounds so at the most it would have been a catch following by a fumble with the ball going out of bounds which still would have resulted in a Seahawks first down.

For what it is worth, they removed the whole "going to the ground" language from the catch rule. No longer relevant.

 

[cymatica]

Around the 14:32 mark - "hes bobbling the ball, left foot out of bounds, doesnt have control all the way through".

You can't see any bobble, both feet were inbounds, and looks like he had full control before the strip. That guy just flat out lied. The only argument you could make is whether he made a football move before the strip.

 

[Seanhawk]

IMO it would have been a difficult call to overturn. IMO the ball was stripped out after he stepped out of bounds.

To me it was one of those if it was called incomplete or a fumble, it would have stood that way........and because it was called a catch, it would have been hard to overturn.

That's what I thought about the Lockett TD at the end of the game. There was no clear evidence that he was down before the goal line, yet they overturned it anyway.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

The funniest thing I heard from yesterday was from the Browns announcer. They said on 710 that the guy said "Baker can do anything Wilson can."
Um...……….no

 

[rcaido]

Yeah the Lockett TD being reverse was crazy. I could have sworn i saw the replay so many times and it was clear as day he was in and then the final replay showed it really really close, like it was altered compared to the other times i saw it...

If Metcalf didn't catch the ball, they would have done the same thing, show it over and over again. They didn't because probably no way to alter it to make it look like a no catch besides the one bad angle replay.

 

[Torc]

The funniest thing I heard from yesterday was from the Browns announcer. They said on 710 that the guy said "Baker can do anything Wilson can."
Um...……….no

Well, let's shut off Baker's helmet speaker for a couple of drives, see how he does.

 

[toffee]

Its the kind of play that could be ruled either way, so fans will forever argue about it. We are lucky this season that some of these type of calls came our way, but I see no reason why the league or zebras would favor us over the Browns, not like we are in a hot market (Alaska after all), or a favorite team (cowgirls?).

So the football God has been kind to us.