Historic catches that wouldn't be catches today

[Evan]

Not sure if we did this list in a previous Forum post, but in honor of Dez Bryant, let's list "Historic Catches that wouldn't be catches today"

Super Bowl XII - Butch Johnson's diving TD catch (seems like a textbook Calvin Johnson rule play that would have been reversed)

1975 NFC Championship Game - Preston Pearson's diving TD catch (the NFL Films footage shows he trapped the ball, never really caught it at all)

1968 AFL Championship Game - Don Maynard's long catch to set up the winning score. I'm not sure if this would have stood or not because he lost the ball pretty quick after controlling it. What do you think?

Which others come to mind?

[Bryan]

I think Maynard's would still be a catch because he never fell to the ground and made a "football move", I guess.

I don't know if John Jefferson's one-handed catch against the Raiders would count because he was kind of bobbling the ball as he landed out of bounds.

Otis Taylor's big gain against the Raiders in the 1969 AFL Title game would have been overturned on replay, assuming Madden would have had any challenges left to use at that stage of the game. John Stallworth's non-catch in the 1974 AFC Championship game would have counted on replay. Don't know about Mike Renfro's catch, because of the "bobbling" issue as he falls out of bounds.

[BD Sullivan]

Mel Gray in 1975 against the Skins

[JohnR]

Cliff Branch's diving reception vs the Dolphins in '74 might have been overturned as a trap. The Renfro catch looked pretty clean.

[Byron]

There are undoubtedly a LOT of great catches that would be called incomplete. This is my main argument against instant replay: where, in past, was the outcry against these great catches? Instant Replay just feeds the beast these days. I know it is useful for many things--no argument there--but it has also made the game poorer and less enjoyable IMHO. Okay, that was a tangent--just ignore it.

[NWebster]

It is a bit frustrating, I know they're trying to ensure a catch in football doesn't end up like the strike zone in baseball. But it really doesn't seem like something that can be defined with the language. Catches feel more like what the Supreme Court said of Pornography, I know it when I see it.

[rhickok1109]

The current rule was created in 2000 as the result of another controversial non-catch--the play in the 1999 playoff game between Tampa Bay and St. Louis, when Bert Emanuel of the Bucs appeared to make a diving catch of a pass. It was ruled a catch on the field, but that was overturned on replay because the ball had touched the ground, even though Emanuel seemed to have control of it throughout the catch. Because of the resultant outcry, the rule regarding a legal catch was very carefully rewritten to ensure there would be no more controversies about catches of that kind.

So no catches similar to Bryant's that took place before 2000 would be affected by the current rule.

As a Packer fan, I am naturally biased, but I didn't think it was a catch even at the first view and I was imploring McCarthy, through my TV, to challenge the ruling. I don't think Bryan ever actually had control of the ball and, after many viewings of the play in slow motion, I am even more convinced of that. I don't believe Bryant ever actually had control of the ball. At the top of the catch, he's juggling it; he traps it between both hands; but then one hand comes off the ball and he has only one hand on it as he falls to the ground; and it comes when he hits the ground. To me, it's seems like a pretty obvious incomplete pass.

[ChrisBabcock]

The only time in the process did it look like he MAY have had control was on the way down when he had it in one hand. And I think g-force was holding it in place then.

[Bob Gill]

I never doubted that it was a catch, even after they explained why it allegedly wasn't.

[JohnH19]

Bryant caught the ball but the rule was interpreted correctly. The rule sucks...and I don't cheer for the Cowboys.