[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Quite frankly, I have no problem with the rule. In fact, I think it makes it much clearer and easier to determine catches than what the rules were before. It's really simply - make the catch and either make a move (if you're not going to the ground) or hold on to it (if you are going to the ground).

In this case, Bryant was going to the ground. 2 steps, 3 steps, 12 steps, none of that matters - because he was going to the ground the whole time. Since he was going to the ground, he has to hold onto the ball. He didn't. No catch.

To me, this is an incredibly obvious overturn and I am amazed at the number of people arguing vehemently that it's a catch. It seems crystal clear to me that it wasn't a catch.

Of course it is.

Was the first play I described just as incredibly obvious to you?