ADVERTISEMENT

With this being a football board......

bobby121567

bobby121567

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
6,133
1,672
113
Was that a catch or not by Dez in the Cowboy/ Packers game. I said yes. He had control. Made a football move by taking three steps and starting to what to me starting to reach for the pylon.. What's your take? And don't let your like or hate of the Cowboys make your decision for you.
 
Originally posted by bobby121567:
Was that a catch or not by Dez in the Cowboy/ Packers game. I said yes. He had control. Made a football move by taking three steps and starting to what to me starting to reach for the pylon.. What's your take? And don't let your like or hate of the Cowboys make your decision for you.
Click to expand...
Oh? It is up to 3 steps now?
laugh.r191677.gif
BTW, he was falling down, he wasn't "stepping".

By the rule, it was not a catch.

What it was, is Karma... especially after the way Cowboy fans acted after that horrible call last week.

P.S. Before you say it, I am not a cowboy hater, I even used to enjoy watching them some before the Panthers came along. The humor comes from how classless the Cowboy fans acted for the past week. So seeing them cry about THIS call is funny as hell.
 
I'm a Cowboy fan. Yes. But I even admitted that was a bad call last week on Facebook with my Cowboy haters and Redskin fans.And that we may not even been playing that game today. Never watched the game today. But as for the call last week the reason I say may is. It's not guarantee they score a TD on that drive. Even if they kicked a FG they still lost by 1. Plus one call doesn't cost you a game. Like today's game I heard that GB was like 10 for 15 or something like that. You can't play that way and win football games. So me being a Boys fan isn't why I called it a catch. But the head of NFL officials has said is was the right call was made. So be it. On to next year.

This post was edited on 1/11 8:26 PM by bobby121567
 
Originally posted by bobby121567:
I'm a Cowboy fan. Yes. But I even admitted that was a bad call last week on Facebook with my Cowboy haters and Redskin fans.And that we may not even been playing that game today. Never watched the game today. But as for the call last week the reason I say may is. It's not guarantee they score a TD on that drive. Even if they kicked a FG they still lost by 1. Plus one call doesn't cost you a game. Like today's game I heard that GB was like 10 for 15 or something like that. You can't play that way and win football games. So me being a Boys fan isn't why I called it a catch. But the head of NFL officials has said is was the right call was made. So be it. On to next year.

This post was edited on 1/11 8:26 PM by bobby121567
Click to expand...
I will expound further. It was NOT a catch... BY THE RULE, that said, I don't like that rule. I never have. It seems to penalize for no reason.
 
The reason I think it a catch was he had control and started to reach out for the pylon. If he just tucked it and not try to reach the ball would have never came out. But the rule is control all the way to the ground. But what is considered a foot ball move. Two or three steps and starting to reach is a football move to me. I wish others would comment since it is a football board and its a little slow considering it's the quite or dead period and nothing to really talk about until we hear something for sure about Gene. At least it is something to discuss.
 
i thought he had control of the ball and when he reached for the goal line it came loose.
heck of a way to lose a game.
 
I'm not a Cowboys fan, but it was definitely a catch. He took three steps, landed and his knees and forearm touched the ground, THEN he reached for the pylon and the ground caused the ball to come loose. I hate the "keep possession all the way to the ground" rule and the "make a football move" rule, but even with those rules in place, I still felt it was a catch because he took 3 steps.

Look at it this way. If he had caught that ball in the middle of the field and taken the same number of steps in the same manner, then gotten hit and the ball came loose, they would've ruled it a fumble.
 
It's a bizarre rule for sure.

Anybody remember the 2008 UNC game at Miami? Heels were driving down 24-21 with under 3 minutes left in the game. Brooks Foster "caught" a long pass as he was falling backwards out of bounds. The ball came loose at the very end of the play even though Foster looked to have established control inbounds first. It was ruled incomplete, which is the first time I remember hearing the language of the catch rule cited. Fortunately the Heels scored the game-winning touchdown on that drive.

Anyway, by rule it wasn't a catch by Bryant. That doesn't mean the rule isn't stupid.
 
Romo and the cowgirls suck, so, it was definitely not a catch . .

I admire Bryant's effort though, but still, that's the way the cookie crumbles. At least this week, nobody picked up a flag and then changed their mind.
 
Originally posted by Raising Heel:

Anyway, by rule it wasn't a catch by Bryant. That doesn't mean the rule isn't stupid.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing though......I'm not convinced it wasn't a catch, by rule.

You have to complete the process I know, but Bryant took three steps -- his two feet touching the ground after catching the ball, then he takes another step as he's diving and stretching toward the pylon. How switching the ball from one hand to the other and stretching towards the pylon isn't a "football move" is beyond me.

My point is that, Bryant took three steps and to me, that ends the "complete the process" portion of the play. Completing the process of the catch applies to plays where the dude is catching it while falling out of bounds, or when he catches it while in the air and lands before establishing his feet. That isn't what happened on Dez's catch. He caught the ball, got both feet down, then took another step and THEN the ball came out. If anything, it was a fumble that Dez then recovered.

Awful call, and this is exactly the reason I'm losing interest in the NFL. They put all these weird, needless criteria in place. That was a catch. The rule is stupid and I'm willing to put money on the fact that it will be changed/tweaked in the offseason.
 
Originally posted by TarHeelNation11:
Originally posted by Raising Heel:

Anyway, by rule it wasn't a catch by Bryant. That doesn't mean the rule isn't stupid.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing though......I'm not convinced it wasn't a catch, by rule.

You have to complete the process ....
Click to expand...
I'm not sure whether the "catch" rule is supposed to be interpreted within the context of the "possession" rule. Based on the quotes I've read from NFL officials it doesn't sound like it. But I'm no rules expert and readily admit I don't know for sure. I also don't care that much and don't really like the Cowboys so I didn't lose much sleep over it. ;)
 
Absolutley a catch. I have even heard Steelers fans saying it was a catch.

I don't know that it would have changed the outcome or not. Dallas D would have still had to have stopped Rogers, but we will never know.

It will go down as one of the worse calls in the history of football. Does not matter what all the blowhard "officials" say. My eyes don't lie and that was a catch.
 
Originally posted by UNC_Blue:
Originally posted by bobby121567:
I'm a Cowboy fan. Yes. But I even admitted that was a bad call last week on Facebook with my Cowboy haters and Redskin fans.And that we may not even been playing that game today. Never watched the game today. But as for the call last week the reason I say may is. It's not guarantee they score a TD on that drive. Even if they kicked a FG they still lost by 1. Plus one call doesn't cost you a game. Like today's game I heard that GB was like 10 for 15 or something like that. You can't play that way and win football games. So me being a Boys fan isn't why I called it a catch. But the head of NFL officials has said is was the right call was made. So be it. On to next year.

This post was edited on 1/11 8:26 PM by bobby121567
Click to expand...
I will expound further. It was NOT a catch... BY THE RULE, that said, I don't like that rule. I never have. It seems to penalize for no reason.
Click to expand...
I agree. It was not a catch per the rule. The rule should be changed.
 
a couple of stumbles doesn't equal 2 steps. It wasn't a catch but don't let a standing rule influence your choice. Those rules are kind of like the truth when they get in the way of your opinion. It also couldn't have happened to a nicer jerk than Bryant.
 
Ok here is a question I don't understand about the rules. Let's say he was hit let's say by a safety and fumbled right before he hit the ground.Did he do enough to be considered a fumble. Would it had been said that he made a football move. That's the only real question I have. I understand the all the way to the ground. If you can call it a fumble than in my eyes it would also be a catch.

This post was edited on 1/12 4:38 PM by bobby121567
 
Originally posted by UNC_Blue:
Originally posted by bobby121567:
Was that a catch or not by Dez in the Cowboy/ Packers game. I said yes. He had control. Made a football move by taking three steps and starting to what to me starting to reach for the pylon.. What's your take? And don't let your like or hate of the Cowboys make your decision for you.
Click to expand...
Oh? It is up to 3 steps now?
laugh.r191677.gif
BTW, he was falling down, he wasn't "stepping".

By the rule, it was not a catch.

What it was, is Karma... especially after the way Cowboy fans acted after that horrible call last week.

P.S. Before you say it, I am not a cowboy hater, I even used to enjoy watching them some before the Panthers came along. The humor comes from how classless the Cowboy fans acted for the past week. So seeing them cry about THIS call is funny as hell.
Click to expand...
It may very well be Karma with as much pissing and moaning all week from Detroit fans and Cowboy haters. Again,not bad for team that was written off before season began.
 
By the rule as written... Not a catch. The rule is in need of change for sure but it is what it is. If it had happened to my team I would be pissed too.

That being said, if they score there, Green Bay still has about 3 minutes and all their time outs (IIRC). That's a tall order for their defense to stop Rodhers considering how well he was playing in the 2nd half.
 
Not a catch. Stumbling then falling down short of the goal line and rolling into the end zone while bobbling the ball is not a catch. Some people saw it far differently than most of you. That's having run it back and forth maybe 50 times. It could have never been a fumble, even if hit as per the rule he never had possession all the way to the ground.
 
Caught, took two steps, fell, ground caused the fumble. Yeah, the ball was squeezing out of his arm a bit when he fell but it was his till he hit the ground.
 
A catch. He caught the ball with two hands. Adjusted the ball while turning his body from parallel to the side line to move forward to the goal line, situated the ball in one hand and lunged for the goal line. This was not one of those catch and dive for the sideline calls, even the ref who made the bogus call said he lost control, while "reaching for the goal line", which in of itself is a "football move". Bad way to lose, but will probably spark the Boys to bring more focus into next season.
 
I know the rule. But what gets me is my second question. If he was hit by a safety and lost the ball before hitting the ground. If they called that a fumble which means he had control and made a football move. What happened Sunday should have too. Notice I said if. So that is my real question did he do enough to consider it a fumble if he was hit while falling to the ground and reaching for the pylon. If the answer is yes the rule needs to change. Possession is possession regardless what happens. That would be a great question for the head of officiating.
 
If you are referring to the Dez Bryant play specifically, then no it would not have been a fumble if he had been hit by a safety. It would still have been incomplete.

The reason the actual play was ruled incomplete is that what you described in your opening post isn't considered a "football move." That's because Bryant wasn't in control of himself when reached for the goal line. In reality, he was stumbling and just fell down, and tried to reach out while he was falling down. To make a "football move," you have to establish yourself as a runner. Bryant never did that. He got tangled up with the safety in the air, and basically tripped over himself when he landed.

The same theory is how you can get a targeting foul against a receiver, but not a runner. Even if a receiver gets two feet down, you can still be called for targeting if you hit him high. Once he established himself as a runner, (i.e. starts running upfield) then hitting him high isn't a penalty.
 
By the rule: Not a catch. But the rule is pretty garbage. Just as ridiculous as when they called it on Calvin Johnson awhile back.

If what Bryant did wasn't a football move, I don't know what is. 3 steps and a stretch for the pylon, what more do you have to do? If you wanna call it a "stumble" sure. People stumble in football all the time, not too many people run around standing straight up with a perfect gait while having grown men hit them.

Say that play started on their own one yard line, Bryant catches the ball, and goes for 99 yards (obviously without going to ground - remember the all important, you must control until you go to the ground!!!!!!!!! blah blah blah) then his last 3 steps and reach for the endzone are the same as they were here... is it still not a catch? He ran (whoops, I mean stumbled) 99 yards, but still didnt control the ball while going to the ground. If 3 steps arent enough to establish control, what difference is 50 (or however many it would take Bryant to run 99 yards). Obviously I'm playing a little devil's advocate here, but the point is the rule needs to be altered.

Back to back weeks of questionable calls. Hopefully thats the end of it. I'm going to be at the Pats/Colts game this weekend, and would have a heart attack if something similar happened without access to instant replay to see what was going on (don't get the best angles on the stadium screen).
 
Originally posted by bobby121567:
I know the rule. But what gets me is my second question. If he was hit by a safety and lost the ball before hitting the ground. If they called that a fumble which means he had control and made a football move. What happened Sunday should have too. Notice I said if. So that is my real question did he do enough to consider it a fumble if he was hit while falling to the ground and reaching for the pylon. If the answer is yes the rule needs to change. Possession is possession regardless what happens. That would be a great question for the head of officiating.
Click to expand...
You raise a great question, and one I've asked too. IMO, they WOULD call that a fumble if he was hit by a safety because they'd site the possession of the ball + the 3 steps and the football move. The ball coming lose wouldn't have occurred in this hypothetical play because in the actual play, it only occurred when he was on the ground and lunging.

From that context, you're right....how does the ground jarring it lose suddenly eliminate his possession of the ball and make it not a catch?
 


Originally posted by Hark_The_Sound_2010:

By the rule: Not a catch. But the rule is pretty garbage. Just as ridiculous as when they called it on Calvin Johnson awhile back.

If what Bryant did wasn't a football move, I don't know what is. 3 steps and a stretch for the pylon, what more do you have to do? If you wanna call it a "stumble" sure. People stumble in football all the time, not too many people run around standing straight up with a perfect gait while having grown men hit them.

Say that play started on their own one yard line, Bryant catches the ball, and goes for 99 yards (obviously without going to ground - remember the all important, you must control until you go to the ground!!!!!!!!! blah blah blah) then his last 3 steps and reach for the endzone are the same as they were here... is it still not a catch? He ran (whoops, I mean stumbled) 99 yards, but still didnt control the ball while going to the ground. If 3 steps arent enough to establish control, what difference is 50 (or however many it would take Bryant to run 99 yards). Obviously I'm playing a little devil's advocate here, but the point is the rule needs to be altered.

Back to back weeks of questionable calls. Hopefully thats the end of it. I'm going to be at the Pats/Colts game this weekend, and would have a heart attack if something similar happened without access to instant replay to see what was going on (don't get the best angles on the stadium screen).


You are describing two entirely different scenarios. The rules of the NFL clearly differentiate between a receiver in the process of a catch, and one who established himself as a runner. Bryant hadn't established himself as a runner. 3 steps do not establish a receiver as runner. The rule is pretty clear: you have to get two feet down AND make a football move. The two steps don't count as a football move. The football move has to come AFTER you get your two feet down. Bryant didn't do that. He just fell down. That's not a football move. That's not establishing yourself as a runner.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

What Would Jesus Do?

Who's On Your Ten-Year Team?

Replies
9
Views
462
Tar Heel Radar
Newoikkin
N
NathanFielder

Good plays, not-so-good plays from the Michigan State game

Replies
1
Views
332
Tar Heel Radar
NathanFielder
NathanFielder
IDUNK4HEELS

With a whole week off What should the team work on?

Replies
8
Views
422
Tar Heel Radar
tarheels0015
tarheels0015
IDUNK4HEELS

Carolina finally at home vs Virginia Tech game thread on. Saturday 17 February 2024 at the Dean Dome

Replies
83
Views
2K
Tar Heel Radar
alabamaheel
alabamaheel
IDUNK4HEELS

Practice after the film watch will not be fun

Replies
2
Views
269
Tar Heel Radar
IDUNK4HEELS
IDUNK4HEELS
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back