POLL: Did Dez Bryant make the catch?
- Thread starter GACMAN
- Start date
Also not a Cowboys fan...so unbiased:
That was a great catch in a huge moment. Hate for any teams season to end that way. Felt bad for Detroit last week, bad for Dallas this week.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
That was a great catch in a huge moment. Hate for any teams season to end that way. Felt bad for Detroit last week, bad for Dallas this week.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I hate the cowboys but it probably should've been upheld. However it seems fitting that this happened to the dude who should have had an unsportsmanlike penalty for running on the field without his helmet to argue with the ref. seems like football karma to me.
define "football move apparent to the game"...then, and only then, can we talk about him making a catch by rule.
and i'm not blaming the officials, but nobody on this board, in that stadium, or on tv can tell me whether or not dez did or did not make "a football move".
it's also a little refreshing to not hear about how romo isn't good enough, chokes, or isn't a franchise qb.
and i'm not blaming the officials, but nobody on this board, in that stadium, or on tv can tell me whether or not dez did or did not make "a football move".
it's also a little refreshing to not hear about how romo isn't good enough, chokes, or isn't a franchise qb.
I agree with that but to me the question is....did Dez make a football move? 3 steps, switching the ball to the other hand and stretching for the end zone would seem to me to be a football move! IF that is the case, then the Calvin Johnson rule about possession all the way thru the catch would not apply.
With so many so called "experts" disagreeing on the call, it would seem like the proper ruling would have been to have let the call on the field stand!!!
Intersteing fact, the same ref made the call against Calvin Johnson also......
I've only heard one expert disagree (howie long). The director of officials said it was correct call.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
was it a football move?
i'm not even sure the ball hit the ground, are you guys?
it didn't lose the game...the murray fumble and the missed fg didn't help.
i'm not even sure the ball hit the ground, are you guys?
it didn't lose the game...the murray fumble and the missed fg didn't help.
The "football move" is debatable. One could argue that he was still in the process of making the catch and falling down; that he wasn't really upright and running but still falling.
I don't really give a crap as long as the Pats don't win, but I didn't think it was really close according to the rules. They state you have to maintain possession to the ground. Therefore, if the ground knocks the ball up then it at that point is incomplete. I don't see where the argument is that it was a catch. That is the way it has been called all year long.
it's not the ground so much...the ball can touch the ground if the receiver has possession during a football act...i saw a receiver with a legal catch use the ground a his third hand, so to speak...it didn't bounce from the ground, the ground helped him cradle it...ruled a catch...i do wonder though if the review crew took into consideration that they assumed dez wasn't a "runner"...if dez does the same thing on a reverse or a catch and he's running and that same thing happens, it's a non-issue, first and goal...so he's not a runner based on momentum from a catch, therefore not making a football move.
you could argue the ground caused him to fumble the ball...why, because he had possession, two feet plus, etc...in that case(not saying that's where i am) he recovered his own fumble in the end zone.
also, where is the replay showing a ball hitting the ground?...how do we know his forearm didn't jar the ball loose?
you could argue the ground caused him to fumble the ball...why, because he had possession, two feet plus, etc...in that case(not saying that's where i am) he recovered his own fumble in the end zone.
also, where is the replay showing a ball hitting the ground?...how do we know his forearm didn't jar the ball loose?
Have no idea! He caught the ball period! Took a step or two to try and get to the endzone THEN hit the ground and still kept the ball, why that is not a catch is beyond me. And NO, I hate Dallas!
After watching it again I understand what you are saying about the football move. I can see that as a reasonable defense. From the backside camera angle when the ball hits the ground it pops up, which automatically makes it incomplete by the new rules. If he had control of it and it hit the ground it would be complete, which is a change from the old rule. When it bounced up that changes though from what I understand. Regardless, if I were a Dallas fan it would definitely be a tough one to take.
People forget the reason for the rule. There were so many instances of players going to the ground in the process of making a catch and juggling the ball or losing it when they hit the ground. It was so subjective they had to come up with a definitive way to judge it. So how do u judge possession in the process of falling down? Everyone bitches about the rule but whats the alternative? If you're going to the ground you have to maintain possession thru the entire process. He didnt. Nuff said.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
As was mentioned above, this is a terrible rule. I understand the black & white nature of it, but if he has the ball and is clearly fighting for the extra yard to hit the end zone -- the question of whether or not it was a catch to begin with isn't even a question to me.
I know they said a lot of the right, PC things afterwards, but that's all smoke & mirrors, to me. Bottom line - again in a huge game, the refs decided it, and that is very unfortunate.
I know they said a lot of the right, PC things afterwards, but that's all smoke & mirrors, to me. Bottom line - again in a huge game, the refs decided it, and that is very unfortunate.
Not lose control of the ball when he hit the ground or make a football move before he hits the ground. He had no control over his momentum when he landed and went to the ground. Had he been able to compose himself and make a move under his own control, then it would have been a catch. He did neither of those things, so it was not a catch.
This post was edited on 1/12 10:49 AM by st8grad93
number one, don't allow fuzzy rules to obfuscate the situation for officials who aren't exactly Einsteins, and that includes the guys at the top calling the shots. The fact is, there are two distinct situations here that have become entangled. It's ridiculous that it should be like this.
A number of years ago, a receiver went up in the air to catch a pass in the end zone, and when he came down on his body and not his feet with the secured football, the impact jarred it loose and it hit the ground. It was clarified by the official rules committee that in that case, it was not a completed pass and therefor not a TD. The idea was that contact with the ground with the body was part of the concept of a catch, in that a pass could not be considered a catch until an airborne receiver came down and in some way contacted the ground. There was no judgement about a receiver in the air who came down on his feet for a step or two and then hit the ground. There was a completely different clarification more recently regarding whether a pass was incomplete or fumbled, which declared that if the reciver did indeed possess the ball long enough to make a 'football move', the pass was complete and he was now a runner whereby if he lost the ball it was a fumble. Otherwise it was an incomplete pass. Fair enough way to help make a judgement call, but it was a separate judgement from the ground-body contact idea.
In the time since then however, refs and review offficials have applied the idea to receivers going out of bounds with a caught pass. Even if the player goes out on his feet, if he then makes contact with the ground before making a football move (which he can't do when he's out of bounds) and the ball comes loose, the pass is incomplete. Two separate notions then became blurred together and IMO there have been any number of passes that should have been considered complete that were ruled otherwise. It used to be that if a receiver went out of bounds with apparent control, that was enough, and I believe that that's the way it should be since once it's out of bounds it's also out of play. But the greater damage is that now the ground contact concept has become an abberration in any case. An official will sometimes watch a receiver take three steps out and hit the ground sliding, and still wait for him to come to a stop before signalling a catch. It's crazy, but it gets crazier when the receiver is in bounds. Do a simple thought experiment. If a receiver has to lunge forward to make a catch so that he begins stumbling forward toward ultimate ground contact, how far does he have to stumble before the pass is ruled complete? Three steps? Ten steps? Twenty yards? The length of the field and through the end zone? The idea that he might stumble forward fifty yards and then lose the ball after making contact with the ground and have that constitute an incomplete pass is pretty absurd. So let's arbitrarily say three steps.
In the recent situation, if one doesn't recognize that to go so incredibly athletically from the contorted, back-toward-the- end zone position Bryant was in when he wrapped his hands around the ball to the horizontal stretch and lunge directly toward it constitutes a 'football move', you probably shouldn't even be trying to discuss this. But if you aren't satisfied with that, count the steps, there are three of them....with the last one clearly being a lunge at the end zone. It was a catch according to the spirit and the official interpretation of the rule, and to consider the ball coming loose at that point as anything other than a (recovered) fumble is to be immersed in a total misunderstanding of the rule and a too fine attempt to apply it. And when you see the awkward official explanation, it bears that out. Half the time, they don't get it either. And that doesn't even address the 'overwhelming evidence' that it's supposed to take in order for a call to be reversed. There was none of that.
This post was edited on 1/12 12:48 PM by bluetoe
A number of years ago, a receiver went up in the air to catch a pass in the end zone, and when he came down on his body and not his feet with the secured football, the impact jarred it loose and it hit the ground. It was clarified by the official rules committee that in that case, it was not a completed pass and therefor not a TD. The idea was that contact with the ground with the body was part of the concept of a catch, in that a pass could not be considered a catch until an airborne receiver came down and in some way contacted the ground. There was no judgement about a receiver in the air who came down on his feet for a step or two and then hit the ground. There was a completely different clarification more recently regarding whether a pass was incomplete or fumbled, which declared that if the reciver did indeed possess the ball long enough to make a 'football move', the pass was complete and he was now a runner whereby if he lost the ball it was a fumble. Otherwise it was an incomplete pass. Fair enough way to help make a judgement call, but it was a separate judgement from the ground-body contact idea.
In the time since then however, refs and review offficials have applied the idea to receivers going out of bounds with a caught pass. Even if the player goes out on his feet, if he then makes contact with the ground before making a football move (which he can't do when he's out of bounds) and the ball comes loose, the pass is incomplete. Two separate notions then became blurred together and IMO there have been any number of passes that should have been considered complete that were ruled otherwise. It used to be that if a receiver went out of bounds with apparent control, that was enough, and I believe that that's the way it should be since once it's out of bounds it's also out of play. But the greater damage is that now the ground contact concept has become an abberration in any case. An official will sometimes watch a receiver take three steps out and hit the ground sliding, and still wait for him to come to a stop before signalling a catch. It's crazy, but it gets crazier when the receiver is in bounds. Do a simple thought experiment. If a receiver has to lunge forward to make a catch so that he begins stumbling forward toward ultimate ground contact, how far does he have to stumble before the pass is ruled complete? Three steps? Ten steps? Twenty yards? The length of the field and through the end zone? The idea that he might stumble forward fifty yards and then lose the ball after making contact with the ground and have that constitute an incomplete pass is pretty absurd. So let's arbitrarily say three steps.
In the recent situation, if one doesn't recognize that to go so incredibly athletically from the contorted, back-toward-the- end zone position Bryant was in when he wrapped his hands around the ball to the horizontal stretch and lunge directly toward it constitutes a 'football move', you probably shouldn't even be trying to discuss this. But if you aren't satisfied with that, count the steps, there are three of them....with the last one clearly being a lunge at the end zone. It was a catch according to the spirit and the official interpretation of the rule, and to consider the ball coming loose at that point as anything other than a (recovered) fumble is to be immersed in a total misunderstanding of the rule and a too fine attempt to apply it. And when you see the awkward official explanation, it bears that out. Half the time, they don't get it either. And that doesn't even address the 'overwhelming evidence' that it's supposed to take in order for a call to be reversed. There was none of that.
This post was edited on 1/12 12:48 PM by bluetoe
The rule states if the ball hits the ground and comes loose then its not a catch. I dont see how clearer they should make it. I like the rule and here’s why: You have to draw the line somewhere, and the rule makes the line most distinct. If you want it to be a catch, then catch it and eat it. That’ll work. Reaching the ball out for the goal line has become a dangerous mania. There’s a point at which ball security is more important than breaking the plane. This was one of those times. As soon as I saw the replay, I knew the call would be reversed.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
The rule, as its currently written, might suck, but the referees called it correctly. However, due to the importance of the play, time of the game, etc., I felt the refs would not over-turn the call on the field and let the play stand.
I'm sure this rule will get much review and most likely be redefined in the offseason.
I'm sure this rule will get much review and most likely be redefined in the offseason.
@bluetoe
This from the nfl vp of officiating
Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete.
4:21pm - 11 Jan 15
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This from the nfl vp of officiating
Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete.
4:21pm - 11 Jan 15
Posted from Rivals Mobile
So i knew it would be overturned based on my understanding of the rule, it was overturned confirming my understanding of the rule and the vp of nfl officials stated it was correct to overturn the call once again confirming my understanding of the rule.
But bluetoe says i dont know the rule. 😉
Posted from Rivals Mobile
But bluetoe says i dont know the rule. 😉
Posted from Rivals Mobile
It's not a catch. If you're falling to the ground in the process of catching the ball, which he was, you must maintain possession through the contact with the ground, which he didn't.
He has only himself to blame. If he'd wrapped the ball up instead of sticking it out toward the goal line it would've been first and goal from the 1, maybe the 2 at worst.
He has only himself to blame. If he'd wrapped the ball up instead of sticking it out toward the goal line it would've been first and goal from the 1, maybe the 2 at worst.
So basically Dez should have made the catch and instead of reaching for the end zone, he should have simply secured it and had possession at the 4 yard line. Tough to do for some of these play makers....feel bad for the guy because it was a heck of an effort...although after he ran out on the field last week....many will say it was karma catching up with him!!!!
It was a helluva play. Course now the stage is set for a big call to go against green bay sun. ðŸ˜
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
In answering the OP Poll question; YES, he caught that ball. I realize the NFL has a f*cked-up rule that erased a great catch for the ages, but that man CAUGHT that ball! And, again, I despise the Dallas Cowboys.
it's not his fault...that's who he is...as was said, it's what he and other freakishly athletic players do.
pay that man, jerrah!!
pay that man, jerrah!!
It would have been a catch in college. The NFL rule is stupid. Bet your ass they change rule in offseason after this and the Calvin Johnson "non catch".
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Similar threads
