Dez Bryant made brilliant catch. Cowboys hosed

[bigdeal701]

There is a difference between agreeing it should be a catch, and it was already a catch.

I've said several times that it should be considered a catch. The rule is kind of dumb to me. He was falling the entire time and it did hit the ground, but it should have been a catch under the football we all remember as kids.

Most people agree with that.

I don't believe most people think he was making intentional steps and lunged at the end zone. I think most reasonable people see his momentum was carrying him down toward the ground and all 3 'steps' were him trying to get his feet under him.

I agree, miss the old school football. They have ruined the game with all the new rules. As for Dez trying to maintain his balance, I'm sure he was but when he realized he was going down he switched the ball to one hand and stretched it out. I have no doubt he was stretching for the endzone. Most receivers do this when close to the goal. Anyway thanks for a good debate whether right or wrong, always nice to have good conversation without all the BS name calling and such. You are a good poster in my book just like most of the people whom have posted on this tread. We can always agree to disagree.

 

[bigdeal701]

My wife brought home some brownies from the weed store. She has a prescription. One bite of those brownies and you will be volunteering to return punts.

I don't like the rule, I though Calvin Johnson made a great play, also thought Dez made a great play. But how else do we officiate it? We have too many judgement calls already.

I am done with it, I am sure the rules committee will be looking at this and a few other rules this off season. Now I gotta think about mean things to say about the Packers.

 

[purguy12]

I was watching it on ESPN and its more clear now that it was 100% a catch and he did make a football field. Ground ant cause fumble so I would say Dallas ball at the 1. Tough break for Dallas fans.

 

[CarlSr]

I was watching it on ESPN and its more clear now that it was 100% a catch and he did make a football field. Ground ant cause fumble so I would say Dallas ball at the 1. Tough break for Dallas fans.

One of the more frustrating aspects of it is seeing it over and over again, while reading or hearing people say what happened didn't happen. He wasn't falling the entire time, but people are saying he did. He wasn't bobbling the ball nearly the entire time, but people are saying he did. Momentum didn't turn his body 90 degrees, make him take 3 steps, lunge for the end zone on the 3rd step and extend the ball towards the end zone, but people are saying it did.

It is what it is, but revisionist history is something else.

 

[ratenstein]

It was the same thing as the Calvin Johnson "catch." Correct call but horrible rule which needs to change.

Agreed. I think they should change it. If you catch it in bounds and drop it hitting the ground out of bounds, it's a catch because the play ended as soon as you went out of bounds. If you catch it and cross the goal line, and then it pops out, it's a TD because the play ended as soon as you crossed the goal line.

 

[BoBlake]

I don't see how any reasonable person can say conclusively that he was intentionally lunging or not.

I think we're saying that it doesn't matter if he was lunging. If he was lunging, it was also while he was falling. The act of falling means that he needs to keep control through the contact with the ground.

It was the "lunge" (if you insist on calling it that) that ultimately fucked Dez and your season.

 

[JMR]

I was watching it on ESPN and its more clear now that it was 100% a catch and he did make a football field. Ground ant cause fumble so I would say Dallas ball at the 1. Tough break for Dallas fans.

He made a football field? Damn, that changes everything.

 

[Anointed One]

Just like the, "Tuck Rule"... Awful rule, especially at the time the Raiders were on the other end things...

 

[Cincyfan78]

I love everyone that complains about the rule being horrible, but offer up no official way to change it.

You can't have the play end as soon as he's "down" or crosses a sideline or goal-line because then a WR could simply catch, land, and play is over, even if he drops the ball immediately after...he never establishes possession this way.

That is why when a RUNNER hits the ground, or crosses the line, the play is dead: He has already established possession. In the act of catching the ball, the WR has to complete the catch the way the rule is written, or you'll have WR's who can "Catch" a ball, and immediately drop it, or get hit and never have full possession, and it will count as a catch when we all know it shouldn't. Plus, this rule would negatively impact MORE plays than the current rule does. Also, if you change the rule to this 'new' way, when a WR catches a ball in the field of play, catch, two feet, and drops it, or is immediately hit and the ball comes loose, it is now a fumble instead of an incomplete pass...think about how many plays a game we see this...probably each team has 2-3 drops, or hits that dislodge a ball a game...at least...now those are fumbles. Do we really want that?!

 

[bigdeal701]

I love everyone that complains about the rule being horrible, but offer up no official way to change it.

You can't have the play end as soon as he's "down" or crosses a sideline or goal-line because then a WR could simply catch, land, and play is over, even if he drops the ball immediately after...he never establishes possession this way.

That is why when a RUNNER hits the ground, or crosses the line, the play is dead: He has already established possession. In the act of catching the ball, the WR has to complete the catch the way the rule is written, or you'll have WR's who can "Catch" a ball, and immediately drop it, or get hit and never have full possession, and it will count as a catch when we all know it shouldn't. Plus, this rule would negatively impact MORE plays than the current rule does. Also, if you change the rule to this 'new' way, when a WR catches a ball in the field of play, catch, two feet, and drops it, or is immediately hit and the ball comes loose, it is now a fumble instead of an incomplete pass...think about how many plays a game we see this...probably each team has 2-3 drops, or hits that dislodge a ball a game...at least...now those are fumbles. Do we really want that?!

Its really not that hard. If a receiver catches a ball, the ball doesn't move as he takes three steps then switches ball to the other hand , is contacted by the defender as he's going down its a catch and the ground should not determine it being incomplete. It shouldn't matter if the receiver is off balance or not. Now if the receiver catches the ball and does all those things but isn't touched by a defender and he loses the ball while hitting the ground then it should be a fumble. If he catches the ball but drops it immediately without taking a step then its not a catch. Its not really rocket science, and any third grader can tell the difference.

 

[gordontrue]

I love everyone that complains about the rule being horrible, but offer up no official way to change it.

You can't have the play end as soon as he's "down" or crosses a sideline or goal-line because then a WR could simply catch, land, and play is over, even if he drops the ball immediately after...he never establishes possession this way.

That is why when a RUNNER hits the ground, or crosses the line, the play is dead: He has already established possession. In the act of catching the ball, the WR has to complete the catch the way the rule is written, or you'll have WR's who can "Catch" a ball, and immediately drop it, or get hit and never have full possession, and it will count as a catch when we all know it shouldn't. Plus, this rule would negatively impact MORE plays than the current rule does. Also, if you change the rule to this 'new' way, when a WR catches a ball in the field of play, catch, two feet, and drops it, or is immediately hit and the ball comes loose, it is now a fumble instead of an incomplete pass...think about how many plays a game we see this...probably each team has 2-3 drops, or hits that dislodge a ball a game...at least...now those are fumbles. Do we really want that?!

But this 'going to the ground rule' only counts when they're going to the ground... why?


If a player catches the ball (and stays upright) and is soon after hit and the ball comes loose... its a judgment call. The ref has to decide whether they had possession for long enough, if they made a move after securing the ball, etc... to decide whether its incomplete or a fumble.

Why should going to the ground be any different? Why are we fine with the refs figuring out whether the player had possession in any instance... except when the receiver is falling to the ground?

 

[Cincyfan78]

Its really not that hard. If a receiver catches a ball, the ball doesn't move as he takes three steps then switches ball to the other hand , is contacted by the defender as he's going down its a catch and the ground should not determine it being incomplete. It shouldn't matter if the receiver is off balance or not. Now if the receiver catches the ball and does all those things but isn't touched by a defender and he loses the ball while hitting the ground then it should be a fumble. If he catches the ball but drops it immediately without taking a step then its not a catch. Its not really rocket science, and any third grader can tell the difference.

I say the same thing about the current rule.

It does matter that the momentum from the act of catching the ball be differentiated from taking three steps of your own free will. The reason is exactly for this purpose: To establish possession of the ball by the WR under his own ability. Catching the ball, falling down, and stumbling forward doesn't constitute taking steps, or a football move for that exact reason...it's still part of the momentum that occured BEFORE he ever had the ball. Thus it can't be considered.

As you said yourself...any 3rd grader can tell the difference.

 

[Cincyfan78]

But this 'going to the ground rule' only counts when they're going to the ground... why?

If a player catches the ball (and stays upright) and is soon after hit and the ball comes loose... its a judgment call. The ref has to decide whether they had possession for long enough, if they made a move after securing the ball, etc... to decide whether its incomplete or a fumble.

Why should going to the ground be any different? Why are we fine with the refs figuring out whether the player had possession in any instance... except when the receiver is falling to the ground?

As stated above...because the momentum that occurs that forces the WR to the ground happens before the WR ever has the ball, and thus cannot establish possession, or be considered a part of a voluntary move, until the WR differentiates between the momentum that occurs before he ever has the ball, and after he has the ball.

 

[Wazmankg]

I love everyone that complains about the rule being horrible, but offer up no official way to change it.

You can't have the play end as soon as he's "down" or crosses a sideline or goal-line because then a WR could simply catch, land, and play is over, even if he drops the ball immediately after...he never establishes possession this way.

That is why when a RUNNER hits the ground, or crosses the line, the play is dead: He has already established possession. In the act of catching the ball, the WR has to complete the catch the way the rule is written, or you'll have WR's who can "Catch" a ball, and immediately drop it, or get hit and never have full possession, and it will count as a catch when we all know it shouldn't. Plus, this rule would negatively impact MORE plays than the current rule does. Also, if you change the rule to this 'new' way, when a WR catches a ball in the field of play, catch, two feet, and drops it, or is immediately hit and the ball comes loose, it is now a fumble instead of an incomplete pass...think about how many plays a game we see this...probably each team has 2-3 drops, or hits that dislodge a ball a game...at least...now those are fumbles. Do we really want that?!

Well the first thing they should do is definitively separate catches made while "going to the ground". There have been a few "catches" in recent years, where the receiver lost control when he hit the ground, which were upheld and defended by the NFL using the justification that while he was going to the ground he "made a move common to the game", otherwise known as a "football move". There was a video posted in this thread by a Cowboy fan of a Victor Cruz TD "catch" that was defended on that basis. There was another "catch" by Denario Alexander in 2012 that the NFL defended using the same argument. There have probably been others. Just get rid of that criteria for catches made while going to the ground. If the ball comes loose and touches the ground when he hits the ground, it's an incomplete pass... period.... none of this timing and football move crap.

Another thing they could do is consider it a catch if the receiver demonstrates control and gets both down down before hitting the ground causing the ball to come loose and touch the ground.

 

[bigdeal701]

I say the same thing about the current rule.

It does matter that the momentum from the act of catching the ball be differentiated from taking three steps of your own free will. The reason is exactly for this purpose: To establish possession of the ball by the WR under his own ability. Catching the ball, falling down, and stumbling forward doesn't constitute taking steps, or a football move for that exact reason...it's still part of the momentum that occured BEFORE he ever had the ball. Thus it can't be considered.

As you said yourself...any 3rd grader can tell the difference.

First let me say the third grader comment was not meant as a knock towards you. Second we can agree to disagree, Dez held onto that ball for 5 yards, had complete control of that ball in one hand and didn't lose it till he hit the ground. Say what you want but he was stretching that ball to the goal line just like nearly every wide receiver does every time they get close to the goal line. IMO it was a football related move. I know you think I'm only saying this because it happened to the Cowboys, well no. I don't like the rule period and I'm not alone. Kind of hard for a receive to regain his footing when he is being tripped by a defender which was the case on that play. Even after being tripped he moved the ball into one had and stretched for the goal. I might agree with you had he just held the ball up to his chest and fell, that was not the case. Anyway its a dead horse now, no need in kicking it more. The game is over and its time to move on.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

One of the more frustrating aspects of it is seeing it over and over again, while reading or hearing people say what happened didn't happen. He wasn't falling the entire time, but people are saying he did. He wasn't bobbling the ball nearly the entire time, but people are saying he did. Momentum didn't turn his body 90 degrees, make him take 3 steps, lunge for the end zone on the 3rd step and extend the ball towards the end zone, but people are saying it did.

It is what it is, but revisionist history is something else.

Like I said, Dez did everything intentionally, we just can't comprehend that he could do so. Armchair Chets that we are.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Like I said, Dez did everything intentionally, we just can't comprehend that he could do so. Armchair Chets that we are.

I believe he did it intentionally.

I can comprehend everything he did.

It just didn't fall within the current set of rules.


I argue against the change in rule because I think you invite more issues in the long run than you solve. The rule isn't perfect, but right now we argue about a few calls a year like this, if that many.

But as said, I think we've gone on long enough...it sucks the way it went down, but it happens in all sports all the time.

 

[Cincyfan78]

First let me say the third grader comment was not meant as a knock towards you. Second we can agree to disagree, Dez held onto that ball for 5 yards, had complete control of that ball in one hand and didn't lose it till he hit the ground. Say what you want but he was stretching that ball to the goal line just like nearly every wide receiver does every time they get close to the goal line. IMO it was a football related move. I know you think I'm only saying this because it happened to the Cowboys, well no. I don't like the rule period and I'm not alone. Kind of hard for a receive to regain his footing when he is being tripped by a defender which was the case on that play. Even after being tripped he moved the ball into one had and stretched for the goal. I might agree with you had he just held the ball up to his chest and fell, that was not the case. Anyway its a dead horse now, no need in kicking it more. The game is over and its time to move on.

Eh, I've been called worse. I'm married

 

[bigdeal701]

Eh, I've been called worse. I'm married

Join the club

 

[Hank Kingsley]

I believe he did it intentionally.

I can comprehend everything he did.

It just didn't fall within the current set of rules.


I argue against the change in rule because I think you invite more issues in the long run than you solve. The rule isn't perfect, but right now we argue about a few calls a year like this, if that many.

But as said, I think we've gone on long enough...it sucks the way it went down, but it happens in all sports all the time.

Maybe you can comprehend, but many can't or refuse to.

Like when Rod Carew or Ted Williams hit a baseball and it looked like a beachball to them. Or how gravity didn't seem to apply to Jordan or Johnson.

These guys perform on a scale most of us can't believe possible.

Put a chip in the ball for goal line stuff (we have GPS in piece of shit cars, why not a football) and let them play football.