Dez Bryant made brilliant catch. Cowboys hosed

[Doublejive]

Bring back the replacement REFS!

 

[CarlSr]

How many steps constitute possession and a football move? He bobbled it for a sec at the peak of his jump, possessed it...one foot, two foot, dive.

Third action should be a football move. It changed his direction.


So, if hypothetically, he manages to take 4 steps, the 4th being a lunge, is that deemed possession and a football move?


I like how this is like determining traveling in basketball suddenly?

I'd like to know too. I would entertain buying the NFL's claim that the first 2 steps are basically thanks to momentum, but the 3rd step, not so much. By step 3, he has clearly turned around with a ball he has control of, reaching out towards the endzone, and launching himself. How much more of a football move could one make? Was it his fault Shields threw his leg up to do anything to stop Bryant, and probably kept that from being a TD? Which really, should have made the original call correct, but I think the refs got hung up on ball movement as that's what McCarthy challenged, and they didn't separate the movements within the play. The rule they cite is protecting them here, however I think they misapplied it, and the last act by Dez is pretty key to that point.

 

[Cincyfan78]

You couldn't play two weeks of NFL football before people demanded the rule to be changed back.

With your rules a WR could go up for a catch, put two hands on the ball, have his elbow touch the ground, and then the ball squirts loose the moment he hits the ground and rolls 20 feet away from him and it would technically be a catch.

If you want to remove all gray area, then this is the only real option.

Otherwise, you still have refs making a judgement call on what they *think* is a 'football move'.

I'm not saying this SHOULD be done, but I'm saying that if you want to remove the refs judgement in this situation, it's the only way.

 

[geezer]

If we want to change the rule, how do we change it? What do we see every game on instant replay? A wide receiver makes a catch and attempts to keep the ball from touching the ground as he falls down. It has been said a thousand times during these broadcasts that a receiver must maintain possession throughout the catch.

It is pretty cut and dried, if the ball touches the ground and moves, there is no catch. Do we really want to change that to the ball can touch the ground and move sometimes? Do we really want another judgement call?

Dez Bryant did make a football move, as he was falling. The fact that he was falling sort of negates the football move part because if he is falling, he is now bound by having to maintain complete control throughout the process.

I think the call was per the rule. The rule could use some work but I would bet nobody has an alternative that is not going to just add more judgement calls.

Did Dallas get hosed? No, Rodgers hosed them in the second half as they were not stopping him.

It really sucks to lose a game when there are controversial calls. We should never be in a position of trying to decide who would win a game if the officials had not made their presence known.

 

[WizardHawk]

I disagree... he caught the ball and came down in the endzone.

Bryant caught the ball, lunged forward, and stretched out the ball in one hand in an effort to get the ball across the endzone.

All this talk about Dez taking 3 steps is silly. None were 'controlled' and this is key. His body was going toward the ground the entire way. 3 intentional steps is one thing, but 3 out of control touches of the ground on the way to it is quite another. He was never fully in control during any point of that and it was clear as day.

Now I don't like the rule as it stands, but it was the correct call as the rule is written and no one without bias is disagreeing with that. The only controversy here is about the merit of the rule to begin with.

 

[gordontrue]

All this talk about Dez taking 3 steps is silly. None were 'controlled' and this is key. His body was going toward the ground the entire way. 3 intentional steps is one thing, but 3 out of control touches of the ground on the way to it is quite another. He was never fully in control during any point of that and it was clear as day.

Now I don't like the rule as it stands, but it was the correct call as the rule is written and no one without bias is disagreeing with that. The only controversy here is about the merit of the rule to begin with.

Where's my bias? I couldn't care less about Dallas or Lions. For me, this isn't about the outcome of that game... its about a stupid, stupid call and/or rule.

 

[CarlSr]

Dez Bryant did make a football move, as he was falling.

Kind of. He lunged. Go back and check it out on the close-up. It's pretty clear when you look at the replay in slow motion from Bryant's left side, that step #3 is an intentional dive, not a messy stumble and bumble that just so happened to be in the direction of the end zone as he just so happened to turn towards the end zone and just so happened to extend the ball toward the end zone.

If we buy the league's statement here, I'd say that what we should see would be what the league seems to be pretending this is. A guy that sort of just stumbles and falls down, not a guy getting tripped by a defender, turning, extending, and leaping. If we acknowledge that as a football move, the call is wrong, hence the league has been claiming it was all one fluid motion. Kinda hard to buy that as it replays about every 10 minutes on ESPN today, and there's nothing fluid about the end of his effort. Fluid would have been falling down on his butt/back, or perhaps his left arm and it would have happened after step 1 or 2.

 

[ducky]

How many steps constitute possession and a football move? He bobbled it for a sec at the peak of his jump, possessed it...one foot, two foot, dive.

When falling in the act of catching the football, how many steps or body parts that come in contact with the ground is completely irrelevant. He has to maintain possession throughout the entire act of falling. Which he did not do.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

All this talk about Dez taking 3 steps is silly. None were 'controlled' and this is key. His body was going toward the ground the entire way. 3 intentional steps is one thing, but 3 out of control touches of the ground on the way to it is quite another. He was never fully in control during any point of that and it was clear as day.

Now I don't like the rule as it stands, but it was the correct call as the rule is written and no one without bias is disagreeing with that. The only controversy here is about the merit of the rule to begin with.

Are you saying Dez never had control of the ball before he hit the ground? ..or Dez himself was not in control of his momentum?

 

[gordontrue]

When falling in the act of catching the football, how many steps is completely irrelevant. He has to maintain possession throughout the entire act of falling. Which he did not do.

Where do these explanations/interpretations/clarifications come from because they're certainly not in the rule book.

The various refs/analysts/league officials explain the rule so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to an expert.

 

[beardown07]

When falling in the act of catching the football, how many steps or body parts that come in contact with the ground is completely irrelevant. He has to maintain possession throughout the entire act of falling. Which he did not do.

So if he got a hand down and extended said "fall" for 3 more steps, it's still falling?

As I stated earlier, I think the rule should apply to diving catches.

 

[Old Lion]

They need to remove the footbal move clause and replace it with 3 steps. It does not have to even be controlled steps because I dont want a ref deciding who is taking controlled steps and who is not. 3 Steps with no bobble. Black and white.

This way there is no judgement required by the refs, just counting. As soon as refs have to make a judgement it is destined to fail.

Defensive offsides should be the same way. If the defender crosses the line he is offsides period. All these stupid ref huddles to determine whether his offside effected the O-lineman or not is rediculous and a huge waste of time. He either stepped over the line before the lineman moved or he did not. Black and White. No moron ref judgements required.

 

[WizardHawk]

Where's my bias? I couldn't care less about Dallas or Lions. For me, this isn't about the outcome of that game... its about a stupid, stupid call and/or rule.

Who are you again? Why are you taking something personally that wasn't sent to you? And what part of the end of that sentence did you miss?

I said the only debate is whether the rule should change, not whether or not this wasn't a catch based on that rule and I stand by that. I also said I don't care for the rule myself.

 

[WizardHawk]

Are you saying Dez never had control of the ball before he hit the ground? ..or Dez himself was not in control of his momentum?

He wasn't in control of his momentum. He clearly didn't take a controlled step while possessing the ball. He was falling during the entire time he was touching the ball. And there is really no room for debate on that IMO.

Again, I think it's dumb. That should be a catch. That would have been a catch over the first 100 years of football. With the rules as it stands now it's not a catch.

 

[CarlSr]

At this point, I'm extremely confidant a few posters in this thread have forgotten the play, or are choosing to rewrite history in their own minds. He doesn't come down and just fall. He comes down with the ball, turns and heads for the end zone, because, you know, it was right there. Shields sticks his leg up as a last defense, and Bryant trips on that. This isn't a diving catch, this is a catch, a turn, a trip, and a lunge for the end zone on a 3rd step. It's right here:

Watch Dallas Cowboys vs. Green Bay Packers [01/11/2015] - NFL.com

 

[gordontrue]

Who are you again? Why are you taking something personally that wasn't sent to you? And what part of the end of that sentence did you miss?

I said the only debate is whether the rule should change, not whether or not this wasn't a catch based on that rule and I stand by that. I also said I don't care for the rule myself.

I wasn't taking your post personally, I certainly didn't mean to imply that.

I was just pointing out that I disagreed with your statement that no unbiased person was questioning the correctness of the call... evidenced by the fact that I am an unbiased person questioning the correctness of the call.

While I do disagree with the rule... I also question the correctness of the call in this particular case... where the player was making a clear move towards the end zone. I also very much question the vagueness of what is in the rule book along with all the seemingly made up interpretations of the rule going around.

The bottom line is that there are in fact plenty of unbiased people questioning the correctness of the call. That doesn't make those people correct... but I find it unfair to paint a picture of every non-Cowboy fan finding this to be a cut and dried call.

 

[WizardHawk]

I wasn't taking your post personally, I certainly didn't mean to imply that.

I was just pointing out that I disagreed with your statement that no unbiased person was questioning the correctness of the call... evidenced by the fact that I am an unbiased person questioning the correctness of the call.

While I do disagree with the rule... I also question the correctness of the call in this particular case... where the player was making a clear move towards the end zone. I also very much question the vagueness of what is in the rule book along with all the seemingly made up interpretations of the rule going around.

The bottom line is that there are in fact plenty of unbiased people questioning the correctness of the call. That doesn't make those people correct... but I find it unfair to paint a picture of a cut and dried call.

No sir, he was not 'clearly making a move toward the endzone'. No way.

https://vine.co/v/ODZI5HU6gX6

There is no way to say he was intentionally diving on that catch. There is no pushoff with his feet. His first step after catch never went fully under him and neither did the second. It just didn't happen. It may be what some want to believe, but again it isn't there.

 

[ducky]

At this point, I'm extremely confidant a few posters in this thread have forgotten the play, or are choosing to rewrite history in their own minds. He doesn't come down and just fall. He comes down with the ball, turns and heads for the end zone, because, you know, it was right there. Shields sticks his leg up as a last defense, and Bryant trips on that. This isn't a diving catch, this is a catch, a turn, a trip, and a lunge for the end zone on a 3rd step. It's right here:

Watch Dallas Cowboys vs. Green Bay Packers [01/11/2015] - NFL.com

Are you kidding? He was clearly falling down.

Is there any possible way Dez could have caught the ball and just stood there? No. Because he was FALLING. He doesn't turn and head for the end zone. His momentum during his fall just takes him in that direction.

 

[trojanfight]

Was there nobody else open on field? Yeah romo was blitzed on the play by a corner I think. It's not high percentage throw. Maybe he had faith in Dez Bryant to come down with it. Maybe hoped to draw a pass interference. Just thought on a must convert 4th down maybe should have went for a more higher percentage throw that wouldn't have resulted in. Refs deciding outcome. Witten had proved reliable and open most of game. Safer throws were were out there for a must convert down.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

He wasn't in control of his momentum. He clearly didn't take a controlled step while possessing the ball. He was falling during the entire time he was touching the ball. And there is really no room for debate on that IMO.

Again, I think it's dumb. That should be a catch. That would have been a catch over the first 100 years of football. With the rules as it stands now it's not a catch.

"If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control"

My issue is this sequence of the rule never took place. He had full control of the ball before he hit the ground and ultimately regained possession .