Dez Bryant made brilliant catch. Cowboys hosed

[R.J. MacReady]

He didn't. At all. Not even a little bit.

His '3rd step' had his toe skip before he took the divot out. It was therefore dragging as opposed to pushing off. He was nearly horizontal at the time it skipped.

There is no reasonable way to infer he was purposefully pushing off toward the end zone.

Watch that loop again and follow the angle of just his helmet all the way from the catch to the ground. Ignore his feet, ball, everything else. Just look at his helmet. If he was diving/lunging toward the end zone he would have had some push that moved his body more forward than the falling was already carrying him right? Look at it and tell me you see his body going more forward after that so-called 3rd step. It simply didn't happen man.

https://vine.co/v/ODZI5HU6gX6

I find nearly impossible for anyone to say for sure if he moves toward the endzone were intentional or not.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

This thread should be titled

"Dez Bryant can't make brilliant catch. Cowboys lose"

Because that is actually what happened.

 

[Lemon Harang Pie]

He was falling to the ground when catching the football.

He took three steps then lunged for the endzone though.

At what point does catching the ball become running with the caught ball?

I don't buy into the call cost them the game stuff because the Cowboys did enough to lose the game on their own and it's doubtful they would have stopped Green Bay again but I think it was definitely a bad call.

 

[WizardHawk]

I find nearly impossible for anyone to say for sure if he moves toward the endzone were intentional or not.

I don't. Look at the defender. He doesn't go up nearly as high on the ball as Dez does and yet he takes a very similar fall to the ground and only comes up shorter of the end zone by a reasonable amount given he didn't have as much momentum.

I really don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care if it's a valid catch or not as it won't change the outcome anyway. I hated the reversal when it happened and still think the rule sucks now. I just say if you take away your preconceived notions when looking at the loop it seems rather clear he was falling the entire time after contact and the ball bounces off the ground on contact. It was a minor bounce and he controlled it after that, but it still happened.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

I don't. Look at the defender. He doesn't go up nearly as high on the ball as Dez does and yet he takes a very similar fall to the ground and only comes up shorter of the end zone by a reasonable amount given he didn't have as much momentum.

I really don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care if it's a valid catch or not as it won't change the outcome anyway. I hated the reversal when it happened and still think the rule sucks now. I just say if you take away your preconceived notions when looking at the loop it seems rather clear he was falling the entire time after contact and the ball bounces off the ground on contact. It was a minor bounce and he controlled it after that, but it still happened.

preconceived notions? Sometimes I do use the force to form an opinion on events that have not happen yet but the force was down yesterday.

 

[jdwills126]

The more I see the replay and listen to the comments I can't help but think the problem with this call is....

It was ruled a completion on the field and it becomes a judgment did he have possession and commit a football move.

To overturn this it should be clear not about interpretation of a judgment call.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Bottom line.

Dez should have come down with that ball and settled for possession.

Then they run Murray 2 or 3 times, go fo a 2 pt conversion. Give ball back to GB with less than 3 minutes left.

But you still have to stop GB.

 

[Scooby-Doo]

Bottom line.

Dez should have come down with that ball and settled for possession.

Then they run Murray 2 or 3 times, go fo a 2 pt conversion. Give ball back to GB with less than 3 minutes left.

But you still have to stop GB.

Or, Romo shouldn't have thrown up a 40 yard jump ball on 4th and 1.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I think the majority of people have issues with the rule.

That aside.. which ever side of line you are in terms of how this particular play should have been called according to the rules.... its not cut and dried either way.

It's pretty clear...IF you're going to the ground during the process of the catch, you must maintain full control of the ball to the ground...he was going to the ground during the process of the catch imo. They really should not have even mentioned "football move" at all....not in play here...imo that's what created gray area here.

 

[Cincyfan78]

It's pretty clear...IF you're going to the ground during the process of the catch, you must maintain full control of the ball to the ground...he was going to the ground during the process of the catch imo. They really should not have even mentioned "football move" at all....not in play here...imo that's what created gray area here.

Also, when falling in the act of making a catch, you can't make another football move until you are 'upright' and regain control of your body as to differentiate the two acts: Completing the act of catching the ball, and then making a football move.

This is why reaching the ball out towards the goal-line doesn't consitute a football move, because it occured within the act of the catch itself (falling down).

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Also, when falling in the act of making a catch, you can't make another football move until you are 'upright' and regain control of your body as to differentiate the two acts: Completing the act of catching the ball, and then making a football move.

This is why reaching the ball out towards the goal-line doesn't consitute a football move, because it occured within the act of the catch itself (falling down).

Yep, exactly.

I can't blame DAL fans or anyone falling on the side that it was a catch because it did look like a catch, but your comments are closer to the letter of the rule.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Or, Romo shouldn't have thrown up a 40 yard jump ball on 4th and 1.

No problem with the play.

Dez made the catch, had the ball cleanly in 2 hands.

But all he needed was possession.

You have to make sure of posession.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

No problem with the play.

Dez made the catch, had the ball cleanly in 2 hands.

But all he needed was possession.

You have to make sure of posession.

I had a problem with it because it was such a high risk play...Dez made a great effort just to it a conversation today...if he was wide open..okay, but DAL HAD to have a 1st down right there.

 

[CarlSr]

It's pretty clear...IF you're going to the ground during the process of the catch, you must maintain full control of the ball to the ground...he was going to the ground during the process of the catch imo. They really should not have even mentioned "football move" at all....not in play here...imo that's what created gray area here.

What makes it even better is that Mike Pereira just stated a football move is completely subjective. So really, either you believe a guy makes one or doesn't. None of this, "well you need to take 3 steps" stuff, just some ambiguous title that it left up to interpretation and ultimately covers the refs no matter what they do. If they had stuck with the call, they could easily proclaim Dez made a football move at the end of the play, hence the movement did not matter. The refs were really covered either way, thanks to the subjectivity surrounding when something is or is not a "football move."

 

[Cincyfan78]

What makes it even better is that Mike Pereira just stated a football move is completely subjective. So really, either you believe a guy makes one or doesn't. None of this, "well you need to take 3 steps" stuff, just some ambiguous title that it left up to interpretation and ultimately covers the refs no matter what they do. If they had stuck with the call, they could easily proclaim Dez made a football move at the end of the play, hence the movement did not matter. The refs were really covered either way, thanks to the subjectivity surrounding when something is or is not a "football move."

Agreed, but the problem with Bryant's football move is that it still came within the act of catching the ball, and falling down. Which, the rule says, you can't make a football move while falling down from the catch. So, Bryant would have had to catch the ball, and steady himself, or become upright, and then lunge for the goal-line. His lunge came within the act of falling down, which was still part of the act of catching the ball.

The rule is conveluded, and will continue to be so. The only other way to change it would be to state that a WR will be considered to have possession of a ball when he has control and two feet hit the ground...but then you are opening it up for a ton of turnovers/fumbles because how many times have we seen a WR get nailed after catching the ball (with two feet down) and the ball goes flying for an incomplete pass. The only way to take the ambiguity out of it would then lead to fumbles and turnovers galore.

 

[DALLAScornhusker]

I won't argue that Dez's catch is less of a catch than Mega's. I will argue that since I firmly believe the refs fugged up Mega's catch that now every catch is disputable if it involves the player hitting the ground. If Mega's catch was called a TD back in 2010, I'm curious to see how many people would argue that Dez's play was correctly reversed. I can't remember seeing a more pure catch be overturned before that one in 2010. Ever since that catch its like the announcers, fans and officials have to go by that like its gospel. Like we've been brainwashed. I remember it well and I was furious because it cost them the game. Can we just acknowledge that Calvin caught that ball so we can stop comparing every catch involving the ground against that one play? Truthfully, every catch that does not end with the player handing the ball to the ref is less of a catch than Mega's.

IMO, Dez caught the ball while stumbling. He secured it enough in that act that he went from two hands to one, without the ball moving or slipping in his hand. While in possession, he fell to the ground with the ball exposed and not tucked to his side. The part of the rule that is clearly defined: The ball hit the ground, moved and thus is less of a catch than Calvin's, so it is incomplete.

 

[CarlSr]

Agreed, but the problem with Bryant's football move is that it still came within the act of catching the ball, and falling down. Which, the rule says, you can't make a football move while falling down from the catch. So, Bryant would have had to catch the ball, and steady himself, or become upright, and then lunge for the goal-line. His lunge came within the act of falling down, which was still part of the act of catching the ball.

The rule is conveluded, and will continue to be so. The only other way to change it would be to state that a WR will be considered to have possession of a ball when he has control and two feet hit the ground...but then you are opening it up for a ton of turnovers/fumbles because how many times have we seen a WR get nailed after catching the ball (with two feet down) and the ball goes flying for an incomplete pass. The only way to take the ambiguity out of it would then lead to fumbles and turnovers galore.

When asked about what constituted a "football move" big Mike not only conceded it's subjective, but he also stated it isn't even having a certain form or performing a very definable act. For example, I guess another former ref on another show suggested two hands would have made it more of a football move (he mentioned who said it, but I forget the name). Pereira disagreed, stating that doesn't really matter to him. He said he looked at it from the perspective of how the play looked in real time, and in real time, he thought it was hard to say it was a football move. He also admitted that in slow motion, it was a far more difficult call as it appeared Bryant launched himself for the end zone. Again, an example of how open this supposedly black and white call is at the end of the day. No matter what they called, the refs and the league were covered.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Agreed, but the problem with Bryant's football move is that it still came within the act of catching the ball, and falling down. Which, the rule says, you can't make a football move while falling down from the catch. So, Bryant would have had to catch the ball, and steady himself, or become upright, and then lunge for the goal-line. His lunge came within the act of falling down, which was still part of the act of catching the ball.

The rule is conveluded, and will continue to be so. The only other way to change it would be to state that a WR will be considered to have possession of a ball when he has control and two feet hit the ground...but then you are opening it up for a ton of turnovers/fumbles because how many times have we seen a WR get nailed after catching the ball (with two feet down) and the ball goes flying for an incomplete pass. The only way to take the ambiguity out of it would then lead to fumbles and turnovers galore.

Well...idk...as you've stated several times... if you're going to the ground during the process of the catch you must maintain possession to the ground....once you done that and not been touched down...I think reaching the ball over the goal line is a football move, but he didn't complete phase 1...complete control going to the ground.

The official muddied the water by even mentioning the term football move. By rule this was a lot more simple.

Catch...was the player going to the ground as part of the process?...yes or no.

Yes...player must maintain control of the ball to the ground....he did not, no catch. Nothing else matters...the # of steps he took, reaching the ball, etc...."football move doesn't come into to play.

No...catch.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Well...idk...as you've stated several times... if you're going to the ground during the process of the catch you must maintain possession to the ground....once you done that and not been touched down...I think reaching the ball over the goal line is a football move, but he didn't complete phase 1...complete control going to the ground.

The official muddied the water by even mentioning the term football move. By rule this was a lot more simple.

Catch...was the player going to the ground as part of the process?...yes or no.

Yes...player must maintain control of the ball to the ground....he did not, no catch. Nothing else matters...the # of steps he took, reaching the ball, etc...."football move doesn't come into to play.

No...catch.

Agreed.

I say it will continue to be so because the officials will continue to try and explain it so thoroughly that they will actually make it worse by doing so, rather than better.

As you said, if they had just ignored the term football move, then I think a lot of heat could have been avoided.

 

[cwalke3408]

The 'completing the process' rule says:

"If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."


Did Dez not have complete control 'prior to the ball touching the ground' ?

I think the rule works but it was interpreted wrong because I believe Dez and Calvin Johnson had full control of the ball before the ball was knock out by the ground.