Dez Bryant made brilliant catch. Cowboys hosed

[Hank Kingsley]

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.

It was a gamble for sure. But he makes those catches. All the time. And he made that one, just tried to do too much.

The play they for sure should have tried to get a 1st down on was the one before the missed FG where Romo killed theplay and they still threw to Williams in the corner to no avail. I had no idea what that was about.

 

[DALLAScornhusker]

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.

Actually, I disagree with that. He absolutely had and maintained control of the ball to the ground. It's the next part of the rule which is where he lost the catch which to me is somewhat gray: after the player comes in contact with the ground. The ball came out once his arm holding the ball hit the ground. IMO the refs had a bit of judgement that needed to take place. If the ball came out before this, then it's as black and white as you say. I would accept the call either way, obviously wish the call went our way but that's the nuts.

 

[jarntt]

FTR, there was a very similar play in the Seahawks game. Earl Thomas had the interception but was ruled an incomplete because the ball moved when he hit the ground.

I'm not saying that I think Dez's should have been a catch (I'm torn), but those two plays were not similar whatsoever other than they both went against the same section of the rule book

 

[cwalke3408]

Actually, I disagree with that. He absolutely had and maintained control of the ball to the ground. It's the next part of the rule which is where he lost the catch which to me is somewhat gray: after the player comes in contact with the ground. The ball came out once his arm holding the ball hit the ground. IMO the refs had a bit of judgement that needed to take place. If the ball came out before this, then it's as black and white as you say. I would accept the call either way, obviously wish the call went our way but that's the nuts.

I agree, part of rule says "If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete". But Dez had full control before it touches the ground. So the rule either has a grey area or the ref misinterpreted the rule.

 

[TheBurgh88]

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.

A far more egregious example of a catch of a player falling to the ground and possession questioned for me occurred during the 2005 playoffs between the Steelers and Colts. Troy Polamalu intercepted a Manning pass over the middle had complete control and rolled on the ground twice. Attempting to stand up and return the interception the ball bounced off his knee and he fumbled which he promptly fell on and recovered. An interception was ruled on the field. Shockingly the play was overturned by the reply booth giving the ball back to the Colts. If that was not a reception than Bryant's catch was certainly not a reception either. That play along with Megatrons have set the precadence. This has been a rule forever. I agree as a neutral observer it was a catch but the letter of the rules of the NFL it was not and hence the correct call was made. Blame the rule and not the refs.

 

[Bmurph]

It was a gamble for sure. But he makes those catches. All the time. And he made that one, just tried to do too much.

The play they for sure should have tried to get a 1st down on was the one before the missed FG where Romo killed theplay and they still threw to Williams in the corner to no avail. I had no idea what that was about.

If he's gonna audible to a jump ball, which I hate when they only needed a yard. He should have at least thrown it to Dez who we see make that catch all the time vs Williams who is far less likely to make that play due to his size and Dez hand strength

 

[Hank Kingsley]

If he's gonna audible to a jump ball, which I hate when they only needed a yard. He should have at least thrown it to Dez who we see make that catch all the time vs Williams who is far less likely to make that play due to his size and Dez hand strength

Something fucked that playup though, didn't the snap hit Romo in the face? Kind of like the one in Seattle where Fredrick snapped when Romo wasn't ready?

 

[Bmurph]

Something fucked that playup though, didn't the snap hit Romo in the face? Kind of like the one in Seattle where Fredrick snapped when Romo wasn't ready?

I would have to see it again but watching that game again would probably drive me as crazy as watching game 6 of the 2011 WS again. Seeing Murray fumble that ball with nothing but chewed up sod in front of him might cause a heart attack

 

[redseat]

this is completely just my opinion, but Earl clearly didn't catch the ball, that ball hit the ground, he never had control. Dez caught the ball, had completely control, took 3 steps and went to stretch for the goaline and the ground caused the ball to pop up.

Either way, that was a catch but a bad rule.

That's how I saw the Dez "catch" too. But according to the rule.... (which is completely STUPID) he did not have full control all the way to the ground, even though to me it appeared he did and "lost control" while "stretching for the goaline.

 

[TBBishop]

He took 3 steps after securing the ball. Just a horrible call. Unlike all the cowboys haters I am not solely blaming the refs as the cowboys left too many opportunities on the field. I expect some kind of rule change as too what exactly is a foot ball move. If a defender knocked the ball out at the goal line it would have been ruled a fumble because he took. The packers obviously needed the refs assistance and you all will see why next week. The packers are going to be destroyed

I agree 100% that Dez Bryant caught that ball. I knew as soon as I saw the replay with 100% certainty that they would rule it an incomplate pass. The rule may not really be clear as to what constitutes a catch but I've seen my guy Calvin fucked twice by the Calvin Johnson Rule and I knew what was coming. Even more so I told people after the Lions got hosed last week that as much as the NFL loves them some Cowboys, they love the Packers even more and if there is a questionable call, a judgement call late in this game it was going to be in the favor of the Packers. What it boils down to is if Dez just took the big play and didn't try to get the TD they probably win that game. Dez is greedy! And again, Calvin got screwed by this twice and the rule wasn't changed but now that the Cowboys got screwed by this horrible rule, we'll see a change.

 

[Bunkamania]

Bad rule.

Not a catch, per the rules.

Had it been ruled a catch; 10 people would have created threads explaining how the officals screwed up and today wouldn't be any different at the Hoop.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Actually, I disagree with that. He absolutely had and maintained control of the ball to the ground. It's the next part of the rule which is where he lost the catch which to me is somewhat gray: after the player comes in contact with the ground. The ball came out once his arm holding the ball hit the ground. IMO the refs had a bit of judgement that needed to take place. If the ball came out before this, then it's as black and white as you say. I would accept the call either way, obviously wish the call went our way but that's the nuts.

Exactly...when he hit the ground, the ball also hit the ground and popped up for the 2nd catch.

No way he controlled it all the way to the ground. In this case, the ground caused the ball to come loose.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Bad rule.

Not a catch, per the rules.

Had it been ruled a catch; 10 people would have created threads explaining how the officals screwed up and today wouldn't be any different at the Hoop.

Long time Bunk.

I don't like the rule, but it's actually a good rule...forcing a player to maintain full control of the ball if they're going to the ground in the process of catching it makes it easy to determine if a player actually did it or not.

 

[gvsulaker82]

The fact that these calls can be debated for days and weeks even tells me the refs have way too much power to make judgement calls. If the call was a catch and the packers lost because of it there would be the same amount of outrage. Goodell and his goons are laughing all of the way to the bank and most of us are paying his bills. If the nfl is all of the talk around the watercooler whether good or bad then the nfl wins.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The fact that these calls can be debated for days and weeks even tells me the refs have way too much power to make judgement calls. If the call was a catch and the packers lost because of it there would be the same amount of outrage. Goodell and his goons are laughing all of the way to the bank and most of us are paying his bills. If the nfl is all of the talk around the watercooler whether good or bad then the nfl wins.

Well, here is the thing, it really can not be debated... It is a clear cut incompletion by the rule... Bryant was clearly on his way to the ground and he clearly lost control... The problem is that people think they know more than the refs...

Anyone who believes this was a catch is either to stubborn to know or understand the rules or is to blinded by their cowboy Bias...

The rule is a good one, the problem here is that it was an extreme case of the rule...

 

[BoBlake]

I like this rule A LOT better than I do the vague defensive holding/pass interference rules that hose teams EVERY DAY.

 

[packerzrule]

I like this rule A LOT better than I do the vague defensive holding/pass interference rules that hose teams EVERY DAY.

^^^^^^^
This

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Well, here is the thing, it really can not be debated... It is a clear cut incompletion by the rule... Bryant was clearly on his way to the ground and he clearly lost control... The problem is that people think they know more than the refs...

Anyone who believes this was a catch is either to stubborn to know or understand the rules or is to blinded by their cowboy Bias...

The rule is a good one, the problem here is that it was an extreme case of the rule...

it wasn't anymore extreme than any other case really...what the officials did a really poor job of was interjecting more than needed into the explanation.


When they mentioned the term "football move" they muddied the water....a clear and concise would've sounded more like this...player was going to the ground in the act of catching the pass...he did not control the ball all the way to the ground....nothing more to say.

 

[Reaper]

I found it ironic that the Cowboys lost thanks to the Calvin Johnson rule, you know the guy who still plays for the Detroit Lions who were robbed the week before! Enjoy it so much as a Giants fan to watch Dez cry and pout on the field yet again.

 

[Wazmankg]

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.

Yeah they really need to clean it up. There was an almost identical situation in the Chargers-Broncos game 12/19/1012. I remember it because I was pissed. It screwed up my spread pick and because of the well publicized understanding of what constitutes a catch after the fiasco with Megatron in Chicago a couple of years prior.

It's uncanny how similar they were. It was 4th & 1 and Denario Alexander caught the ball while falling in the same exact spot on the field as Dez. He only took 1 step while falling, lunging toward the endzone. The ball came out briefly as he hit the ground. They called it a catch and a TD. Replay upheld it and the NFL stood behind the call. They've taken down the video, but there's still a thread where on footballzebras.com where they discussed it here, including the NFL's justification -

Process of the catch ‘was a judgment call’ | Football Zebras


When is falling not falling ? How many steps constitute control ? What if he stumbles for 5 or 6 steps then falls and the ball comes out ? Still no catch ?