okay, read the rule with the additional "notes" and "items". see below for the operative portions:
i guess the points of disagreement are whether: (1) bryant actually "secured control" of the ball; (2) he "maintained control of the ball long enough..."; and (3) "item 1" should be interpreted to mean that any loss/regaining of control of the ball as a player goes to the ground renders the pass incomplete.
watching the video closely and tracking the requirements of the rule, it seems clear to me that he: (a) secured the ball in his hands; (b) touched the ground with both feet; and (c) advanced with the ball. "item 1" above would seem to make it a clear incomplete pass if item 1 left off the last two sentences.
stating that the player "must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground" seems clear enough (by the admittedly low standards of the rules themselves). but (un)fortunately, the rule seeks to clarify further by stating that loss of control in the context of a player going to the ground renders the pass incomplete if "the ball touches the ground before [the player] regains control." here, the ball didn't touch the ground after bryant lost control because it was the contact with the ground that caused the temporary loss of control of the ball. so it would seem that there was never a loss of control under the terms of item 1.
what is the point of including the "clarifying" sentences if not to set out when precisely the pass is rendered incomplete? strike those sentences and the ruling seems the correct interpretation of a bizarre rule. with those two sentences, it is at best ambiguous.
This was originally my point - the replay rules state that the visual evidence in the replay MUST BE CONCLUSIVE to overturn the call on the field - the call on the field has precedence and is assumed correct unless definitively proven incorrect by the replay. If there is any ambiguity in the replay, the call on the field must stand.
I'd have no problem with any of this if it was ruled incomplete, and Garrett challenged, and they upheld incomplete. I just can't see how somebody can
overturn the call on the field and maintain that Bryant did not catch the ball, secure it, and make a move to the goal line. I've watched every Cowboys game Dez Bryant has played save maybe 2 for the last 5-6 years and I'm telling you that he makes. this. play. all. the. time. It's his signature move - that last lunge to the goal line.
- - - - - - - - - Updated - - - - - - - - -
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he retains control, the pass in incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
.......He has control of the football throughout the process of contacting the ground. He never loses control of the ball while making a football move. The ball touches the ground and springs out, BUT HE HAD CONTROL OF THE FOOTBALL PRIOR TO THAT. HE HAD CONTROL OF THE BALL PRIOR TO THE BALL TOUCHING THE GROUND.
This is no different than a player catching a pass, taking 3 steps to the end zone and lunging for it, and the ball popping free when it hits the ground. It's not a fumble if his body is down (and Dez's was) and the ball is marked down where it contacted the ground OR where the ball was located when the player was ruled down by contact. Down by contact here is taken to meet a part of the player's body touching the ground that constitutes a downed player - elbow, knee, or any port of the torso.
He had control of the ball. I don't know how anybody can prove that he didn't. Even if you can, it can't possibly be conclusive enough to OVERTURN a call on the field. This is horseshit.