Dez Bryant caught the ball

Leonard

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
2,468
Location
United States
Three steps, switch arms, reach for the end zone. Football move(s). Catch. Anything else is BS.

L

PS. Last week, it was pass interference.

PPSS. On a different note, I'd love to know what percentage of touchdown scoring drives over, let's say, 75 yards were aided by defensive holding or defensive pass interference calls this year. 50%??
 

manamongkids

Full House
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
4,398
Reaction score
3,480
Location
Usa
Not sure which side of the fence I fall.

But I can definitively say that referees are somehow getting worse.

I thought the general rule of thumb was that there has to be CONCLUSIVE evidence to overturn any on-field ruling. I swear they forget that aspect of judging challenges every week
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Messages
166
Reaction score
32
Location
Madison, WI
The rule should be changed. I thought Detroit was screwed the first time it was enforced on Calvin Johnson.
But as it is written, incompletion was correct. He was always in the process of going to the ground, the ball hit and popped out.
That is the way the officials have enforced it, so there was no varying from past practice, unlike the picked up flag last week.
Jerry only gets those calls in Jerry's World.
 

Poker Zombie

Royal Flush
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
13,331
Reaction score
24,602
Location
Nashville-ish
All the way to the ground rule > No reviewing penalties rule > Cannot tackle a QB with anything harder than a feather rule > Home game in England rule > Tuck rule > Pro Bowl

Still, I love the NFL.
Just not really sure why sometimes...
 

dbertheau

Two Pair
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
324
Reaction score
372
Location
Nevada City, CA
I know the refs play an important role, but there sure seems to be more unfortunate goofy calls at critical points in the game. As a lifetime Lions fan, the picked up interference flag last week killed me...
 

Ronoh

Full House
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
6,422
Location
Ohio
By the rule it was absolutely not a catch and there is no way it could be rewritten to cover all circumstances. Plays like this one are rare (really... how many like this one can you recall offhand?) and I don't think it should be altered because of this one play. I think it's about as close right now as it can be without creating more confusion/opinion in interpretation.

Last weeks flag being picked up... I like it (and I don't like the Cowboys). How many ridiculous PI penalties do we see? I think it should be commonplace for the refs to have a quick discussion on the big ones. How many game-altering PI calls do we see where the two refs closest to the play call a pass incomplete and we see yellow come in from the guy who was 30 yards away from the play?

I'm fine with both of these.

The ones I can't stomach are the PI/defensive holding flags that come in a full four seconds after the ball hits the ground when the receiver cries to the official to make the call. No taunting or excessive celebrations after touchdowns? How about making it a penalty for receivers to look at the refs and throw their arms up while crying for a flag? It looks horrible and happens 25 times every single game. Either it is a flag or it's not... a players reaction should not have any bearing on the call.

And the ones that are absolutely unforgivable IMO are the plays that are prematurely blown dead. If a ball comes out, PUT THE WHISTLE DOWN! Let everything play out and then rule it however you think it actually happened. Ball pops out and you think his knee was down? So fucking what? Let the defense run it back for six and THEN say his knee hit the ground so any challenge can get the call absolutely right instead of saying "yeah, it was a fumble but you don't get the 90 yard touchdown return... here's the ball at your own 10 yard line". It's common sense and I can't grasp how they don't seem to understand it. Blowing one of these plays dead should be a fine-able offense and if it continues they should be subject to termination. Teach them to keep the fucking thing in their pants (er, around their necks).
 

bergs

Full House
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
5,255
Dez Bryant catches the football, gets three steps down, and makes a move to the goal line. He has control of the football throughout these steps and the lunge to the goal line. The ground causes the ball to pop out but it's no different than if he received a hand off 50 yards up field and lunged for the goal line, causing the ball to pop out. Anyone who looks at slow motion replay from multiple angles and still thinks this isn't a catch is either retarded, a moron, or an embittered New York Giants fan.

I put my analysis in Windows pbrush, where all important things should go. If they had just put that guy Zapruder's film in pbrush and analyzed the way I had, that whole JFK thing would've been solved a long time ago.

- - - - - - - - - Updated - - - - - - - - -

1 dick = 2 feet. I'm not saying Dez is hung like a Clydesdale, but look at that top right photo - his entire body is on the ground and the farging ball is in the farging air!!! It's a catch, Cowboys ball on the Packers 1, first down Cowboys.

Even if you disagree - is there enough proof to OVERTURN THE CALL ON THE FIELD CONCLUSIVELY? It must be conclusive. I haven't seen a single replay that makes me think it's not a catch, never mind conclusively not a catch.
 

Attachments

  • catc.jpg
    catc.jpg
    51.6 KB · Views: 163

Ronoh

Full House
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
6,422
Location
Ohio
bergs said:
Even if you disagree - is there enough proof to OVERTURN THE CALL ON THE FIELD CONCLUSIVELY?
Yes. As the rule is written all the replay has to show is that he did not posses the ball to the ground which he obviously did not do.

Three feet down doesn't mean anything. If a receiver is diving towards the sideline and somehow manages to tap his toes down three times with control of the ball it is still incomplete if the ball pops out when he hits the ground. From the time he caught the ball until the time it popped out he was going down, therefore he must control the ball all the way to the ground. It doesn't matter if his knees, dick, elbows, chest and head all hit the ground before the ball pops out. If it pops out when it hits the ground it is incomplete.

It is much like a running back who is shoved and stumbles as he breaks through the line with nothing but daylight in front of him. If he is stumbling it doesn't matter if he takes another ten steps and goes twenty yards without being touched before he falls down, as soon as he hits the ground he is down because the act of being touched by a defensive player is what threw him off balance. The running back was going to the ground regardless of how far he went or how many times his feet touched the ground because he never had upright control of his body after being hit by a defender. In this case Dez never had upright control of his body between the time he caught the ball and the time the ball hit the ground, therefore he must still maintain control of the ball to the ground for it to be a completed pass.

I feel your pain... I am old enough to recall The Fumble, The Drive, Red Right 88 and all the other unnamed Browns playoff debacles back when I loved them more than the game itself. I understand you feel he had the ball long enough and did enough to establish complete control. But as the rule is written he did not.
 

72o

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2014
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
8,255
Location
MA
Burgs right . If the dicks down its a first down lol.
it was a catch. Crazy calls in the playoffs this year.

^^^Yup. Catch. Feet on ground (possession).Then lunge to goal line. Two separate football acts.
 

jbutler

Royal Flush
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
10,669
Reaction score
10,628
I don't know how fans put up with such absurdly written rules. Sure, it won't come up that often, but that's no defense for poorly drafted rules. After the last two weeks I'm glad my pro sport fandom is limited to hockey and (less so over the past couple years) baseball.
 

p5woody

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
1,682
Reaction score
3,393
Location
Harrisburg, PA
This is why I only watch football as a casual fan and don't care about the outcome any more, it is a complete joke. Replay calls are very inconsistent, Dez is ruled no catch however in the Denver/colts game the muffed punt was ruled a catch and down by contact, both overturned by replay and I don't see the difference. If anything Dez was more of a catch then the muffed punt. Replay is broken, it was meant to catch obvious mistakes not to second guess every decision the referee makes. Now it is pure entertainment, I just watch the redzone for the scoring plays, don't care about the game.
 

bergs

Full House
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
5,255
Yes. As the rule is written all the replay has to show is that he did not posses the ball to the ground which he obviously did not do.

Three feet down doesn't mean anything. If a receiver is diving towards the sideline and somehow manages to tap his toes down three times with control of the ball it is still incomplete if the ball pops out when he hits the ground. From the time he caught the ball until the time it popped out he was going down, therefore he must control the ball all the way to the ground. It doesn't matter if his knees, dick, elbows, chest and head all hit the ground before the ball pops out. If it pops out when it hits the ground it is incomplete.

It is much like a running back who is shoved and stumbles as he breaks through the line with nothing but daylight in front of him. If he is stumbling it doesn't matter if he takes another ten steps and goes twenty yards without being touched before he falls down, as soon as he hits the ground he is down because the act of being touched by a defensive player is what threw him off balance. The running back was going to the ground regardless of how far he went or how many times his feet touched the ground because he never had upright control of his body after being hit by a defender. In this case Dez never had upright control of his body between the time he caught the ball and the time the ball hit the ground, therefore he must still maintain control of the ball to the ground for it to be a completed pass.

I feel your pain... I am old enough to recall The Fumble, The Drive, Red Right 88 and all the other unnamed Browns playoff debacles back when I loved them more than the game itself. I understand you feel he had the ball long enough and did enough to establish complete control. But as the rule is written he did not.

I have seen this logic applied to TWO feet down, but three feet, plus an elbow, a knee, and his pecker. And he made a football move - lunging towards the goal line.

It's a horribly written rule but even as mangled as it is, this is clearly a catch and you've got to be delusional to think otherwise.
 

vikefan24

Sitting Out
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
35
Reaction score
17
Location
Kansas City, MO
Dez Bryant catches the football, gets three steps down, and makes a move to the goal line. He has control of the football throughout these steps and the lunge to the goal line. The ground causes the ball to pop out but it's no different than if he received a hand off 50 yards up field and lunged for the goal line, causing the ball to pop out. Anyone who looks at slow motion replay from multiple angles and still thinks this isn't a catch is either retarded, a moron, or an embittered New York Giants fan.
He doesn't have control of the ball throughout the steps, Shields hand makes the ball move initially in Dez's hands. Also, it's nothing like a running back lunging towards the goal line because Dez's momentum was taking him to the ground, he didn't go down by choice.

-a viking fan who loves nothing more than seeing the packers lose and/or get screwed by the refs
 

Ronoh

Full House
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
6,422
Location
Ohio
I have seen this logic applied to TWO feet down, but three feet, plus an elbow, a knee, and his pecker. And he made a football move - lunging towards the goal line.
I already covered this (and even included both knees, both elbows, his chest and his head). Can we agree that he was heading to the ground from the moment he gained control of the ball on? If we agree on that then regardless of anything else he does, he must maintain possession all the way to the ground per the rule. If we don't agree on that... well, you're seeing something that I'm not seeing.
bergs said:
It's a horribly written rule but even as mangled as it is, this is clearly a catch and you've got to be delusional to think otherwise.
Call me and every NFL "rules expert" I've heard comment on the play delusional then.
 

DrStrange

Full House
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
4,841
Reaction score
8,591
Location
Outlet Mall in San Marcos
NFL = WWE (or WWF if you are old school)

It is all a live action cartoon. Enjoy the spectacle, curse your enemies and cheer your heroes - have fun!. Me? I'd rather watch the Glorious Ladies of Wrestling.

But NFL as a real sport? Nope. It is as fixed as figure skating -=- DrStrange
 

Dwight87

Two Pair
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Messages
254
Reaction score
259
Location
United States
Doesn't matter...next play coulda been Romo fumbling @ the 1, soulda been a Cowboy win, woulda been nice to have a SB TR from Bergs...
 

jbutler

Royal Flush
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
10,669
Reaction score
10,628
okay, read the rule with the additional "notes" and "items". see below for the operative portions:

Genius NFL Rules Committee said:
Rule 8.1.3:

A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintained control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

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.

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.
 

bergs

Full House
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
5,255
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.
 

vikefan24

Sitting Out
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
35
Reaction score
17
Location
Kansas City, MO
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.
Yes it is, completely
 

72o

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2014
Messages
4,909
Reaction score
8,255
Location
MA
I won't check this thread again as I find myself getting pretty irritated...kind of joking but not really.
 

Poker Zombie

Royal Flush
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
13,331
Reaction score
24,602
Location
Nashville-ish
[video]https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/11B4A2E5EC1166165478633308160_3c9d192fd86.1.4.6466 882935833279297.mp4?versionId=D8igkN2GB82XTyuLQRi9 WedfF5eBWOSR[/video]

If this video link works, I think it is apparent that he was on the way to the ground the entire time, all the way to the point that the ball hit the ground bounced up and he caught it. At no time could he make any move other than falling. His supposed lunge? You mean where his FACE hit the goal line, and the ball landed 12" short? In what universe does a player try to score the game winning touchdown by slamming his FACE on the goal line while keeping the ball just short of the end zone?

Call: Incomplete. Undeniable evidence to overturn.
 

jbutler

Royal Flush
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
10,669
Reaction score
10,628
My specific problem is with the last two sentences of "Item 1" which render meaningless the distinct rules for whether a pass is complete when a player goes to the ground. They state they if the player has control prior to the ball hitting the ground or regains control after the ball touches the ground, then the pass is complete.

If the argument is based on subsections (a) through (c) then no diving catch is incomplete and that is clearly not the operative interpretation embraced by the officials.

So is the argument that he didn't have control? That he didn't touch the ground inbounds? That he didn't advance? That he lost control of the ball before the ball hit the ground? Are any of the above terms defined elsewhere in the rules such that the definition would dictate a "yes" to the above questions? If not, I don't see the argument for it being an incomplete pass.
 

Ronoh

Full House
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
6,422
Location
Ohio
"item 1" above would seem to make it a clear incomplete pass if item 1 left off the last two sentences.
The last two sentences have nothing to do with the ball hitting the ground, but the player hitting the ground. Player catches the ball and his elbow hits the ground making the ball pop into the air. If he catches it before it hits the ground it's a completed pass.

- - - - - - - - - Updated - - - - - - - - -

They state they if the player has control prior to the ball hitting the ground or regains control after the ball touches the ground, then the pass is complete.
It absolutely does not say it is a completed pass if he regains control after the ball hits the ground
 
Top Bottom