Dez Bryant caught the ball (1 Viewer)

[jbutler]

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 - - - - - - - - -


It absolutely does not say it is a completed pass if he regains control after the ball hits the ground

You're right in your last point. That was my poor memory trying to post from my phone without reference to the rule as I typed.

However the last two sentences obviously have to do with the ball hitting the ground as they state, in part, "If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he retains control, the pass in incomplete."

What is the meaning of that statement if it doesn't mean that the ball must touch the ground following the loss of control in order to render the pass incomplete?

 

[Ronoh]

However the last two sentences obviously have to do with the ball hitting the ground as they state, in part, "If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he retains control, the pass in incomplete."

What is the meaning of that statement if it doesn't mean that the ball must touch the ground following the loss of control in order to render the pass incomplete?

It's just poorly formatted. Call it note 1, note 1a and note 1b

Note one has to do with the ball hitting the ground

1a and 1b have to do with the receiver hitting the ground and losing control without the ball having touched the ground. 1a, if he gets control before it hits the ground it is complete. 1b, if the ball touches the ground before he gets control it is incomplete

 

[jbutler]

It's just poorly formatted. Call it note 1, note 1a and note 1b

Note one has to do with the ball hitting the ground

1a and 1b have to do with the receiver hitting the ground and losing control without the ball having touched the ground. 1a, if he gets control before it hits the ground it is complete. 1b, if the ball touches the ground before he gets control it is incomplete

I agree that the rule is poorly drafted, formatted, and understood. But the impact of that poor construction cannot be that the officials can simply say "well, you knew what we meant, so just take our word for it." The point of codifying rules is that they be implemented as codified. The effect here is that if the ball does not touch the ground after the player has lost control, the pass is complete.

Frankly I'd put money on being wrong here based on the sheer number of people more educated on NFL rules claiming that the rule means it was an incomplete pass. But I've yet to see it explained exactly why so I'm left reading and trying to apply the rule myself. I would not interpret it as condescending if someone walked me through the application of the rule like I were an idiot (primarily because when it comes to NFL rules, I am). But as it stands, I don't see how the rule as written could render the pass incomplete.

 

[Ronoh]

But I've yet to see it explained exactly why so I'm left reading and trying to apply the rule myself. I would not interpret it as condescending if someone walked me through the application of the rule like I were an idiot (primarily because when it comes to NFL rules, I am). But as it stands, I don't see how the rule as written could render the pass incomplete.

The only thing that matters is that his momentum was bringing him to the ground throughout the entire process.

That's it.

There was no point after catching the ball where he was not, in one form or another, falling down. In this case he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground.

 

[jbutler]

The only thing that matters is that his momentum was bringing him to the ground throughout the entire process.

That's it.

There was no point after catching the ball where he was not, in one form or another, falling down. In this case he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground.

i'm still hung up on how the rule clarifies "maintain[ing] control of the ball throughout the process..." that is at top dollar best an ambiguous phrase. the sentence which follows makes clear that if the ball touches the ground before the player has control, it's incomplete.

so what about if the ball touches the ground and causes the player to then lose control after the ball touches the ground? the last sentence - "If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete" - seems to clearly indicate that if the player has control of the ball before the ball hits the ground, it's a complete pass. do those who contend that it's an incomplete argue that he never had control of the ball?

 

[bergs]

Here's my point. I maintain that Bryant caught the ball and had control of the ball for 3 steps, and then was down by contact. In the process of going down by contact, he lunged for the goal line. After his torso had hit the ground, the ball hit the ground (still in his hand) and bounced free.

If we accept (humor me) that he had control for 3 steps and was lunging for the goal line and was down by contact THEN HOW THE FUCK IS THIS DIFFERENT THAN BRYANT CATCHING THE BALL, RUNNING 6 MILLION YARDS, LUNGING FOR THE GOAL LINE, AND HAVING THE BALL POP FREE. 3 steps, 9 steps, what does it matter?

If you don't think he had control or made a football move - well, I guess we just disagree. I've seen basically alot of Dez Bryant's catches - basically all of them - and this is how he goes for the goal line. He makes this play all the time.

I'm sick of people replying "It just is" or "Because it is"...walk me through it like I'm a fucking retarded child...I just don't get it.

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

THIS RULE IS FUCKING RETARDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm so done with the rest of the NFL season. The Daisy Duck Dickheads could win the Lombardi Trophy and shove it up their ass and I wouldn't care. Katy Perry could motorboat Ryan Seacrest on national TV and I wouldn't care. Bill Simmons could shoot the Commissioner in the back of the head with Adrian Peterson spotting and I wouldn't care. Fuck the NFL with Bart Starr's mummified penis.

 

[tommythecat]

Don't hold back man...tell us how you really feel.

 

[Ronoh]

You are waaay over thinking it jbutler... the answers are all there in your post you are just twisting them in to something they aren't.

so what about if the ball touches the ground and causes the player to then lose control after the ball touches the ground?

If he loses control after the ball touches the ground it is incomplete. The play is over. It doesn't matter if he regains control after that point.

the last sentence - "If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete" - seems to clearly indicate that if the player has control of the ball before the ball hits the ground, it's a complete pass. do those who contend that it's an incomplete argue that he never had control of the ball?

Yes, if he gets control of the ball BEFORE it touches the ground the pass is complete AS LONG AS he does not then lose control of the ball after it touches the ground.

None of this is insinuated in the rules, it's right there in black and white.

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

Here's my point.
I'm sick of people replying "It just is" or "Because it is"...walk me through it like I'm a fucking retarded child...I just don't get it.
THIS RULE IS FUCKING RETARDED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I certainly haven't thrown out any "it just is" answers. It's easier to show you where your train of thought goes off the rails if you give answers to questions asked. Was his momentum throughout the play carrying him to the ground? Yes or no only answer is preferred.

 

[jbutler]

You are waaay over thinking it jbutler... the answers are all there in your post you are just twisting them in to something they aren't.

okay, i concede. you are right.

berg, for your benefit, taking the rule sentence by sentence (and in the case of item 1, clause by clause), here is why it is an incomplete:

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.

(a) yes, he secured control of the ball prior the ball touching the ground;
(b) yes, he touched ground inbounds with both feet;
(c) yes, he maintained control of the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game (specifically, he "advance[d] with it at least two steps).

note 1 is inapplicable.

note 2 is inapplicable.

item 1, sentence one: he went to the ground with the ball and did not maintain control of the ball through the process of contacting the ground as evidenced when the ball momentarily leapt from his hands.

item 1, sentence two, clause one: did he lose control of the ball? yes.

item 1, sentence two, clause two: did the ball touch the ground before he retained control? yes. here is where it gets really annoying. he didn't lose control of the ball until the ball hit the ground so it would seem an absurd result that the rule should apply in this way, but the strict literal interpretation of the rule renders the pass incomplete.

here was the series of events: (1) dez catches and secures the ball, maintaining it to advance; (2) he goes to the ground; (3) in the process of going to the ground he simultaneously loses control of the ball as it contacts the ground; (4) he then regains control of the ball before the ball touches the ground a second time.

strictly speaking - because he could not have retained control of the ball before losing control of the ball and because his initial loss of control occurred simultaneously with the ball touching the ground - the ball did touch the ground before he retained control. therefore, the pass is incomplete.

item 1, sentence three: he did not regain control prior to the ball touching the ground because he lost control concurrently with the ball touching the ground.

that is fucking ridiculous. but as was immediately recognized by a lot of people, it was the correct application of one of the most poorly drafted rules one could imagine.

 

[DrStrange]

So can we conclude that the same ruling would be made if the runner had advanced the ball from the other end of he field - say running 75 yard before being tackled - only to bobble the ball on the one yard line just like in the play under discussion? Of course that would be ridiculous but the rules are the rules.

DrStrange

 

[ChipEnvy]

This thread is comic gold.

 

[jbutler]

So can we conclude that the same ruling would be made if the runner had advanced the ball from the other end of he field - say running 75 yard before being tackled - only to bobble the ball on the one yard line just like in the play under discussion? Of course that would be ridiculous but the rules are the rules.

i would say no, because the subject provision only applies where the player "goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass."

the counterargument is that here Bryant did not go to the ground "in the act of catching a pass", but rather went to ground after catching, securing, and advancing with the ball. i think that's a tough, but not impossible, argument to maintain.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

"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."




The way I heard the ruling explained, the ref said that Bryant did not "perform any act common to the game", i.e. the "lunge" was not a lunge and was just a natural course of him falling to the ground. I'm not saying I agree with that, but that is what they are going with.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/12/blandino-stands-by-overturning-dez-bryant-catch/

 

[Toonexile]

It is all moot anyway - it wasn't given. What you are all arguing about is whether the call was correct and trying to see whether the call is supported by the rules. It doesn't matter as it wasn't given. You are not going to force a replay by getting the NFL to admit that a call was wrong.

The FA Premier League has seen some awful refereeing decisions this season but no amount of crying about them afterwards is going to change the result. I sympathise with Cowboys fans as my football team (NUFC) were knocked out of the FA Cup last week but had a goal disallowed for offside when the scores were 0-0. It was later shown on TV replays that it was not offside but nothing anyone can do. As you Americans say, 'shit happens'.

 

[jbutler]

"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."




The way I heard the ruling explained, the ref said that Bryant did not "perform any act common to the game", i.e. the "lunge" was not a lunge and was just a natural course of him falling to the ground. I'm not saying I agree with that, but that is what they are going with.

the problem with that analysis is that the rule defines an "act common to the game" as "advanc[ing] with" the ball. clearly bryant advanced with the ball. he caught it at one place, touched down with both feet, and moved forward at least two steps.

if blandino's analysis was correct, then it wouldn't matter whether or when the ball touched the ground. it simply would not have been a completion regardless.

 

[bergs]

Was his momentum throughout the play carrying him to the ground? Yes or no only answer is preferred.

No, he caught the ball, took 3 steps, and lunged for the goal line. If you watch Dez Bryant play, you'll see him make this move all the time. I don't know how you can make the argument that his "momentum throughout the play was carrying him to the ground" when he took 3 steps with the ball, and then at the end of the play clearly held the ball out to get maximum distance and try to cross the goal line with the football.

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

the counterargument is that here Bryant did not go to the ground "in the act of catching a pass", but rather went to ground after catching, securing, and advancing with the ball.

YES!!! THIS ^ GOTT IN HIMMEL, MARY MOTHER OF GOD THIS. HE WASN'T CATCHING A PASS, HE WAS ADVANCING THE GODDAMN FOOTBALL!!!

i think that's a tough, but not impossible, argument to maintain.

Yes, I agree it's a tough but not impossible argument to maintain.....but THE CALL ON THE FIELD WAS A RECEPTION. The evidence to the contrary has to be conclusive (devoid of ambiguity) in order to overturn a call on the field.

I've zero problem with them calling it an incomplete pass on the field, Garrett challenging, and losing the challenge. Sucks but OK. I've got a massive galactic sized problem with a referee in New York who may or may not have seen Dez Bryant make this play 20 times in his career looking at this in the abstract and finding enough language in the rule to say yes, beyond any shadow of a doubt, conclusively and forever more, that's not a catch.

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

I'm done with this thread. I know every here is arguing their point in the spirit of the rule and the argument is a good one. I'm not mad at anyone at all. I just can't keep talking about this. It fucking hurts too much. This was our year. Watch Romo's post-game press conference...he knows it too. He makes multiple references to not often having a team that can advance and win the Super Bowl and needing to take advantage of when you can.

This and the Seattle muffed FG hold, just to painful to even watch. Now I have five plays that I need to avert my eyes from lest I be turned to stone like I've stared at a fucking basilisk. This Bryant CATCH, the Seattle hold, Montana to Clark, Magic over Bird Parish and McHale, and the Luis Gonzalez blooper over Jeter's head in the 2001 World Series. God I fucking hate sports.

 

[jbutler]

i feel like i just opened a forwarded email from my grandmother.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I think the real question is this: if we can somehow keep this thread going for two more months, will Bergs still be tilted at BBotB5?

 

[Ben]

I think the real question is this: if we can somehow keep this thread going for two more months, will Bergs still be tilted at BBotB5?

I'd go with a #37 Green Bay jersey customized with "F U Dallas" and these:

Now I have five plays that I need to avert my eyes from lest I be turned to stone like I've stared at a fucking basilisk. This Bryant CATCH, the Seattle hold, Montana to Clark, Magic over Bird Parish and McHale, and the Luis Gonzalez blooper over Jeter's head in the 2001 World Series. God I fucking hate sports.

on a continuous loop on an iPad - ought to do the trick. Also when he asks what you had in X hand, never ​tell him.

 

[manamongkids]

No, he caught the ball, took 3 steps, and lunged for the goal line. If you watch Dez Bryant play, you'll see him make this move all the time. I don't know how you can make the argument that his "momentum throughout the play was carrying him to the ground" when he took 3 steps with the ball, and then at the end of the play clearly held the ball out to get maximum distance and try to cross the goal line with the football.

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



YES!!! THIS ^ GOTT IN HIMMEL, MARY MOTHER OF GOD THIS. HE WASN'T CATCHING A PASS, HE WAS ADVANCING THE GODDAMN FOOTBALL!!!



Yes, I agree it's a tough but not impossible argument to maintain.....but THE CALL ON THE FIELD WAS A RECEPTION. The evidence to the contrary has to be conclusive (devoid of ambiguity) in order to overturn a call on the field.

I've zero problem with them calling it an incomplete pass on the field, Garrett challenging, and losing the challenge. Sucks but OK. I've got a massive galactic sized problem with a referee in New York who may or may not have seen Dez Bryant make this play 20 times in his career looking at this in the abstract and finding enough language in the rule to say yes, beyond any shadow of a doubt, conclusively and forever more, that's not a catch.

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

I'm done with this thread. I know every here is arguing their point in the spirit of the rule and the argument is a good one. I'm not mad at anyone at all. I just can't keep talking about this. It fucking hurts too much. This was our year. Watch Romo's post-game press conference...he knows it too. He makes multiple references to not often having a team that can advance and win the Super Bowl and needing to take advantage of when you can.

This and the Seattle muffed FG hold, just to painful to even watch. Now I have five plays that I need to avert my eyes from lest I be turned to stone like I've stared at a fucking basilisk. This Bryant CATCH, the Seattle hold, Montana to Clark, Magic over Bird Parish and McHale, and the Luis Gonzalez blooper over Jeter's head in the 2001 World Series. God I fucking hate sports.

The NFL is an entertainment league that I also find myself getting way too invested in, I am fortunately a Patriots fan for teh past 28 years and have been lucky.

With that being said, the NFL has to be accountable for something, do not fucking put the "conclusive" wording in the replay challenges if they are not going to stick by it.

It has to be, without a shadow of a doubt, conclusive.

I dare to compare this to sentencing in court trials, but as I have unfortunately been selected as a juror before. They tell you right from the start, to find someone guilty you need to be able to prove without a shadow of a doubt ,that the defendant is indeed guilty. You must be able to prove it.

In this case with Dez, there was doubt. Case closed. Inconclusive. Thus not being able to reversed.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Still disagree that it was inconclusive. Grabbed the ball in the air, continued to fall, hit the ground, and when the ball hit the ground it bounced out of his grip. Lunge? Never. Feet touched inbounds, yes, but he continued to fall until *Splat* he face-planted and the ball got away.

As for sports being ambiguous in calls, lets be happy poker doesn't have such things, like "what counts as moving chips in" or "is it colluding if two players check it down"

 

[Quicksilver-75]

Ladies and Gentlemen....the 2014/15 NFL Season! I'm hearing that the NFL Board of Governors is in meetings with the Ringling Bros. to come up with a new marketing strategy.

Praise Allah for the NHL!

 

[Irish Se7en]

berg


PATRIOTS

 

[Ronoh]

The way I heard the ruling explained, the ref said that Bryant did not "perform any act common to the game", i.e. the "lunge" was not a lunge and was just a natural course of him falling to the ground

Chippy is correct. This is why I have been trying to get an acknowledgement that yes, he was going to the ground because it renders anything else he does a moot point. 8.1.3(c) was not fulfilled. The term "advancing the ball" means the guy catches it and continues on. A lunge while going to the ground does not qualify as advancing the ball any more than a diving receiver is advancing the ball if he catches it in midair and lands two yards further downfield.

Picture this if you will. Picture the exact same play happening. Everything happens in exactly the same way only there is a second defender closing on the play who pops Dez causing the ball to come out a split second before his dick, elbow or anything else aside from his three feet touches the ground and the Packers cover up the fumble. I'm going to go ahead and guess under that scenario Bergs wouldn't have a problem accepting the rule of an incomplete pass

 

[courage]

This thread needs help. Wrong football? Carry on. :

 

[Chicken Rob]

I just rewatched the play. To me, he looked like he had control of the ball. Got his 2 steps in bound, and tripped on the defender. He was not going to the ground the whole time IMO. I would not have overturned it personally. I think it was a catch.

 

[bergs]

Chippy is correct. This is why I have been trying to get an acknowledgement that yes, he was going to the ground because it renders anything else he does a moot point. 8.1.3(c) was not fulfilled. The term "advancing the ball" means the guy catches it and continues on. A lunge while going to the ground does not qualify as advancing the ball any more than a diving receiver is advancing the ball if he catches it in midair and lands two yards further downfield.

Picture this if you will. Picture the exact same play happening. Everything happens in exactly the same way only there is a second defender closing on the play who pops Dez causing the ball to come out a split second before his dick, elbow or anything else aside from his three feet touches the ground and the Packers cover up the fumble. I'm going to go ahead and guess under that scenario Bergs wouldn't have a problem accepting the rule of an incomplete pass

I wasn't going to reply anymore here, but I need to right this implied wrong.

This happened in 2013. Dez caught a ball, lunged for the goal line, and it was stripped by a defender who recovered it. Clearly it was a catch, and clearly it was a fumble, and clearly I was pissed. Luckily it was overturned because of defensive holding so it never mattered.

I'm not one of those "I don't know football but I love my bandwagon team" homers. I've watched the game since Staubach was handing off to Dorsett and throwing to Drew Pearson and people were telling Terry Bradshaw he couldn't spell CAT if you gave him the C and the T.

 

[Shanghai Sparky]

I will feel sympathy for the Cowpokes when their fans acknowledge that there was pass interference in the Lions game. Until then, cry me a river. The rule has been in effect for enough years, just ask Calvin Johnson. The rule may be stupid, I will agree with that, but it is still a rule! Picking up a flag after the penalty was announced is purely subjective.

 

[Poker Zombie]

My favorite part is that when a play is reviewed, it is reviewed in New York as well. If anybody in the NFL officiating team thinks there is reasonable doubt, then the play remains as called. 100% agreement. How does one question it at that point.

And the Lunge claim, well that's even more laughable.