Refs blow it again! Dez Bryant non-catch in Cowboys - Packers game

reflexblue said:

Personally in my view it was a catch. it drives me crazy at how tick tack the nfl has gotten when it comes to what is a catch and what isn't . i don't care if it touches the ground it should be a catch if the receiver gets their hands on it. But from what i remember when bryant came down with it and the ball touched the ground and it came lose i figured it was going to be challenged. I don't think it was over the goal line, and even if it was he would have to have absolute control of the ball like edelman in yesterdays game.

Click to expand...

The entire NFL is ticky tack now. It's the OCD Football league. They really need to sharpen the rules so that they can be called by refs ON the field. There's no longer the same emotional satisfaction for a TD or a catch or a fumble or... everything really, when everything needs verification. What I aslo find a bit funny for everyone who needs everything triple confirmed and measured just so everything is EXACTLY right, is that they blissfully ignore the fact that leading up to that brilliant TD that needed analysis for 7 minutes, the refs made 27 spot ball judgement calls the entire way down the field! It's only the losers that cry foul of refs usually, they whine weeks afterwards, but the fact is you need to be able to overcome a few bad calls, and hopefully (over 200(?) or so judgement calls per game) they even up. It's really just better for the game. But I digress from OP, how can u help the refs make right calls? The best rule change the NFL made IMO in last few years was the allowing pushing out bounds a receiver in air for a catch. No more guessing did ref think he was going to come down in bounds or out... who knows. Now its, his feet are in or he is out. They need to do more judgement refinements like this all the way down the line. Re-work the catch next. The fumble after that. Make it as black and white and logical and emotional satisfying as humanly possible so the any ref can get it right 95% in heat of the game, and live with it. And if it's impossible to make it easy to get it right, lessen the impact on the game. In Bryant play I think the "correct" call was made, but the rule itself is botched and will ultimately end in fan satisfaction failure in cases such as these.

rochrist said:

Oh, you're back. Any comment on McCourty?

Click to expand...

Never left.

Yes sign Revis asap.

Mv1029 said:

Refs should have never reversed Bryant catch. He had control and made a football move before the ball hit the ground! Just aweful - refs ruining these games!

Click to expand...

That was clearly not a catch, he did not maintain control of the ball. There is really nothing to even interpret, he caught the ball, and fell down and the ball moved when it hit the ground. Period.

Deus Irae said:

Overturning it, and calling it an incompletion, was the right call.

Click to expand...

Within one set of assumptiosn, and it's a sign that the rules are in need of work. However, the interpretation could easily have been made that the catch was made when his second foot came down in balance and that in taking another step down the field, the player tripped over the defender and was down at the one. That's the call that the official 6 feet away, looking from the angle of the gif on the first page of this thread.

When does a player who makes a catch stop making the catch and start doing something else if he eventually goes to the ground, as he does most plays? The Bryant catch makes a perfect case for how to modify the rule. He jumped up, caught the ball, got two feet down, and tripped over the defender making the next step toward the end zone. That third step in the field of play (or finishing that third step, if you prefer) could be a threshold for finishing the catch, as could (voluntarily) changing direction after getting two feet down.

The fundamental problem is the arbitrariness and, indeed 50YL, capriciousness of the interpretation of what is a catch (like what is DPI, most egregiously among other interpretive penalties) devalues the performance on the field. Bryant made a spectacular play, and rewarding such plays helps make the NFL a ridiculously successful business. This is the sort of problem that the NFL competition committee is designed to address, but unfortunately, they are not the most clear-thinking of groups. Maybe Jerry Jones will be able to put his thumb on the scale and help the league figure out a way to reward

Dez Bryant made a mistake. He needed to secure the ball first and foremost. By overextending as he did he gave the league the chance to screw it up, which they did. It's funny, but the official that was right on top of it had it correct as a catch with Bryant down inside the 1 yard line. It's too bad that he and the crew will take the heat, because that was a call made in a far away galaxy.

Dr Pain said:

It was a stupid play and a bad pass. It was only because of Bryant it was even close. Bryant seemed to be going for the TD rather than a safe landing with the ball.

Click to expand...

I agree it was a low percent play. I do no agree that he was making a football move, it looked to me that he was trying to break his fall. LL baseball use two hands to catch.

Mv1029 said:

Refs should have never reversed Bryant catch. He had control and made a football move before the ball hit the ground! Just aweful - refs ruining these games!

Click to expand...

The reversal was 100% correct. Don't forget they are now directly wired to NY where they are being constantly advised on the rules throughout the review and are aided in making their decision.

Just because you don't personally LIKE the rule, doesn't mean the refs blew it.

I don't like that rule either but by the letter of the law they were spot on to reverse it.

Like it or not, that's the rule. The call reversal was correct. You may not like the rule (I know personally I hate it), but it is the rule. It was not a catch.

Deus Irae said:

No. I've already answered the appropriate questions. You're just trying to be an ass.

Click to expand...

Yes you answered the question Deus. You were even right.

But you were much more of an ass about it yourself than you needed to be.

pencilneckgeek said:

The fundamental problem is the arbitrariness and, indeed 50YL, capriciousness of the interpretation of what is a catch (like what is DPI, most egregiously among other interpretive penalties) devalues the performance on the field. Bryant made a spectacular play, and rewarding such plays helps make the NFL a ridiculously successful business. This is the sort of problem that the NFL competition committee is designed to address, but unfortunately, they are not the most clear-thinking of groups. Maybe Jerry Jones will be able to put his thumb on the scale and help the league figure out a way to reward

Click to expand...

I agree with this- the refs are getting attacked, but the fact is, they interpreted the rulebook correctly (as idiotic as it is). I think the rulebook will continue to be dysfunctional until it is reviewed and cleaned up by an independent committee with absolutely no stake in the game (as opposed to a committee full of team employees, such as Bill Polian who try to tailor the book to whatever advantage their team enjoys at the moment, or to nullify another team's advantage).

However, Steratore did fumble a bit by not putting 30 secs back on the clock, after rendering judgment.

Nunchucks said:

That was clearly not a catch, he did not maintain control of the ball. There is really nothing to even interpret, he caught the ball, and fell down and the ball moved when it hit the ground. Period.

Click to expand...

Not remotely accurate. Not even a little bit. Not only had he fully possessed the ball, the only reason the it even had a chance to move is because he chose to extend for the goal line. One would think having possession through two hands, transfer to a clean tuck and then extending, all while taking three steps is clearly a catch, but one would be wrong, I guess.

Frankly, when you can double talk your way through calling that play incomplete and have it sound reasonable per the rule, then that doesn't mean you make a shred of sense, it means the rule is ****.

Vataha said:

Sorry Deus is correct, making a football move doesn't matter if the receiver is going to the ground.
The receiver has to maintain possesion through the contact with the ground.

Knew it was incomplete after the first replay.
The ball came out of his hands after the ball contacted the ground.

Click to expand...

The ball came out and then back into this hands. Not the same as the Calvin Johnson play where the ball ended up on the ground. That's a catch. He never lost control of the ball.

Ochmed Jones said:

This has been a terrible playoff year for the officials.

They have been awful, inconsistent and out of sync. Clearly something needs to be done.

Click to expand...

Seems to me that all pro sports are having the same problem.

Deus Irae said:

Perreira broke it down, multiple times. It was a textbook example of a non-catch. You can hate the outcome, and you can hate the rule, but that's not the same as the play being a catch under today's rules.

Click to expand...

When I hear people talk about Perreira like this I just have to laugh.. This is the same guy who claimed that Reggie Wayne was interfered with when he was never touched, yet said that the Kelvin Hayden mailing of Reche Caldwell in the endzone was perfectly legal..

1960Pats said:

Dez Bryant made a mistake. He needed to secure the ball first and foremost. By overextending as he did he gave the league the chance to screw it up, which they did. It's funny, but the official that was right on top of it had it correct as a catch with Bryant down inside the 1 yard line. It's too bad that he and the crew will take the heat, because that was a call made in a far away galaxy.

Click to expand...

The league didn't screw that up. The rule itself states that if the ball makes contact with the ground, the receiver has to maintain possession. Bryant did not do this. Incomplete pass. They were correct to reverse this.

Let's get something clear. Dez Bryant was not extending towards the endzone. He was falling down and like anyone falling down your arms automatically go out to brace yourself.

Now, that being said, the falling down happened AFTER he'd established possession of the ball (two feet down, took a further step)
Furthermore, he should have been called down by contact because Bryant's right elbow touches the ground before the left one does.

Based on others plays, as soon as the right elbow touches, the play is over..

Oswlek said:

Not remotely accurate. Not even a little bit. Not only had he fully possessed the ball, the only reason the it even had a chance to move is because he chose to extend for the goal line. One would think having possession through two hands, transfer to a clean tuck and then extending, all while taking three steps is clearly a catch, but one would be wrong, I guess.

Frankly, when you can double talk your way through calling that play incomplete and have it sound reasonable per the rule, then that doesn't mean you make a shred of sense, it means the rule is ****.

Click to expand...

He chose to extend his fall to try to get more distance, he never made a football move, he stayed off-balance. The call was correct..the refs agree with me, you are simply wrong because you do not understand the rule book.

DaBruinz said:

Let's get something clear. Dez Bryant was not extending towards the endzone. He was falling down and like anyone falling down your arms automatically go out to brace yourself.

Now, that being said, the falling down happened AFTER he'd established possession of the ball (two feet down, took a further step)
Furthermore, he should have been called down by contact because Bryant's right elbow touches the ground before the left one does.

Based on others plays, as soon as the right elbow touches, the play is over..

Click to expand...

He took a falling step, he was not under control, thus he had to maintain possession throughout the fall, which he did not do.

Just like if he caught the ball falling out of bounds, touched both feet, he would have to maintain possession though the fall. The ball hit the ground and moved....not a catch.

Halifax_Pats_Fan said:

I get your point that is the rule, the interpretation of the rule is not the issue, the rule itself is the issue, at least for me...to me he had control of the ball, he secured the ball. And by the way I think you should just go back to saying the ball is secured and let the refs interpret that. At least that will eliminate the interpretation of the rule as it stands currently...there will always be grey area, but take away the grey area that makes no sense.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense to me anyways...

Click to expand...

I'm in the opposite camp. I like the rule because trying to decide possession (for instance, sterling Moore vs. Lee Evans in the 2012 AFCCG) arbitrarily is a killer for refs. I much prefer the clear cut rule that if it hits the ground and it isn't under control, then it's a no catch.

Having said that, the Dez thing yesterday could have been called down by contact with Dez reaching out with the ball after he's already down.

The NFL has bigger problems. The reviewers back at the NY NFL offices reversed the Patriots catch on the first series on Sat. And then somehow refused to overturn a catch in the GB game that had a lot more movement and contact with the ground. The NFL office is totally inconsistent.

Furthermore, Mike Carey showed why he's a really bad referee when he equated a punt return to a incomplete catch on the disputed muff punt. He was totally confused in his explanation.