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

Oswlek · Jan 12, 2015

Nunchucks said:
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.

The irony is that you are using the ******** rule to validate the incorrect call based on that ******** rule.

Edit: Said differently, if rule X is improper because it leads to incorrect call Y, you can't turn around say, well since call Y was consistent with rule X, that means they were correct!

rochrist · Jan 12, 2015

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.

It's amazing h0w many NFL people (players AND ex-officials) who don't seem to see it this way. To me, if the rule says it wasn't a catch, then the rule needs work.

PATS16N0 · Jan 12, 2015

Three full motions, control, and the officials robbed him because he tried to score.
Awful call.

Nunchucks · Jan 12, 2015

PATS16N0 said:
Three full motions, control, and the officials robbed him because he tried to score.
Awful call.

Just because he continued his momentum while falling does not mean he made a football move...he is falling down, he never recovered his balance. That means that he must maintain possession throughout and he did not do that, it really is an easy call given the rules.

moosekill · Jan 12, 2015

You keep saying this, but you are wrong. The officials didn't rob him, the rule robbed him. I haven't heard anyone here say they liked the rule, but the rule is what it is. He was definitely falling down as he was catching it, he may have staggered a few steps and kind of lunged forward, but it was all in the act of falling down. The rule is you have to hold onto it when you hit the ground, therfore it wasn't a catch. Blame Goodell if you want to blame someone. Otherwise I guess I would refer you back to DI's initial posts.

PATS16N0 · Jan 12, 2015

moosekill said:
You keep saying this, but you are wrong. The officials didn't rob him, the rule robbed him. I haven't heard anyone here say they liked the rule, but the rule is what it is. He was definitely falling down as he was catching it, he may have staggered a few steps and kind of lunged forward, but it was all in the act of falling down. The rule is you have to hold onto it when you hit the ground, therfore it wasn't a catch. Blame Goodell if you want to blame someone. Otherwise I guess I would refer you back to DI's initial posts.

Rule, official, whatever. Dallas Cowboys should be moving on to a rematch with Seattle, or at least should have been in a position to do that on this play IMO. Even without that, I think the official robbed them too, because I just think that's a catch. He gets it, two feet down, their legs may hit a little, and he dives for the endzone with his momentum.

Seattle basically got two bye weeks to the Superbowl now.

One legged Rodgers not going to win anything next week.

Maybe it's good for us. Seahawks untested.

upstater1 · Jan 12, 2015

PATS16N0 said:
Three full motions, control, and the officials robbed him because he tried to score.
Awful call.

Actually, with this angle. I take it back. It was a good call. I really did think he reached out at the end of being down. Now I think it's all his momentum, and even if he did reach a bit, it's clear his body took him that way. Before, I liked the rule, but didn't like the call. Now, I think they called it right.

upstater1 · Jan 12, 2015

pdangle said:
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.

I heard this argument today about the push out of bounds change, and I thought it contradicted the point the person was making. The clearcut change to that rule, taking referee judgement out of the equation, is just like the Cal Johnson rule. It's absolute. If the ball hits the ground and you don't control it, then it's not a catch. Not much deliberation.

upstater1 · Jan 12, 2015

UK_Pat37 said:
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.

I have serious questions about the NFL officials in NYC. How can they allow the reversal of the Patriots catch in the first series, and then conclude that there isn't enough evidence to overrule the play in GB-Dallas?

The Brandon Five · Jan 12, 2015

[

upstater1 said:
I heard this argument today about the push out of bounds change, and I thought it contradicted the point the person was making. The clearcut change to that rule, taking referee judgement out of the equation, is just like the Cal Johnson rule. It's absolute. If the ball hits the ground and you don't control it, then it's not a catch. Not much deliberation.

He did control it. It came loose when he hit the ground, but he regained control while in bounds.

Calvin Johnson hit the ground and that is where the ball stayed.

UK_Pat37 · Jan 13, 2015

upstater1 said:
I have serious questions about the NFL officials in NYC. How can they allow the reversal of the Patriots catch in the first series, and then conclude that there isn't enough evidence to overrule the play in GB-Dallas?

I had huge issues with that call. Reason being; I can't remember the game but I specifically remember a Gronk TD catch where the ball clearly hits the ground. Mike Pereira said he thought it would be over-ruled however it ended up staying with the on-field call because they deemed that the ground did not aid the catch and he maintained control throughout.

Then, by that logic, how on Earth wasn't Amendola's catch a legit catch??? As far as I could see, the ground didn't 'aid' the catch...and it didn't come loose either.

DaBruinz · Jan 13, 2015

Nunchucks said:
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.

Nunchucks - He had both feet down, took a step and then fell due to contact. His right elbow hit the ground first, thus ending the play.. It's no different than a RB who has his knee touch the ground and then has the ball knocked loose.

Nunchucks · Jan 13, 2015

DaBruinz said:
Nunchucks - He had both feet down, took a step and then fell due to contact. His right elbow hit the ground first, thus ending the play.. It's no different than a RB who has his knee touch the ground and then has the ball knocked loose.

That is incorrect, he never recovered his balance, he was falling the whole time, whether it was because he never tried to recover his footing or not. He was going to fall down and thus had to maintain control of the ball through the catch.

The Brandon Five · Jan 13, 2015

Nunchucks said:
That is incorrect, he never recovered his balance, he was falling the whole time, whether it was because he never tried to recover his footing or not. He was going to fall down and thus had to maintain control of the ball through the catch.

He did.

Nunchucks · Jan 13, 2015

The Brandon Five said:
He did.

Whatever, the proof is in the reversal of the call. Evidence was overwhelming in the not catch camp otherwise it would not have been overturned. Keep on misunderstanding the rule book.

QuantumMechanic · Jan 13, 2015

The Brandon Five said:
He did control it. It came loose when he hit the ground, but he regained control while in bounds.

Doesn't matter. "Came loose when he hit the ground" means, by rule, incomplete pass, regardless of what happens afterwards. You can choose to not like the rule (which is totally fine), but the rule is what it is.

Canuck · Jan 13, 2015

If that was a Patriot catching that, I would call it a catch too but the rules say otherwise. He catches the ball, two feet come down, he spots the end zone and dives forward, in diving forward he takes the third step. The diving forward starts the third requirement, the so called football move and not the third step. He never completed the sequence as the ball hit the ground and popped up. If he had taken the third step and then dove for the end zone, I think there would have been a different ruling.

There lies the confusion, was the third step in the act of diving for the end zone, the so called football move or was it the act of diving for the end zone?

Personally as a fan, I would have called it a catch and down by contact. I hate the Cowboys but that was one heck of a catch by Dez. He traveled 5 yards in the air and caught the ball at it's highest point. Got two feet down with full control of the ball and then dove for the TD. It's got to be a sucky rule when that's not called a catch. I think the 3rd step he took actually completed the football move as he used it for balance and added momentum in the act of diving.

It was later explained that the diving and the third step was the act of one continuous motion.

DaBronxPats14 · Jan 13, 2015

Ivan said:
Agree with the OP and others, that's a catch. He had control and imo made a football move by extending for the end zone.

Yup so if Bryant hits Pylon instead of stretching for TD wouldn't it be a TD? IMO I think it is. He had possession if anything I thought that it was a catch and ground caused fumble ball on 1 yd line.

Deus Irae · Jan 13, 2015

Canuck said:
If that was a Patriot catching that, I would call it a catch too but the rules say otherwise. He catches the ball, two feet come down, he spots the end zone and dives forward, in diving forward he takes the third step. The diving forward starts the third requirement, the so called football move and not the third step. He never completed the sequence as the ball hit the ground and popped up. If he had taken the third step and then dove for the end zone, I think there would have been a different ruling.

There lies the confusion, was the third step in the act of diving for the end zone, the so called football move or was it the act of diving for the end zone?

Personally as a fan, I would have called it a catch and down by contact. I hate the Cowboys but that was one heck of a catch by Dez. He traveled 5 yards in the air and caught the ball at it's highest point. Got two feet down with full control of the ball and then dove for the TD. It's got to be a sucky rule when that's not called a catch. I think the 3rd step he took actually completed the football move as he used it for balance and added momentum in the act of diving.

It was later explained that the diving and the third step was the act of one continuous motion.

DaBronxPats14 said:
Yup so if Bryant hits Pylon instead of stretching for TD wouldn't it be a TD? IMO I think it is. He had possession if anything I thought that it was a catch and ground caused fumble ball on 1 yd line.

They got the call right, according to the rule. No matter how many times people stomp their feet about it, that's not going to change.

unoriginal · Jan 13, 2015

moosekill said:
I haven't heard anyone here say they liked the rule, but the rule is what it is.

I like the rule. I like the no-forceout rule that's been brought up lately in this thread too. I'll grant there is still some grey area in "is he going down during the process of the catch" but on the whole this rule is better to me in the situation than "demonstrate possession" or "brought the ball to his body" or "two steps" or "made a football move" and all the others that have ever been applied to contested catches. If before you have clear possession you start going to the ground you must maintain control.

When I played receiver at lower levels where the was no instant replay and every ball on the ground was ruled either incomplete or a fumble one of my coaches had a simple and I think effective piece of advice for his skill players:
"Keep the goddamn ball off the ground. Is that so ****ing hard to understand?"

More philosophically I have heard it expressed that the ball should never touch the ground except when the umpire spots it before the play. If it does someone on offense did something wrong.

I think a lot of people are philosophically inclined to give a receiver possession as soon as the ball hits their hands. I'm the opposite way. For me priority one in taking in a pass was always to secure it. I think Dez Bryant (and Calvin Johnson, since this is the "Calvin Johnson rule") could have easily done so if that had been their priority. I'm not terribly sorry they weren't awarded catches.

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

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Pats, B's, Sox

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Burn it all down!

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

In the Starting Line-Up

Similar threads