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

[letekro]

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.

You're right that the NFL is saying that the interpretation of the rule was the correct one. However, by the pure language of the rule, the call was not indisputably correct. There are interpretive ambiguities in the rule itself. The ref could just have easily ruled that the "act of catching" had been completed and Dez was extending the ball in a football move. Perreira said that Dez did not extend "enough" for it to be a separate football move. This sounds like a judgment call that the rule was meant to avoid. At any rate, there is no doubt in my mind that they have ruled the other way if the game were in Dallas, and would have explained over the PA that Dez made the catch, made a football move, and then the ball came out. It was a close play.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're right that the NFL is saying that the interpretation of the rule was the correct one. However, by the pure language of the rule, the call was not indisputably correct.

Yes, it was. Stumbling to the ground is not a football move. That's just the reality of the rules.

 

[letekro]

Yes, it was. Stumbling to the ground is not a football move. That's just the reality of the rules.

You're missing the point. More of an extension would have produced a different result, according to Perreira:

However, according to Pereira, it was not enough of a stretch.

"If you're going to the ground, you have to prove that you have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game and do so," said Pereira. "And part of that is stretching all the way out and to me even though he moved the ball a little bit forward, they are not going to consider that a football act."

And herein lies the problem.

Pereira admits Bryant stretches the ball towards the end zone, but apparently it wasn't enough. So, now the official must determine the degree of stretching and reaching by the receiver as if they don't have enough to worry about.

It would seem that the player either reaches with the ball or he doesn't and Bryant pretty clearly tried to stretch the ball forward only being limited in actual distance by his shoulder pads.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pereira-dez-bryant-reversal-2015-1#ixzz3OkNFIX8Y

 

[Danger Zone]

You're missing the point. More of an extension would have produced a different result, according to Perreira:

However, according to Pereira, it was not enough of a stretch.

"If you're going to the ground, you have to prove that you have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game and do so," said Pereira. "And part of that is stretching all the way out and to me even though he moved the ball a little bit forward, they are not going to consider that a football act."

And herein lies the problem.

Pereira admits Bryant stretches the ball towards the end zone, but apparently it wasn't enough. So, now the official must determine the degree of stretching and reaching by the receiver as if they don't have enough to worry about.

It would seem that the player either reaches with the ball or he doesn't and Bryant pretty clearly tried to stretch the ball forward only being limited in actual distance by his shoulder pads.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pereira-dez-bryant-reversal-2015-1#ixzz3OkNFIX8Y

I think Deus is about to change his opinion... I can just feel it!

And to actually add something to the conversation other than being snarky at Deus, let me add my own opinion.

I think he is correct about it being an incomplete pass according to the rules, but he's being his usual self in displaying an utter lack of empathy for how other people are getting to an opinion different than his.

 

[DaBronxPats14]

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.

Deus I'm not stompin my feet I could careless it doesn't effect Pats just my opinion bro and I agree call was right according to rule just like Tuck Rule. Weather People like it or not, it wasn't a fumble'dem'da rules!

 

[DaBronxPats14]

You're right that the NFL is saying that the interpretation of the rule was the correct one. However, by the pure language of the rule, the call was not indisputably correct. There are interpretive ambiguities in the rule itself. The ref could just have easily ruled that the "act of catching" had been completed and Dez was extending the ball in a football move. Perreira said that Dez did not extend "enough" for it to be a separate football move. This sounds like a judgment call that the rule was meant to avoid. At any rate, there is no doubt in my mind that they have ruled the other way if the game were in Dallas, and would have explained over the PA that Dez made the catch, made a football move, and then the ball came out. It was a close play.

Yup! I believe he could have caught it brought it into him for completion but he went for it all stretchin out for TD to make a play. I still think if he stretches out hits Pylon he might have gotten TD call because once you cross front of white of endzone or hit pylon with possession automatic TD regardless if ball was dropped or knock out.

 

[Archeryaddict12]

According to the rule it isn't a catch, but by simple logic, it was a catch. 3 steps, clear cut control and no bobble it was a catch. Rule needs to be changed because that was a catch.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

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

That in fact was the NFL rule from the beginning of time until 2000, when the catch definition was changed due to the Bert Emmanuel non-catch in the Tampa Bay/St. Louis playoff game (allowing St. Louis to eventually advance for their one Superbowl win -- but hey, since it burned Dungheap I certainly won't complain about it.)

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I still think if he stretches out hits Pylon he might have gotten TD call because once you cross front of white of endzone or hit pylon with possession automatic TD regardless if ball was dropped or knock out.

Well, whether or not he had possession was the entire point. If he had been able to get the ball to cross the plane or touch the pylon it would still not be a TD if the refs felt he didn't control the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. Ball being dead and a TD scored the moment the plane is broken only applies to a ballcarrier who has previously established possession crossing the plane or a receiver who is not going to ground to make the catch. Crossing the plane means nothing when going to the ground to make a catch -- if the ground knocks the ball loose, even past the plane, it's not a TD