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

Sydney said:

Do you see what thread we're in? Have you been reading half of the other replies? Clearly there's more of an issue than you'd like to believe.

Click to expand...

We had the same thing about the Detroit game last week. Even after Blandino's statement, people wanted to argue the case. The rules are the rules, and that was not a catch. Calvin Johnson's famous "non-catch" was more of a catch than that was.

letekro said:

If it were that simple! Somebody excerpted the rule in the other thread. They could have just as easily ruled it a catch followed by a reach to the pylon. Since they were in GB they did not do this.

Click to expand...

Falling down is not a football move unless your name is Brandon Lloyd.

Deus Irae said:

No, Letekro. He said that the officials WOULD NOT consider that a football move.

That's a bright line.

Click to expand...

Why is trying to score a touchdown not a football move?

IndyKen said:

Terrible, terrible, terrible. I'm so sick of the ticky tacky rules & refs when it comes to pass completions. That was a catch - he had total control of it as he was headed to the ground. Pure BS NFL, pure BS.

Click to expand...

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.

BTW:
Romo is soft.
Rodgers is absolutely the best QB in the league.
Would rather face the Seahawks

RayClay said:

Why is trying to score a touchdown not a football move?

Click to expand...

In this case, because his arm didn't extend nearly enough.

reflexblue said:

Deus is right Sydney, you need to learn the rules. maybe sydneys the dallas fan that bet his grand kids college tuition money on the 'boys?

Click to expand...

I need to learn the rules, and then in your next post you say it's a catch? I'm not a Dallas fan, I wanted Green Bay to win. No money down on this game, I most certainly don't have grand kids, and I'm not a "he".

Deus Irae said:

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



Edit: And whoever Sydney is, (s)he needs to learn the rules.

Click to expand...

Yep. It was the correct call. When going to the ground with a completion the requirements change. You have to maintain control through the fall. Dez tried reaching out for the TD rather than securing it and that's where he messed up. Otherwise he made an amazing grab. He high pointed that bad boy like none other.

The rule sucks, and it seems ridiculous and I hope they will take a second look at it and amend it. But it's been that way for quite some time now, and the referees did not "blow it." The league knows this, the refs know this, and so do the coaches and players. Bryant could have done a better job of securing the ball instead of reaching out to get the TD.

And much like the picked-up flag against the Lions, the call isn't why one team won or one team lost. The Cowboys had their chances. They had a blocked FG after a few botched plays in the 2nd quarter, then gave up a big play allowing the Packers to claw closer. What could have been a 17 (or 21) to 7 lead ended up 14-10, at least a 6-point swing there alone. There was the big TD to Adams. The Murray fumble. And a FG one way or another would have meant they might not have even needed to go for it on 4th down at all.

Bottom line is the refs interpreted the rule correctly, and this call alone did not decide the game. Your problem is with the rule, not the refs.

Deus Irae said:

In this case, because his arm didn't extend nearly enough.

Click to expand...

So, if his arm extended more than that, but didn't cross the plain, and the ball hit the ground and became dislodged exactly like that, it would be a catch?

RayClay said:

So, if his arm extended more than that, but didn't cross the plain, and the ball hit the ground and became dislodged exactly like that, it would be a catch?

Click to expand...

Ask the officials.

Look, the rule's a bad rule trying to fix a bad situation. It's like the Tuck rule.

You get some ****ty results no matter how you write the rule.

Deus Irae said:

Ask the officials.

Click to expand...

Copping out, eh?

Deus Irae said:

We had the same thing about the Detroit game last week. Even after Blandino's statement, people wanted to argue the case. The rules are the rules, and that was not a catch. Calvin Johnson's famous "non-catch" was more of a catch than that was.

Click to expand...

You act like we've never seen an incorrect statement by a league official after a blown call. They certainly don't have another motive in protecting the league's "integrity", right? Calls get blown all the time. If I wanted to be spoonfed Blandino's "opinion", I'd go watch espn.

RayClay said:

Copping out, eh?

Click to expand...

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

People's problem is with the rule. The refs called it correct according to those rules. If you fall in the process of a reception you have to maintain control through the entire play. It's not that complicated.

I'm glad this stops the conspiracy junk tho.

RayClay said:

So, if his arm extended more than that, but didn't cross the plain, and the ball hit the ground and became dislodged exactly like that, it would be a catch?

Click to expand...

No, he lost possession.
See Calvin Johnson

Of course, when I say more than that, I'm talking about the magical distance that makes it a catch in the eyes of Pereira as interviewed by Howie Long.

Deus Irae said:

In this case, because his arm didn't extend nearly enough.

Click to expand...

You don't see how that is a judgment call? So what is the "bright line rule" you're talking about? 12 inches of extension, 18? Where is the bright line? The officials could have just as easily ruled that there was enough extension (and would have, if the game were in Dallas). The rule allows for the player to make a football move between the catch and the ground that breaks up the "catch process". the question is whether the extension of the ball was such a football move--that is the judgment call.

Deus Irae said:

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

Click to expand...

You made a statement. I changed the facts of the play based on exactly what you said. You won't back up your position. I stand by my response.

Vataha said:

No, he lost possession.
See Calvin Johnson

Click to expand...

Perreira said, on tv, that you only need to perform an act common to the game. Then it's already a catch.

I personally think the league has convoluted these rules so much they don't even know what the right call is.