Utah John Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I'm not a fan of the Cowboys (as far from a fan as can be) nor of the Lions (less hatred there), but I think both Johnson and Bryant did enough to have their catches count. Bryant caught the ball and took at least two, maybe three, steps with the ball firmly in control. That should be that. He was contacted by the defender so when he fell he should have been considered tackled. The fact that the ball came loose after shouldn't matter there, any more than if a RB is moving down the field and is tackled, and as he falls the ball hits the ground and comes loose. For the RB the play is dead -- it's not a fumble since he was contacted by the defender and when the ball hits, the play is over. Should be the same thinking for catches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 This is PRECISELY what happened to Megatron. It appears from replays that the release of the ball was entirely voluntary. And again, for every play like that, for every play like yesterday's, there are a dozen other would-be catches that are rightfully overturned with A LOT less grey area. defining a catch and calling it in real time will ALWAYS have moments that frustrate an observer. its just such a broad set of possibilities to govern and sometimes tough to view. im sure dez wishes that he wouldve just pulled it to his chest there -- you have to be situationally aware in that situation. take the huge play safely instead of taking a big risk on a TD you likely get seconds later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 defining a catch and calling it in real time will ALWAYS have moments that frustrate an observer. its just such a broad set of possibilities to govern and sometimes tough to view. im sure dez wishes that he wouldve just pulled it to his chest there -- you have to be situationally aware in that situation. take the huge play safely instead of taking a big risk on a TD you likely get seconds later. And that was my thought as well: he shouldn't have just tucked it in. There was no reason to extend and go for six. But, I mean...that's pretty easy for me, the guy on the couch, to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 And that was my thought as well: he shouldn't have just tucked it in. There was no reason to extend and go for six. But, I mean...that's pretty easy for me, the guy on the couch, to say. It would be against the competitive nature that makes him great to do this. I understand the ruling that was made, but completely disagree with the interpretation of what Dez was doing. If he could have just gone out of bounds and it would have been a catch, then clearly he made a football move in trying to reach the endzone meaning he already had possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 And that was my thought as well: he shouldn't have just tucked it in. There was no reason to extend and go for six. But, I mean...that's pretty easy for me, the guy on the couch, to say. definitely easier said than done. one of those that youd be asking a lot from a guy in the moment, and im sure they drill dez to go make big plays not safe plays It would be against the competitive nature that makes him great to do this. I understand the ruling that was made, but completely disagree with the interpretation of what Dez was doing. If he could have just gone out of bounds and it would have been a catch, then clearly he made a football move in trying to reach the endzone meaning he already had possession. if he fell out of bounds hed have to hold it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homey D. Clown Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) ? He had clear possession, 3 feet down, and an elbow...THEN the ball hit the ground and came out. The rule makes no sense. They can remove all the garbage in the interpretation and just say possession plus feet (elbow, butt) = catch. Wrong. 2 feet down, then his knee hit as he slammed into the ground. Ball popped free from his grasp due to the ball making contact with the ground, hovering above him for a fraction of a second, while he then grabbed it out of the air. he didn't make a football move, IE falling to the ground while maintaining possession. How is that so hard to get, and what were you watching? Hence.. big mouth dez bryant whining and crying, dallass goes home, homey smiling. So the ground cant cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion? Ummm... yes, since forever. when has the ground been the cause of a catch? having possession of the ball during a run, being tackled, and when your knee is down, play over. the ground can't cause you to fumble once you are down by contact, is that really confusing, or are you just being obtuse? A player can fall to the ground without contact by an opposing player, have the ground cause the ball to pop out, and it's a live ball.... I'm failing to see the confusion. Edited January 12, 2015 by Homey D. Clown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProcessAccepted Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) I agree that its the consistency of how rules are applied. The magnitude of the outcome of whether that was a catch or not should not be a factor. I generally don't take the refs side but that is such a touch call to make. The ball hit the ground and moved. That's the rule whether its BS or not BS. Hopefully it gets reviewed along with others this off season. Personally I don't know why rules like taunting aren't reviewed as well. How subjective is that rule and how those penalties kill and save drives. We seemed to hit with a lot this year. Another item that is relevant is Bryant both this time and against the Lions came way on the field without his helmet to talk to the refs. Other teams and players get flagged for that. One way or the other, I just think that there has to be a way to improve the consistency of how rules are evaluated by the refs. Just change the rules that they struggle, like the old force out rule on whether the player would have landed in bounds. Edited January 12, 2015 by Catch it Sammy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homey D. Clown Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 "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 regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete." I believe the announcers brought up the "Calvin Johnson Rule" . Also Dez didn't have complete control of the ball while taking steps . Stop! you're making too much sense... there are people here who want to make this confusing, and a dumb, hard to interpret rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah John Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The Bills have had problems with taunting penalties in the past. Better get control of this ASAP since Rexism will lead to more behavior of that type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I Absolutely hope they do not ever change this rule. Catches vs non catches are about as black and white as they are going to get this way. The ball touched the fricken ground then popped loose. NO CATCH! If you want the catch hang on to the ball and keep it off of the turf..... PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Gun Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 In theory knees and elbow was down. I never got why that doesn't end the play right there It should have. If the nose of the ball had crossed the goal line and did not pop out of his hand when he hit the ground, the refs would have looked at it as he was down by contact at the 1/2 yard line or where the ball was when his elbow/knee/chest hit the ground to make him down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Stop! you're making too much sense... there are people here who want to make this confusing, and a dumb, hard to interpret rule. Dez made a football move by reaching for the goal line. Is that not what (Now) determines a catch? He caught took 2 steps and reached for the goal line. <- Is this a football move? Is the play not over when his knee touches after being contacted by the defender? Edited January 12, 2015 by CountDorkula Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homey D. Clown Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Dez made a football move by reaching for the goal line. Is that not what (Now) determines a catch? He caught took 2 steps and reached for the goal line. <- Is this a football move? Is the play not over when his knee touches after being contacted by the defender? While reaching for the goal line, and in the process of going to the ground, he fumbled the ball.. still can't see why you can't comprehend this. the rule doesn't say "in the process of falling to the ground like a stone" His football move, in less than a second, ended with a fumble. Incomplete pass. Dez crying like a beeeotch... homey smiling like a simpleton.... blah, blah, frickin blah. He went up in the air, slightly bobbled the ball, got 2 feet down, and seemed to have secured the ball briefly while going to the ground. As his knee hit the ground, he was simultaneously reaching for the goal line, slamming his body to the ground, where the actual ground caused the bobble. The real confusion here for most people is that the element of the ground causing the ball to pop loose. If he landed on his back, and the ball jostled in his hands, but never touches the ground, WHILE staying in the field of play, then the result would be a catch. THEN.... Mouthy Douchebag dez bryant acting all douchy and happy.... and homey no longer smiling so much. Watch the play in real time, it happens in just over a second. If I could find it, there was a "non-Catch" call against Scott Chandler where he seemingly caught the ball, turned to run, and had the ball knocked loose. Incomplete pass. and Scott probably had it a full second longer that bryant. The definition of football move is anything a player does while securing the ball, trying to advance the ball, or any move as part of the next motion after it comes into contact with the player. Dez's football move? trying to advance the ball while falling to the ground. This should cement the debate... but i'm sure it won't. Edited January 12, 2015 by Homey D. Clown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 While reaching for the goal line, and in the process of going to the ground, he fumbled the ball.. still can't see why you can't comprehend this. the rule doesn't say "in the process of falling to the ground like a stone" His football move, in less than a second, ended with a fumble. Incomplete pass. Dez crying like a beeeotch... homey smiling like a simpleton.... blah, blah, frickin blah. He went up in the air, slightly bobbled the ball, got 2 feet down, and seemed to have secured the ball briefly while going to the ground. As his knee hit the ground, he was simultaneously reaching for the goal line, slamming his body to the ground, where the actual ground caused the bobble. The real confusion here for most people is that the element of the ground causing the ball to pop loose. If he landed on his back, and the ball jostled in his hands, but never touches the ground, WHILE staying in the field of play, then the result would be a catch. THEN.... Mouthy Douchebag dez bryant acting all douchy and happy.... and homey no longer smiling so much. Let's just copy paste this in perpetuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 IMO it was a catch even under the rules as written. I understand that having to maintain possession through contact with the ground is a requirement where all of the action is in the process of catching the ball. Maintaining possession in such cases is really confirmation of possession and therefore of the completion. Bryant took two steps (if not three) while fully in control of the ball - the process was complete at that point. And, in any event, he then did something that he and virtually every skill position player on offence in the league does - having possession he reached for the goal line. That is a football move that we witness a thousand times in a season and it confirms the completion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 While reaching for the goal line, and in the process of going to the ground, he fumbled the ball.. still can't see why you can't comprehend this. the rule doesn't say "in the process of falling to the ground like a stone" His football move, in less than a second, ended with a fumble. Incomplete pass. Dez crying like a beeeotch... homey smiling like a simpleton.... blah, blah, frickin blah. He went up in the air, slightly bobbled the ball, got 2 feet down, and seemed to have secured the ball briefly while going to the ground. As his knee hit the ground, he was simultaneously reaching for the goal line, slamming his body to the ground, where the actual ground caused the bobble. The real confusion here for most people is that the element of the ground causing the ball to pop loose. If he landed on his back, and the ball jostled in his hands, but never touches the ground, WHILE staying in the field of play, then the result would be a catch. THEN.... Mouthy Douchebag dez bryant acting all douchy and happy.... and homey no longer smiling so much. Watch the play in real time, it happens in just over a second. If I could find it, there was a "non-Catch" call against Scott Chandler where he seemingly caught the ball, turned to run, and had the ball knocked loose. Incomplete pass. and Scott probably had it a full second longer that bryant. The definition of football move is anything a player does while securing the ball, trying to advance the ball, or any move as part of the next motion after it comes into contact with the player. Dez's football move? trying to advance the ball while falling to the ground. This should cement the debate... but i'm sure it won't. Same exact play happens with 2 different scenarios: A) The Ball crosses the goal line and then Dez hits the ground. Are they reviewing the catch or are they reviewing if his knee was down before the ball crossed. B) The ball hits the pylon and comes out instead of the .5 yard line. Does that count as ground causing the ball movement? While reaching for the goal line, and in the process of going to the ground, he fumbled the ball.. still can't see why you can't comprehend this. the rule doesn't say "in the process of falling to the ground like a stone" His football move, in less than a second, ended with a fumble. Incomplete pass. Dez crying like a beeeotch... homey smiling like a simpleton.... blah, blah, frickin blah. He went up in the air, slightly bobbled the ball, got 2 feet down, and seemed to have secured the ball briefly while going to the ground. As his knee hit the ground, he was simultaneously reaching for the goal line, slamming his body to the ground, where the actual ground caused the bobble. The real confusion here for most people is that the element of the ground causing the ball to pop loose. If he landed on his back, and the ball jostled in his hands, but never touches the ground, WHILE staying in the field of play, then the result would be a catch. THEN.... Mouthy Douchebag dez bryant acting all douchy and happy.... and homey no longer smiling so much. Watch the play in real time, it happens in just over a second. If I could find it, there was a "non-Catch" call against Scott Chandler where he seemingly caught the ball, turned to run, and had the ball knocked loose. Incomplete pass. and Scott probably had it a full second longer that bryant. The definition of football move is anything a player does while securing the ball, trying to advance the ball, or any move as part of the next motion after it comes into contact with the player. Dez's football move? trying to advance the ball while falling to the ground. This should cement the debate... but i'm sure it won't. If he is reaching for teh goal line with the ball. Wouldn't that signify possession? The only time he "Fumbles the ball" is at the top point of the catch. I could take your argument a little more seriously if i didnt seem like you have a little bit of an agenda with calling Dez a whiny biotch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Same exact play happens with 2 different scenarios: A) The Ball crosses the goal line and then Dez hits the ground. Are they reviewing the catch or are they reviewing if his knee was down before the ball crossed. B) The ball hits the pylon and comes out instead of the .5 yard line. Does that count as ground causing the ball movement? If he is reaching for teh goal line with the ball. Wouldn't that signify possession? The only time he "Fumbles the ball" is at the top point of the catch. I could take your argument a little more seriously if i didnt seem like you have a little bit of an agenda with calling Dez a whiny biotch. Play doesn't change if he crosses the goal line. As the fall was deemed part of the "process of the catch," it's not a catch until he lands and the ball--without touching the ground*--stays in his possession. They determined, during the replay, the fall was part of the catch and that the ground jarred it loose. The falling being part of the process trumps all of this because the catch is not completed until the fall is. Therefore, no football move can be made. This makes perfect sense to me, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Play doesn't change if he crosses the goal line. As the fall was deemed part of the "process of the catch," it's not a catch until he lands and the ball--without touching the ground*--stays in his possession. They determined, during the replay, the fall was part of the catch and that the ground jarred it loose. The falling being part of the process trumps all of this because the catch is not completed until the fall is. Therefore, no football move can be made. This makes perfect sense to me, unfortunately. right - to establish possession you have to hold it through the fall. until its completed, there is no catch anywhere on the field, endzone included. in a sense, many of you are too hung up on finding the instant its controlled to realize it doesnt matter until the fall is done and its still under control. possession isnt simply getting his hands on the ball for an instant Edited January 12, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homey D. Clown Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Same exact play happens with 2 different scenarios: A) The Ball crosses the goal line and then Dez hits the ground. Are they reviewing the catch or are they reviewing if his knee was down before the ball crossed. B) The ball hits the pylon and comes out instead of the .5 yard line. Does that count as ground causing the ball movement? If he is reaching for teh goal line with the ball. Wouldn't that signify possession? The only time he "Fumbles the ball" is at the top point of the catch. I could take your argument a little more seriously if i didnt seem like you have a little bit of an agenda with calling Dez a whiny biotch. I don't like Dez Bryant. I am taking liberties in this case... like if it were tom brady whining like a beeotch... I am enjoying myself. while you, on the other-hand are trying to create scenarios and blurring lines that are as clearly defined as a jet liner's runway. I'm not poking fun at you, or engaging you with any intention of malice, I just think you're trying to debate something that's very clearly not debatable. If you really want to debate something that cannot be scientifically defined, then start a thread about what causes the sky to appear blue? is it the ocean, or is the ocean blue because of the sky. This one is so cut and dry it's mind numbing that you don't get it. I explain it, you seem to come back with an incomprehensible reply, as if what makes sense just doesn't seem to sink in. I can't explain other scenarios, just what douche.... err.... dez did. that was the original post was about... not if a chicken was crossing the road in guam while simultaneously laying an egg when the moon was in full phase that just passed over the island of Madagascar. I'll do this one more time. 1. ball in air hits bryant's hands while he is in top jump 2. he bobbles it, then briefly secures it, while extending to the goal line as he hits the ground. 3. Ground causes the ball to pop loose. Incomplete pass.... dez whiney... homey... yada, yada, yada... If IM me your email address, i'll open up MS Visio and make you a nice flow chart. P.S. I don't like the cowboys P.P.S. I don't like Dez P.P.P.S. I don't like Jerruh Jones either. P.P.P.P.S. I will almost always make comments that illustrate previous Post Scripts as listed in this segment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts