News: ESPN: How the Dez Bryant no-catch call changed the NFL forever

[ghst187]

The catch was fully completed well before he went to the ground. Him falling down was NOT part of him completing the catch. He would’ve been in the end zone standing up but the defender tripped him up. Face it, you can argue about the rule all day long but it was a garbage call, a faulty interpretation of the play as it transpired, and then an inappropriate application of a bad rule. He caught with or without the rule.

 

[lurkercowboy]

That play vs DET was not PI on Dallas, the back angle (which they only showed once) clearly showed Pettigrew(?) reaching out and grabbing the trailing defenders face mask before the defenders made any contact.

And the pass hit the defenders back. Uncatchable regardless of any contact.

 

[buybuydandavis]

I posted the indisputable evidence above.

Three steps, a dive, a hand planted, and the arm with the ball stretched toward the goal line count as *multiple* "football moves" prior to the ball coming loose.
The ground doesn't negate a *completed* catch. It's not "well, if an hour later he falls down and the ball comes loose, the catch never happened."
Possession and multiple football moves before the ball came loose. Catch completed. Ground cannot cause a fumble. Should have been down at the 1.
Whether the catch was completed or not is a *judgment* call on possession and football moves made *prior* to the ball coming loose on contract with the ground.
One could falsely *characterize* Dez's 3 steps, hand planted, and reaching forward with the ball toward the goal line as "just falling down", with not a single "football move" among them. But that *characterization* is not visual evidence, but an interpretation of visual evidence. A judgment call. Multiple incorrect judgment calls.
It is simply flat out *wrong* to assert that such a *characterization* can amount to *indisputable visual evidence*, the standard required to overturn the call on the field of a completed pass.
And "indisputable* is of course proven to be simply absurd of it even just as a *characterization* as we still dispute this almost 10 years later.

 

[terra]

Its noticeable who gets butt hurt about this idiotic call trying to defend it

As I said, anyone that knows football knows that was a catch. All the excuse makers in the world does not change that.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Umm...yes. And Dez didn't have control of it which is why his pass was ruled incomplete. Why? Because by rule he needed to "maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground." He did not "maintain" control "throughout the process of contacting the ground." The difference in other plays being called catches is they "maintained" control. The ball can touch the ground, it can't come loose. Dez let it. Incomplete.



Except this big ol' still picture of the video that showed the ball almost flat on the ground. Unless Dez had some funky skin that allowed a flap to unfold and was under the ball in this picture it clearly shows the ball on the ground halfly if not mostly. Ball pops up off the ground, possession is lost and then regained. Incomplete.

What do "maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground" mean? It means the ball never leaves your grip. It did. Further, it hit the ground to pop it up out of his control before being repossessed. By the literal wording of the rules it is incomplete.

But again, show me the exposé from a major media outlet that shows the NFL applied its own rules wrong. This play was pretty popular in its day. Surely it exists, right? I mean, as much as a bunch of Cowboys fans with vested interest in the play being ruled a catch can be trusted, a little support for the argument wouldn't hurt, would it? So where is it?

Dude. A player can lose control of the ball while going to the ground (he can completely lose the grip of the ball), the ball can bounce on another player, and bounce back to him while he is laying on the ground and he can catch it and it WILL BE RULED a possession. The point has never been about the losing grip on the ball or it just touching the ground. It has always been about maintaining control THROUGH the process of going to the ground.

You are completely missing the point.

You must he an official or something, rationalizing meanings that don’t even exist in the phrases. The NFL is a monopoly. There is no independent arbiter for rule interpretation. They will never admit to their mistake when they see fit and no one will hold them accountable, outside of the law getting involved.

 

[buybuydandavis]

The catch was fully completed well before he went to the ground.

This.

The obsessing over images of the ball and the ground is a red herring. The catch was already completed.

 

[mattjames2010]

falling down isn't a step

You can't make a football move unless you have possession. The reach for the goal line was a football move.

It was a bad ruling even before the rule change.

 

[MarcusRock]

Three steps, a dive, a hand planted, and the arm with the ball stretched toward the goal line count as *multiple* "football moves" prior to the ball coming loose.
The ground doesn't negate a *completed* catch. It's not "well, if an hour later he falls down and the ball comes loose, the catch never happened."
Possession and multiple football moves before the ball came loose. Catch completed. Ground cannot cause a fumble. Should have been down at the 1.
Whether the catch was completed or not is a *judgment* call on possession and football moves made *prior* to the ball coming loose on contract with the ground.
One could falsely *characterize* Dez's 3 steps, hand planted, and reaching forward with the ball toward the goal line as "just falling down", with not a single "football move" among them. But that *characterization* is not visual evidence, but an interpretation of visual evidence. A judgment call. Multiple incorrect judgment calls.
It is simply flat out *wrong* to assert that such a *characterization* can amount to *indisputable visual evidence*, the standard required to overturn the call on the field of a completed pass.
And "indisputable* is of course proven to be simply absurd of it even just as a *characterization* as we still dispute this almost 10 years later.

I keep telling y'all and people just refuse to see it for obvious reasons. None of what you mention was a football move when you are labeled as going to the ground. Not 3 or more steps, not a hand plant, not an "arm stretch." The *only* move outlined in the rules then was that you could flat out lunge forward for the line of gain. Did not happen for Dez' as his 3rd foot slipped when he tried. That's why you mention "arm" and not a classic lunge with the ball stretched out. A lunge shows you're under control and not just falling. You're not under control when you're slipping as you continue to fall. So you can wave to your momma in the stands, kick your feet out, or anything besides a lunge and it matters not. Once you get the GTTG tag, you simply can't have the ball hit the ground and have the ball come out of your possession. So replay only needed to see the ball on the ground as I showed you in the still pic and the fact that Dez lost control of the ball after that. Easy to call. As Mike Pereira said with all those other things people try to call football moves, going to the ground takes precedence over all that. That precedence is what changed about the rule when they revised it. Back then, no.

This.

The obsessing over images of the ball and the ground is a red herring. The catch was already completed.

Except for the rule in black and white that says the ball CAN'T touch the ground and possession lost. But other than that ....

 

[Creeper]

That water is under the bridge and way out into the ocean by now, sucked up by a camel on the other sides of the world.

But I thought it was a catch by the rule then and it is certainly a catch now. Dez caught the ball, took a few steps to the goal line and lost the ball when he reached out which is a football move. The refs on the field got it right. The replay refs lost their minds and ruled it incomplete. What confused the refs was the concept of "completing the process". That rule did not take into account the complicated catch, leap, trip, reach and all the other motion on that play. It should have been ruled complete.

 

[MarcusRock]

Dude. A player can lose control of the ball while going to the ground (he can completely lose the grip of the ball), the ball can bounce on another player, and bounce back to him while he is laying on the ground and he can catch it and it WILL BE RULED a possession. The point has never been about the losing grip on the ball or it just touching the ground. It has always been about maintaining control THROUGH the process of going to the ground.

You are completely missing the point.

You must he an official or something, rationalizing meanings that don’t even exist in the phrases. The NFL is a monopoly. There is no independent arbiter for rule interpretation. They will never admit to their mistake when they see fit and no one will hold them accountable, outside of the law getting involved.

Except the ball can't touch the ground first. If Dez kept the ball off the ground, he could have bobbled it 10 times as long as he regained possession eventually and it would have been a catch. But when you don't survive the ground, the ball touches, and you lose grip, the rule said then it's not a catch. And it's maintaining control of the ball "throughout the process of contacting the ground," not simply "going to the ground" as you're saying now. Throughout, as in the event of contacting the ground and thereafter. The thereafter is, the ball came loose. No catch per the rules. I'm well-versed in "the point," which is people trying to legislate out of a call they know was the correct call to play victim to soften the blow of a tough loss.

Again, 3rd time asking. Where are the articles that say the NFL misapplied its own rules? Where? They can't get around their pre-published rules and then ignore them. Where's the gotcha articles?

 

[T-RO]

Power and money buys **everything** in America. Everything, including the sports world.

Influencers, and "self-purported experts" come easy.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Except the ball can't touch the ground first. If Dez kept the ball off the ground, he could have bobbled it 10 times as long as he regained possession eventually and it would have been a catch. But when you don't survive the ground, the ball touches, and you lose grip, the rule said then it's not a catch. And it's maintaining control of the ball "throughout the process of contacting the ground," not simply "going to the ground" as you're saying now. Throughout, as in the event of contacting the ground and thereafter. The thereafter is, the ball came loose. No catch per the rules. I'm well-versed in "the point," which is people trying to legislate out of a call they know was the correct call to play victim to soften the blow of a tough loss.

Again, 3rd time asking. Where are the articles that say the NFL misapplied its own rules? Where? They can't get around their pre-published rules and then ignore them. Where's the gotcha articles?

Again, repeating the same thing after I already answered everything.

You can’t even read correctly. It says the player must maintain control of the ball through the process of contacting the ground. THE PLAYER is the subject of the sentence referred to as the one going through the process of contacting the ground. It’s in the rule I quoted in my first response.

 

[Jarv]

Except the ball can't touch the ground first. If Dez kept the ball off the ground, he could have bobbled it 10 times as long as he regained possession eventually and it would have been a catch. But when you don't survive the ground, the ball touches, and you lose grip, the rule said then it's not a catch. And it's maintaining control of the ball "throughout the process of contacting the ground," not simply "going to the ground" as you're saying now. Throughout, as in the event of contacting the ground and thereafter. The thereafter is, the ball came loose. No catch per the rules. I'm well-versed in "the point," which is people trying to legislate out of a call they know was the correct call to play victim to soften the blow of a tough loss.

Again, 3rd time asking. Where are the articles that say the NFL misapplied its own rules? Where? They can't get around their pre-published rules and then ignore them. Where's the gotcha articles?

Nice post, except you're wrong...

A few years later, we can finally say “Dez caught it.” The NFL competition committee said the infamously overturned catch from the January 2015 NFC divisional round playoff game at Green Bay should have been ruled a complete catch, ESPN reported on Tuesday.Feb 27, 2018

 

[terra]

Nice post, except you're wrong...

A few years later, we can finally say “Dez caught it.” The NFL competition committee said the infamously overturned catch from the January 2015 NFC divisional round playoff game at Green Bay should have been ruled a complete catch, ESPN reported on Tuesday.Feb 27, 2018

don't bother; he will never admit he is wrong.

The whole mess with that play is a microcosm of what is wrong with Pro Football today. Idiotic tweaking of rules that should be left alone; competition committee that frankly needs to be deep sixed and never brought back; and overall a bunch of morons running the NFL that I would not hire to run a convenience store.

 

[JW82]

Rodgers was moving the ball at will at that stage in game. They were going to give him way to much time had Dez scored. The smart play was to hit a wide open Beasley and get the first down and milk more clock. With all that said, it was a catch. His hand was under the ball when it popped up.

 

[MarcusRock]

Again, repeating the same thing after I already answered everything.

You can’t even read correctly. It says the player must maintain control of the ball through the process of contacting the ground. THE PLAYER is the subject of the sentence referred to as the one going through the process of contacting the ground. It’s in the rule I quoted in my first response.

"... throughout the process of contacting the ground." The act AND the aftermath. Ball can't touch the ground. Ball can't come loose. It did. No amount of wordsmithing gets around this.

4th time asking. Where are the articles that show the NFL didn't apply their own rules correctly?

 

[MarcusRock]

Nice post, except you're wrong...

A few years later, we can finally say “Dez caught it.” The NFL competition committee said the infamously overturned catch from the January 2015 NFC divisional round playoff game at Green Bay should have been ruled a complete catch, ESPN reported on Tuesday.Feb 27, 2018

Speaking of wrong, you're quoting an article YEARS after the play speaking of the rule change that made plays like Dez' NOW a catch, not that it was a catch by the rules at the time the play happened in 2014. There was a whole thread of emotional banshees on here that didn't understand this when the rule got changed. Fun times, lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

That water is under the bridge and way out into the ocean by now, sucked up by a camel on the other sides of the world.

But I thought it was a catch by the rule then and it is certainly a catch now. Dez caught the ball, took a few steps to the goal line and lost the ball when he reached out which is a football move. The refs on the field got it right. The replay refs lost their minds and ruled it incomplete. What confused the refs was the concept of "completing the process". That rule did not take into account the complicated catch, leap, trip, reach and all the other motion on that play. It should have been ruled complete.

The rule took everything into account. The issue is that when you were determined to be going to the ground in 2014, all those "motions" you talk about are overruled and surviving the ground is the ONLY thing that gets looked at. The only thing that could get a player out of a going to the ground tag by the rules is a properly executed lunge. Dez tried but his 3rd step was a slip and didn't allow him to push off. There was intention but not execution. Therefore, it was just another "motion" overruled by surviving the ground.

The rule change now allows some of these motions to be performed on the way to the ground including a 3rd step. That's why NOW it would be a catch but not then.

 

[Hardline]

The DeMarco Murray strip fumble in the open field with nothing but daylight in front of him haunts me more. That was a guaranteed TD.

Dez didn't make that catch. He thought it was more important to make an ESPN highlight video than to secure the ball to his chest and then line up for the next play with a 1st and goal and a chance to eat up more clock or force the Packers to burn time outs.

 

[Pass2Run]

It was a catch. Anyone who has ever played the game knew it was a catch. Dez took THREE STEPS. He clearly had control of the ball by reaching for the end zone.

By the way football had always been played at all levels of the game THAT WAS A CATCH.

and those that say it would not have mattered truly are blind deaf and dumb- BECAUSE IT DID MATTER.

WE WERE CHEATED OUT OF A CHANCE. Simple as that.

100%.

This is all you have to say right here. And it's on the money.

It was a catch.