Explain to me how that wasn't a 'football move' **Bryant Reversed Call Thread**

[loublue22]

go the the 2:40 mark and tell me the diffrence

wow, almost exactly the same

 

[cajuncocoa]

go the the 2:40 mark and tell me the diffrence

The difference is, the Giants game wasn't played one week after the NFL was under fire for picking up a flag on a (questionable) PI call, and TMZ ran a photo of the NFL's VP of Officiating exiting Jerry's party bus.

 

[Nightman]

I think the problem I have with the rule is the "going to the ground" part. Dez leaps like 3 feet into the air to out jump the defender and is contacted in the air and kind of loses his balance as he comes down. This is a lot different than laying out or diving for a ball. The fact that he was able to take a few steps before going down makes it a catch IMO.

Just think the famous Butch Johnson Super Bowl catch would be overturned today

 

[percyhoward]

go the the 2:40 mark and tell me the difference

Great post. I think this is the alleged difference: In your video, he went down because he was tackled, so since falling down wasn't part of making the catch, he didn't have to maintain control "through the process." The process of the catch had already been completed before the tackle. In Green Bay, he allegedly went down on his own, so since falling down was part of making the catch, he had to maintain control through the process.

I say "allegedly" went down on his own, because I don't believe that's what really happened. I think he was tripped. So I don't see a meaningful difference between the two plays. In your video, he catches the ball, gets two feet down, then he's contacted, takes two more steps and goes down while reaching for the goal line, ball comes out. In Green Bay, he catches the ball, gets two feet down, then he's contacted, takes one more step and goes down while reaching for the goal line, ball comes out.

So, one step.

 

[Nightman]

Great post. I think this is the alleged difference: In your video, he went down because he was tackled, so since falling down wasn't part of making the catch, he didn't have to maintain control "through the process." The process of the catch had already been completed before the tackle. In Green Bay, he allegedly went down on his own, so since falling down was part of making the catch, he had to maintain control through the process.

I say "allegedly" went down on his own, because I don't believe that's what really happened. I think he was tripped. So I don't see a meaningful difference between the two plays. In your video, he catches the ball, gets two feet down, then he's contacted, takes two more steps and goes down while reaching for the goal line, ball comes out. In Green Bay, he catches the ball, gets two feet down, then he's contacted, takes one more step and goes down while reaching for the goal line, ball comes out.

So, one step.

I agree. I don't think Dez goes down at all if he isn't tripped by Shields. That is a big distinction from going to the ground to complete the catch. If the WR is tackled or knocked to the ground by the defender and has possession at that point, it should be down by contact the instant he hits the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

I agree. I don't think Dez goes down at all if he isn't tripped by Shields. That is a big distinction from going to the ground to complete the catch. If the WR is tackled or knocked to the ground by the defender and has possession at that point, it should be down by contact the instant he hits the ground.

Especially if that's how it's ruled on the field.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Here's the rule:

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the NFL Rule Book defines a catch:



A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

(a) Check.
(b) Check.
(c) He was clearly attempting to advance with it. Check.

Here is the problem.

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 reads:

"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."

While Dez took steps, he did so while going to the ground. (he was never not going to hit the ground after going up for the ball) So, the "steps he took" were not even in play because he was still going to the ground. He lost control of the ball when he (and the ball) hit the ground.

The rules state that the ground cannot cause a fumble. That rule is also not in affect because you must first have possession before you can fumble, but the rules state (listed above) that he never actually had possession because he didn't maintain control of the ball while hitting the ground.

So, there was no catch.

 

[cowboys2233]

Here is the problem.



While Dez took steps, he did so while going to the ground. (he was never not going to hit the ground after going up for the ball) So, the "steps he took" were not even in play because he was still going to the ground. He lost control of the ball when he (and the ball) hit the ground.

The rules state that the ground cannot cause a fumble. That rule is also not in affect because you must first have possession before you can fumble, but the rules state (listed above) that he never actually had possession because he didn't maintain control of the ball while hitting the ground.

So, there was no catch.

It's amazing how we can break this thing apart and determine there was no catch. Let's face it, there WAS a catch, the camera clearly showed the ball grasped firmly in his hands right before hitting the ground. It took an external force to knock it loose. That is the real definition of possession, not this idiocy about whether one has maintained control after hitting the ground. Think about it - you could walk up to someone in the office this morning, knock the cup of coffee out of their hand and claim they weren't truly "holding" the cup of coffee because they weren't able to maintain control after you hit it. It's moronic.

 

[Cebrin]

This is a hundred times.worse than that subjective.pass interfweence call from.last week and an even worse job at interpreting the rule and.using.common sense for a football move

Yup. Clearly a football move. The narrative I've heard is that they believe it wasn't a football move because he was just falling the whole time. I don't see how anyone thinks this. You can clearly see he would have ran it in if not for his second step being tripped up by the CB. The third step was a lunge forward and ball stretched for the score. Horrible turnover, especially since it was such a crucial play and should have been inconclusive.

 

[Brooksey]

Here is the problem.

While Dez took steps, he did so while going to the ground. (he was never not going to hit the ground after going up for the ball) So, the "steps he took" were not even in play because he was still going to the ground. He lost control of the ball when he (and the ball) hit the ground.

The rules state that the ground cannot cause a fumble. That rule is also not in affect because you must first have possession before you can fumble, but the rules state (listed above) that he never actually had possession because he didn't maintain control of the ball while hitting the ground.

So, there was no catch.

He took two steps then was tackled/tripped. It's inconclusive that we was falling down without that contact which means the ruling on the field should stand. Secondly he makes a football move when he reaches for the plane which negates the falling to the ground rule. He is now a runner who is down by contact as the ground can't cause the fumble.

It's inconclusive that he did not make a football move, when you see the left arm reach out for the plane of the end zone and its called down by contact on the field you can't over turn it. They did not have 100% or indisputable evidence that Dez was not reaching for the goal line.

The ruling on the field should stand. The ruling on the field was the correct one, he was down by contact at the one.

 

[Cebrin]

Here is the problem.



While Dez took steps, he did so while going to the ground. (he was never not going to hit the ground after going up for the ball) So, the "steps he took" were not even in play because he was still going to the ground. He lost control of the ball when he (and the ball) hit the ground.

The rules state that the ground cannot cause a fumble. That rule is also not in affect because you must first have possession before you can fumble, but the rules state (listed above) that he never actually had possession because he didn't maintain control of the ball while hitting the ground.

So, there was no catch.

His first step looked well grounded to me, it wasn't until the second step that he was tripped by the player at which point his third was a lunge at the end zone. He wasn't falling until he was tripped. That being said, if two feet are require in bounds for the catch, then his second foot became the starting point of securing the catch at which point he was tripped and falling so, yeah you're right. It's a ticky tacky call. Stupid rule, as we can all see, Dez had the football. He caught that ball. The rules screwed him out of it. Should have been inconclusive.

 

[Cebrin]

He took two steps then was tackled/tripped. It's inconclusive that we was falling down without that contact which means the ruling on the field should stand. Secondly he makes a football move when he reaches for the plane which negates the falling to the ground rule. He is now a runner who is down by contact as the ground can't cause the fumble.

It's inconclusive that he did not make a football move, when you see the left arm reach out for the plane of the end zone and its called down by contact on the field you can't over turn it. They did not have 100% or indisputable evidence that Dez was not reaching for the goal line.

The ruling on the field should stand. The ruling on the field was the correct one, he was down by contact at the one.

That's a fair argument and I agree, they should have stuck with what they called.

 

[djmajestik]

That's the view I think that makes it clear the ball does touch. The ball is bigger than his forearm/wrist, and his arm was more to the side than under.

ANd if both of you see it different how can that be clear and indisputable evidence to overturn??

 

[Doomsday101]

I have no doubt in my mind that should have been a catch. I can't sit here and say we will the game had the call gone our way after all the TD would only put the Cowboys up by 2 with about 5 min left in the game. I hate to see it end this way.

 

[djmajestik]

exactly, it's like the poster call for "the play stands as called"

the more I look at replays the angrier I get, and like I said, we are getting almost no support from anyone for this

Mike and Mike agreed it was a catch this morning, and Emmitt of course agreed as well. Although they talked about a LOT of other things before getting to that. AND when it was the call last week, that's about all they talked about on their segment on my drive in.

 

[BigWillie]

Video of Dean Blandino explaining why it wasn't a catch.

In this video, he specifically addresses a 'football move', and states that if Dez had reached out with both hands, that would have been considered a football move to the officials.

It's not about falling to the ground. It's not about losing the ball at the end of the catch. This scumbag is trying to justify overturning a catch because Dez lunged for the goal line with 1 hand instead of 2.

The difference in a catch vs no catch, according to the VP of officiating, is a lunge with 2 hands vs 1. Un-freakin'-real.

I swear, the more I hear the league attempt to justify this ruling, the more PO'd I get.

 

[Everson24]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-nfl-official-highlights-biggest-221615494.html

According to this article, Perrira admits that Dez stretched out for the end zone, but he didn't stretch out enough to make a football move. If this is the case, overturning it because how far he stretched out, we were robbed by the stupidest rule out there.

This is why I am going nuts. They ref on the field thought he did indeed make a football move (as many others on tv thought so too) but a replay ref in NY of all places said he didn't make a football move. I thought replay was only to be used for conclusive evidence not subjective evidence.That is why I'm having a problem with it. The ref on the field right on the play got it right in his judgement and another (potentially biased) ref in NY saw it differently. The call on the field should have stood.

 

[Brooksey]

The rule doesn't state you need two hands to make a football move. He made a football move when he lunged and stretched his hand/ball to the goal line.

The ruling on the field is the major call, they need indisputable evidence that he did not make a football move to overturn it and they don't have that.

They made a very poor emotional judgement call.

 

[The_Boyz_Rock]

I'm beyond PO'ed but in slowly getting over it. Now I just really feel bad for Dez. Perhaps the Cowboys play of the year taken away from him.
No one ever said life is fair.

 

[shmee]

This is why I am going nuts. They ref on the field thought he did indeed make a football move (as many others on tv thought so too) but a replay ref in NY of all places said he didn't make a football move. I thought replay was only to be used for conclusive evidence not subjective evidence.That is why I'm having a problem with it. The ref on the field right on the play got it right in his judgement and another (potentially biased) ref in NY saw it differently. The call on the field should have stood.

And they will cover thier butts and not admit that they screwed up by saying that in their judgment, he didn't stretch out enough or he needed 2 hands to reach, regardless, it was thier judgment. Wipe their hands clean and move on. It sucks.