DMN: NFL VP of Officiating: It’s not unreasonable to watch everything Dez did and think

[cowboyblue22]

this rule as written and used is vague and leaves to much leeway for each officials interpretation just another way for the nfl to change a game to get the results they want.

 

[DejectedFan1996]

What really pissed me off was when he kept saying don't look at the play in slow motion you have to look at it in real time speed. I still don't understand that Bs? I watched it in both speeds and to me Dez caught the ball was contacted and went down at the 1 yard line.

Which is silly because that's why instant replay exists; for you to look at it in slow motion. They don't go to the booth to look at it in regular speed

 

[SultanOfSix]

Ah, invert the dialectic. Thanks for telling us that feeling cognitive dissonance is "not unreasonable."

There's a reason intellectually capable human beings feel it was a catch: because it was. The ability to transcend subjectivity and grasp the objective is a God-gifted human capability. You don't need an interpretation of bunch of superfluous rules that add nothing to the fact of a catch to understand what can be clearly seen.

 

[Seven]

Was the ruling on the field a catch? Yes.
Was there indisputable evidence to overturn the ruling on the field? No.
Did Dez make a football move common to the game? Yes.

I believe the league screwed up on this one. With about 4 mins left and the ball at the one yard, 1st and goal, this would have been set up for a classic finish.

The ruling on the field was a catch by the ref standing right there. Then they reviewed and the call, second call was that he didn't have possession. Then when it was clearly shown Dez HAD possession this moron starts spewing a non-football move.

So the first thing he says in the article is that they want consistency?
They can't even be consistent in a single game. ........

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Contact - when their legs touched.

Going to the ground and maintaining the control of the ball.

The ball evidently moved when it rolled over the top of his hand after contacting the ground.

His third step was in the motiuon of falling. His intent didn't matter. That is what you and all the people supporting the play as a catch are using to hold up it was a catch. But his falli


So, let me see if I have this right. You are defending your opinion on this event. Yet you ask me if I have ever been wrong?

How am I doing anything different from you. Other than watching the video, and seeing the contact is construed as what sent him forward and to the ground. Which then makes his "football move" moot and the control issue with catching a ball is in play.

The ball then rolled over his hand after contact with the ground, which means it moved. That makes it not a catch. Period.

Yet you ask me in a condescending way if I have ever been wrong. So I'll ask you this.

Have you ever read my signature before?

And this.

When you have been wrong on this board, and you have because you are human, have you ever self imposed a sig that points it out?

As I stated in my initial post in this thread, I have wrestled with this all off season. But I have watched that video over and over and read a great deal about the decision and come to the conclusion the way the rule is written is how the rule was applied.

The people who suggest there was no evidence to overturn the call ignore the most damning piece of evidence, which was the ball rolling over the top of his hand after contact with the ground.

Which clearly meets the most basic criteria in the rule of a non-catch. The ball moved after contact with the ground. That rule is enforced every day when they play games in this league.

I don't like it. But I am not as jaded as to ignore the truth in how the rule is applied.

Should they change the rule? I think so. It is far too arbitrary and leave too much to interpretation.

But to recap, once contact had been made, and he went to the ground, he had to maintain control and the ball not move from his hand.

It did move and that is not a catch.

I said read me the process of a catch in the NFL rule book.

Unless I'm forgetting I don't remember the contact when their legs touch provision.

 

[nathanlt]

This is math. Plain and simple.

If they agree he was falling, then he needed to maintain control. 2+2=4.

If he lost control, then they overturn. Again, 2=2=4.

.

You picked a great time for a typo. Every reciever loses control of the ball at some point. THEY HAND IT TO THE REF. Otherwise, they would have thousands of footballs stuck to their arms. So how long do they have to hold onto the ball?

What constitutes contacting the ground?? What is enough contact with the ground? Think!!

 

[locked&loaded]

In the NFL, this is a catch
and this is not

 

[JDSmith]

For me it's simple. Dez caught the ball and had it in two hands, he could have gone down exactly like that and it would have been ruled a catch. Instead he switched it to his dominant hand and tried to extend for the endzone, as a result the ball was bobbled on contact with the ground. But switching it to his dominant hand and extended were football moves, and so it should have been a catch at that point - everything else is window dressing.

We didn't get the ruling for one reason and one reason only - the human factor. Specifically the fact that public perception was that we were gifted the Lions game. The league could not possibly rule in our favor in any way that could be disputed or discussed. And since the Megatron rule is named after a freaking Lions player there is no way they were giving that call to us - right or wrong - simply because it was open to debate. Had they ruled it a catch all 265 Lions fans would be crying all over the internet. But more importantly every Cowboys hater would be using that as 'proof' that the league favors the Cowboys and a poor team like the Lions can't get the same kind of treatment. Look at how many people ignored the foul by the Lions' player on the non-interference play, simply to have an excuse to cry about preferential treatment for the Cowboys. Is there anyone who honestly thinks the league didn't notice that uproar all week? So they ruled against us because it was close and would have created controversy either way.

Blandino will never admit that, so he's going to continue to go on shows and pretend it had nothing to do with it. But the league cares about public perception more than anything. The public perception leading up to that game was that the Cowboys were getting favors by the officials, so we got screwed to make it appear otherwise.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I said read me the process of a catch in the NFL rule book.

Unless I'm forgetting I don't remember the contact when their legs touch provision.

So you have NEVER heard of contact which precedes a ball carrier (WR after the catch)

You picked a great time for a typo. Every reciever loses control of the ball at some point. THEY HAND IT TO THE REF. Otherwise, they would have thousands of footballs stuck to their arms. So how long do they have to hold onto the ball?

What constitutes contacting the ground?? What is enough contact with the ground? Think!!

So should I run a football 101 class for all those arguing semantics and minutia?

You people are arguing to argue now. You know exactly what the rule is for contact as a player is falling. Meaningful or inadvertent.

If their legs touch on his second step, and that is exactly what it shows in the video, then he lunges forward, using a third step, he is still viewed as having been touched and going to the ground.

That puts in place the rule of control.

All these other what ifs and such are fans arguing in favor of their team.

I wanted it to be a catch. I have argued for it being a catch. But after an off season of reviewing the damn pass every now and then, I have come to the conclusion the overrule was right.

Just like I believe there was inadvertent contact by the DB with the pass receiver in the Lion game, precipatated by the receiver holding the jersey of the Dallas player. Overruling and picking up that flag was as close to right as you can get. Because they would not call PI on the offensive player at that point.

In context of the rules of the game, the call of no catch was the correct call.

You folks may now argue with yourselves.

 

[AmericasTeam81]

For me it's simple. Dez caught the ball and had it in two hands, he could have gone down exactly like that and it would have been ruled a catch. Instead he switched it to his dominant hand and tried to extend for the endzone, as a result the ball was bobbled on contact with the ground. But switching it to his dominant hand and extended were football moves, and so it should have been a catch at that point - everything else is window dressing.

We didn't get the ruling for one reason and one reason only - the human factor. Specifically the fact that public perception was that we were gifted the Lions game. The league could not possibly rule in our favor in any way that could be disputed or discussed. And since the Megatron rule is named after a freaking Lions player there is no way they were giving that call to us - right or wrong - simply because it was open to debate. Had they ruled it a catch all 265 Lions fans would be crying all over the internet. But more importantly every Cowboys hater would be using that as 'proof' that the league favors the Cowboys and a poor team like the Lions can't get the same kind of treatment. Look at how many people ignored the foul by the Lions' player on the non-interference play, simply to have an excuse to cry about preferential treatment for the Cowboys. Is there anyone who honestly thinks the league didn't notice that uproar all week? So they ruled against us because it was close and would have created controversy either way.

Blandino will never admit that, so he's going to continue to go on shows and pretend it had nothing to do with it. But the league cares about public perception more than anything. The public perception leading up to that game was that the Cowboys were getting favors by the officials, so we got screwed to make it appear otherwise.

LMAO at "all 265 Lions fans"

 

[Sportsbabe]

"Getting cute" is when a player showboats. I don't consider stretching for the goal line as you're being brought to the ground "getting cute."

Yes...what some consider "getting cute" I consider laying your body on the line for the team; or giving it all he had; or leaving it all on the field. Or...in a word....BALLIN'!!

 

[Sportsbabe]

No, reaching to take the lead is the best football move to make. You can't honestly expect someone to stop and think in the middle of the play if the refs are going to screw up the rules, can you? You have the ball secured, you have your feet down, you absolutely try and reach the end zone if there is nobody standing in the way that can knock the ball out (for a fumble, because obviously it was already a catch).

Oh yeah, that's right...secure the ball so we could give it to DeMarco to fumble on the next play. Dez is not that brilliant

 

[Tenkamenin]

Oh yeah, that's right...secure the ball so we could give it to DeMarco to fumble on the next play. Dez is not that brilliant

Agreed, players who don't go the extra mile to advance his offense are the same players who will be stopped by an inch on 4th and 1.

 

[KJJ]

There wasn't indisputable evidence that the ball hit the ground and popped up. It was a bad call. My jimmies are still rustled.

Anyone who doesn't think any part of the ball touched the ground and popped up is in complete denial. It's ridiculous for FANS to dispute that part of the play just freeze the video as the ball contacted the ground and popped up. It would be virtually impossible for at least part of the ball not to contact the ground the way Dez was holding it. Everyone needs to get over it and move on.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

So you have NEVER heard of contact which precedes a ball carrier (WR after the catch)


So should I run a football 101 class for all those arguing semantics and minutia?

You people are arguing to argue now. You know exactly what the rule is for contact as a player is falling. Meaningful or inadvertent.

If their legs touch on his second step, and that is exactly what it shows in the video, then he lunges forward, using a third step, he is still viewed as having been touched and going to the ground.

That puts in place the rule of control.

All these other what ifs and such are fans arguing in favor of their team.

I wanted it to be a catch. I have argued for it being a catch. But after an off season of reviewing the damn pass every now and then, I have come to the conclusion the overrule was right.

Just like I believe there was inadvertent contact by the DB with the pass receiver in the Lion game, precipatated by the receiver holding the jersey of the Dallas player. Overruling and picking up that flag was as close to right as you can get. Because they would not call PI on the offensive player at that point.

In context of the rules of the game, the call of no catch was the correct call.

You folks may now argue with yourselves.

So what you're saying is you won't list the process of catch rule.

Probably because it makes your argument look silly I'd wager.

 

[percyhoward]

Hmm... So he finally admitted that when Dez had the ball with two hands on his right shoulder, it was a catch???


Oh, this is getting good!

That was actually from the NFLN interview the day of the game. The official position has always been that the catch was overturned because Dez failed to establish himself as a runner, so he was considered a "receiver going to the ground to make the catch," which meant the ball couldn't come loose. If he establishes himself as a runner, of course the ball may come loose when he hits the ground, and it's a catch and down by contact.

When asked why Dez's reach wasn't considered a football move which would have made him a runner, Blandino said that the reach wasn't "obvious" enough. The stated reason was that he didn't "extend the ball to the goal line" or didn't "reach with both hands."

On whether or not Dez Bryant reaching for the goal line could have been considered a football act:
“Yeah, absolutely. We looked at that aspect of it and in order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line."
http://nflcommunications.com/2015/0...blandino-on-nfl-gameday-final-on-nfl-network/​

The three parts of the catch process are control and both feet down, then a football move. No one doubts that Dez had both feet down, or that the flight of the ball had ended. The only doubt (at least by Blandino) was whether a football move was made. A football move makes it a catch, because you can't make a football move without having control of the ball. By saying Dez didn't make an "obvious" reach for the goal line (and by ignoring Dez's other football moves like switching the ball to one hand, taking a third step, and lunging for the goal line) Blandino was able to deny that Dez ever had control.

There's a lot about Blandino's interpretation that does not make sense, but the part that makes the least sense is his description of what constitutes an "obvious" reach for the goal line.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Anyone who doesn't think any part of the ball touched the ground and popped up is in complete denial. It's ridiculous for FANS to dispute that part of the play just freeze the video as the ball contacted the ground and popped up. It would be virtually impossible for at least part of the ball not to contact the ground the way Dez was holding it. Everyone needs to get over it and move on.

Dez was a runner by rule before the ball hit the ground.

 

[KJJ]

Dez was a runner by rule before the ball hit the ground.

That's already been beaten to death in the dozen plus threads that have been started on this and fully explained. He was going to the ground as soon as he came down the steps he took were stumbling steps as his momentum was taking him to the ground therefore he has to maintain control of the football all the way through the contact of the ground. Despite the 2 steps Dez never fully established himself as a runner because he was stumbling to the ground.

 

[nathanlt]

So you have NEVER heard of contact which precedes a ball carrier (WR after the catch)


So should I run a football 101 class for all those arguing semantics and minutia?

You people are arguing to argue now. You know exactly what the rule is for contact as a player is falling. Meaningful or inadvertent.

If their legs touch on his second step, and that is exactly what it shows in the video, then he lunges forward, using a third step, he is still viewed as having been touched and going to the ground.

That puts in place the rule of control.

All these other what ifs and such are fans arguing in favor of their team.

I wanted it to be a catch. I have argued for it being a catch. But after an off season of reviewing the damn pass every now and then, I have come to the conclusion the overrule was right.

Just like I believe there was inadvertent contact by the DB with the pass receiver in the Lion game, precipatated by the receiver holding the jersey of the Dallas player. Overruling and picking up that flag was as close to right as you can get. Because they would not call PI on the offensive player at that point.

In context of the rules of the game, the call of no catch was the correct call.

You folks may now argue with yourselves.

So many words, but you won't answer the questions that have been asked of you. Why ISN'T handing the ball to the ref "non-catch" ?????

It happened WELL AFTER contact with the ground. But by the current rule, even that preposterous scenario is enforceable, if contact with the ground is not defined. Obviously, handing the ref the ball should not be a "non-catch" I believe there is an instant where, if a knee or elbow is down, the play is over.

Tell me if rule 1 has any defined limit to "contacting the ground"
COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass.
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. 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 .).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2
: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of
possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body other than his hands
to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, it is not a catch.
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.

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


*process of contacting the ground is complete when anything other than a hand or foot contacts the ground.

 

[KJJ]

There wasn't indisputable evidence that the ball hit the ground and popped up. It was a bad call. My jimmies are still rustled.

This video is UNDISPUTABLE evidence the ball CLEARLY touched the ground. Let's see if all the FANS who liked your post care to dispute the ball didn't touch the ground after watching this. LOL This isn't the first time this shot has been shown but you still have FANS who are in such denial they won't even admit the ball touched the ground.