Twitter: Competition Committee says Dez caught it **merged**

[BlindFaith]

The rule is pretty easy to fix. Control, two feet, football move. They can even keep going to the ground, if they take away the subjective application like they used in the Dez play.

Item 1 should be used in the end zone, players going OOB, and players diving to make a catch.

So basically the way it was pre 2007.

Makes one think why they changed it so much since. Probably because of fumbles and judgement calls. But we'll see what they come up with.

 

[MarcusRock]

So basically the way it was pre 2007.

Makes one think why they changed it so much since. Probably because of fumbles and judgement calls. But we'll see what they come up with.

Right, get ready for fumble festivals. Then all the reviews will be centered on did he or didn't he fumble. I think you trade a rare occurrence for a less rare occurrence and increase challenges and reviews. Then fans will complain about that I guess.

 

[KJJ]

So just possession? No feet.

What about player's going out of bounds? Same thing? So they could jump out of bounds and catch it, I guess before they hit the ground. Or do you have special rules for that?

And is it immediately when they possess it or as you said, bring it to his shoulders? So a time element?

Just possession in bounds. I want to eliminate as much judgment and confusion from the rule as possible. I don’t want to have a time element because a catch can happen instantly. I don’t want the receiver to be required to hang onto the ball for a certain amount of time but naturally if a defender knocks the ball from a receiver at the very second they snag it, that has to be ruled incomplete because it’s too bang-bang of a play. You just chalk that up as a great play by the defender. The only time the feet would come into play is determining if the receiver is in bounds. On plays near the sidelines the receiver has to get both feet down in bounds during the process of making the catch. That’s the rule today and it’s a good rule

If it can be determined on replay that they have control of the ball and got both feet down in bounds it’s a catch regardless if they lose the ball when they contact the ground. Now if they lose the ball before contacting the ground when going OB then you waive it off as a no catch because that signifies they probably never had control of the ball. We have multiple camera angles and if you can’t tell clear possession you waive the play off.

 

[MarcusRock]

Just possession in bounds. I want to eliminate as much judgment and confusion from the rule as possible. I don’t want to have a time element because a catch can happen instantly. I don’t want the receiver to be required to hang onto the ball for a certain amount of time but naturally if a defender knocks the ball from a receiver at the very second they snag it, that has to be ruled incomplete because it’s too bang-bang of a play. You just chalk that up as a great play by the defender.

What if the receiver did maintain control for a split second and the ball slid from his grip as a result of the hit? That's a fumble?

 

[KJJ]

What if the receiver did maintain control for a split second and the ball slid from his grip as a result of the hit? That's a fumble?

Yes, if it can be determined in replay that the receiver had control for a least a split second and the ball came loose as a result of a hit by a defender in the field of play it’s a fumble. That will also create some controversy but it won’t be near the controversy the current rule is creating. There’s always going to be some judgment in these calls and everyone is never going to be totally happy but I think these adjustments to the rule would go over well with most fans. If it can be determined the receiver has control of the football for even a split-second that’s a catch.

Go back to the Golden Tate play a few years ago. He had the ball for a split second and it was knocked out but it was ruled a TD. A catch can happen instantly so if it looks like a catch rule it a catch. This was the Golden Tate play. Had that happened in the field of play and not the endzone it would’ve been ruled a fumble.

 

[MarcusRock]

Yes, if it can be determined in replay that the receiver had control for a least a split second and the ball came loose as a result of a hit by a defender in the field of play it’s a fumble. That will also create some controversy but it won’t be near the controversy the current rule is creating. There’s always going to be some judgment in these calls and everyone is never going to be totally happy but I think these adjustments to the rule would go over well with most fans. If it can be determined the receiver has control of the football for even a split-second that’s a catch.

Go back to the Golden Tate play a few years ago. He had the ball for a split second and it was knocked out but it was ruled a TD. A catch can happen instantly so if it looks like a catch rule it a catch. This was the Golden Tate play. Had that happened in the field of play and not the endzone it would’ve been ruled a fumble.

I think again it'll be more fumbles and with changes in possession, lead to more reviews. I'd rather have a rule where we only get once in a blue moon controversies even if people don't understand the rule than a rule everyone understands but yields sloppier football. When will we hear about any new rule if there is one?

 

[BlindFaith]

Right, get ready for fumble festivals. Then all the reviews will be centered on did he or didn't he fumble. I think you trade a rare occurrence for a less rare occurrence and increase challenges and reviews. Then fans will complain about that I guess.

They did before, why wouldn't they if we made the rule the same as then.

 

[aria]

So Dez caught it?

 

[BlindFaith]

Just possession in bounds. I want to eliminate as much judgment and confusion from the rule as possible. I don’t want to have a time element because a catch can happen instantly. I don’t want the receiver to be required to hang onto the ball for a certain amount of time but naturally if a defender knocks the ball from a receiver at the very second they snag it, that has to be ruled incomplete because it’s too bang-bang of a play. You just chalk that up as a great play by the defender. The only time the feet would come into play is determining if the receiver is in bounds. On plays near the sidelines the receiver has to get both feet down in bounds during the process of making the catch. That’s the rule today and it’s a good rule

If it can be determined on replay that they have control of the ball and got both feet down in bounds it’s a catch regardless if they lose the ball when they contact the ground. Now if they lose the ball before contacting the ground when going OB then you waive it off as a no catch because that signifies they probably never had control of the ball. We have multiple camera angles and if you can’t tell clear possession you waive the play off.

Wow. Sounds like at least three different new judgements there.
I think you'd at least have to keep two feet down.

I think you leave things as is for an upright player.

For any player going to the ground, it's as soon as any body part touches. Remove having to maintain possession through contacting the ground. A diving player just has to hang on to it.

This is about the only flavor they haven't tried yet. But there will be more fumbles.

I personally would keep things as is. Educate player's to just hang on to the ball and stop reaching.

 

[BlindFaith]

Yes, if it can be determined in replay that the receiver had control for a least a split second and the ball came loose as a result of a hit by a defender in the field of play it’s a fumble. That will also create some controversy but it won’t be near the controversy the current rule is creating. There’s always going to be some judgment in these calls and everyone is never going to be totally happy but I think these adjustments to the rule would go over well with most fans. If it can be determined the receiver has control of the football for even a split-second that’s a catch.

Go back to the Golden Tate play a few years ago. He had the ball for a split second and it was knocked out but it was ruled a TD. A catch can happen instantly so if it looks like a catch rule it a catch. This was the Golden Tate play. Had that happened in the field of play and not the endzone it would’ve been ruled a fumble.

Go back to the video I posted. That's what you would get. The other examples Pereira went over. But even more fumbles because a player could fumble in midair.

Defenders will be looking to kill a receiver then. There would be no defenseless player rule anymore. Not sure that's the direction the NFL wants to go in.

 

[BlindFaith]

Yes, if it can be determined in replay that the receiver had control for a least a split second and the ball came loose as a result of a hit by a defender in the field of play it’s a fumble. That will also create some controversy but it won’t be near the controversy the current rule is creating. There’s always going to be some judgment in these calls and everyone is never going to be totally happy but I think these adjustments to the rule would go over well with most fans. If it can be determined the receiver has control of the football for even a split-second that’s a catch.

Go back to the Golden Tate play a few years ago. He had the ball for a split second and it was knocked out but it was ruled a TD. A catch can happen instantly so if it looks like a catch rule it a catch. This was the Golden Tate play. Had that happened in the field of play and not the endzone it would’ve been ruled a fumble.

The Tate play happened in the endzone and was pretty boarderline as well. If that had been the field of play it would have been a fumble. Your proposal would give them far less time. There will be fumbles everywhere.

 

[BlindFaith]

I think again it'll be more fumbles and with changes in possession, lead to more reviews. I'd rather have a rule where we only get once in a blue moon controversies even if people don't understand the rule than a rule everyone understands but yields sloppier football. When will we hear about any new rule if there is one?

Agreed. Somewhere around OTAs I'd guess. They will need to give teams time to understand and communicate the changes.

I have a feeling it's not going to end up being that dramatic. It probably won't even be changed to make the Dez non catch a catch.

They'll just rewrite the rule so people better understand it and then have some big dog and pony show on how simple it is to now understand.

Could be wrong. But this is not a simple fix. Not if you want to keep player's safe and not add in a bunch of fumbles.

 

[blindzebra]

Right, get ready for fumble festivals. Then all the reviews will be centered on did he or didn't he fumble. I think you trade a rare occurrence for a less rare occurrence and increase challenges and reviews. Then fans will complain about that I guess.

If going to the ground is so rare and the rest of the rule goes back to control, two feet, and a move is exactly what the upright rule says now, so you say, just where is a fumble fest going to come from?

 

[BlindFaith]

So Dez caught it?

He did not. Go check the game log. It will say incomplete pass.

The rational folks have moved on to should that be ruled a catch and if so to change the rules to do so. Kind of in the spirit of the thread title.

 

[BlindFaith]

If going to the ground is so rare and the rest of the rule goes back to control, two feet, and a move is exactly what the upright rule says now, so you say, just where is a fumble fest going to come from?

A falling player is in far less control. He's more exposed. He can't avoid contact. He can't ward off a defender. He can't do most things a player still on his feet can do.

Because of this, he's open to big hits as soon as he, in your words, makes a football move. But is in no position to protect himself. Defenders will be encouraged to drill player's going to the ground to cause fumbles.

 

[aria]

that play with hitch should have been and call and reversed as such.,.like has been said the receiver grabbed and initiated contact with the facemask and than hitch made contact after..thats ano call or should have went against Detroit as he grabbed first.. seriously sometimes people forget the entire play or series of events.. also another plaoff gaff was the seatle game when romo fumbled the FG snap..the play before witten did make the first down and should have been first and goal, FG should not even been attempted..its crazy how many playoff games the cowboys have been shafted in....if there were replay in the 70s Pittsburgh would have two losses and us two more SB wins..

Actually it should have been off setting in which case Deeeeetroit would have had 3rd and 1 again. Point being there is no secret conspiracy against the Cowboys. There’s good calls and bad calls, yet for some reason there’s already over a 100 pages of whiny cry babies trying to justify why we should have beat a one legged gimpy Aaron Rodgers in a playoff game that we lost. We already beat the Lions based on a shady call a la Dez “catch”. Get over it you pansies, I’m so sick of seeing this! IT WAS THREE YEARS AGO! Put on your diapers you friggin’ babies! Go Dak and 2018-19 Cowboys! Unfinreal.

 

[blindzebra]

A falling player is in far less control. He's more exposed. He can't avoid contact. He can't ward off a defender. He can't do most things a player still on his feet can do.

Because of this, he's open to big hits as soon as he, in your words, makes a football move. But is in no position to protect himself. Defenders will be encouraged to drill player's going to the ground to cause fumbles.

As opposed to drilling them to break up the pass?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Secretly, everyone wants this thread to continue all the way until next season.

 

[Soth]

It matters because it was a watershed moment. The success of the NFL is, more than anything, contingent on images. What do we see before the NFL shield comes up? The Catch. It’s the displays of athletic prowess that fans enjoying seeing and reliving over and over again, hence the success of NFL Films and highlight shows. People love rewatching game-winning catches and hard hits.

The Dez Bryant Catch was the kind of play destined to live on through NFL Films...until it was overturned. Fans were robbed of something momentous. And if Aaron Rodgers had taken Green Bay down the field right after for the win, fans were robbed of a stirring comeback. They got neither and a whole lot of drama-killing rule ambiguity.

The NFL is built on images. One was taken away due to an absurd interpretation of an equally absurdly written rule. Without those images, the league is nothing. It’s no coincidence ratings have declined in the years following the Dez overturn. I used to watch all things NFL. Not so anymore. Now, I find myself paying less attention to Cowboys games. My increasing disinterest began that January.

I personally think it is the best play by the Cowboys in many years. It was a risk to go for the TD there. But Romo made a great play and Dez made a spectacular catch. It reminded me of the 90s. Too bad it was overturned. We really can't catch a break.

 

[Soth]

Wow................51 pages on if Dez caught it


A. What the hell does it matter 4 years later, that was 2014 and its now 2018. Unless we get to replay the game, its means jack now.

B. Nobody from the NFL has admitted the play was officiated incorrectly, they have said the rule is going to be changed so plays like Dez and Clavin Johnson's, and I suspect Jesse James as well, will all be ruled complete going forward. BIG DIFFERENCE

What else are we going to talk about? This was a terrible year for the cowboys. Zeke suspended, out of the playoffs, the Eagles win the SB, Jerry vs Goodell, 20+ quarters without a holding call against the opposing OL (I cannot begin to describe how frustrating this was), no changes to our head coach or coordinators, etc.