Dez catch

[mattjames2010]

Our best chance to make the NFCCG and probably the SB in the last 29 years. And of all people to win the challenge - the guy who now can't successfully do challenges or manage the clock for the Cowboys.

Our best chance was that 2016 team if Romo started later in the season and into the playoffs.

 

[mattjames2010]

The rule at the time:
"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."

That leaves out the debate about a football move, which is what Cowboys were arguing.

 

[MarcusRock]

The point where we differ is the ball touching the ground is irrelevant because the catch had already been completed.

You don't agree that's the case fair enough but I and others do based on the previous reasons given.

That's fine. I have no problem with people believing differently. Most keep it respectful which I appreciate. But as I said earlier, anyone who argues it was catch HAS to argue Dez was upright and a runner because if they admit going to the ground applied, it is a sinkhole they cannot get out of because those rules clearly weren't met. Can people actually use the rules to argue their point? Don't see many.

 

[rambo2]

It was the correct call with the rules that were in place at that time.

He only had the ball for about 7 yards. I guess that he shouldn't have tried to score.

 

[nathanlt]

It was the correct call with the rules that were in place at that time.

An often-repeated lie.... it will never be true. Dean Blandino will forever be muted whenever he chooses to speak. That guy went from stand up comedian to Vice President of Officiating, incredible baffling transition. Some calls by officials are deemed controversial. "Controversial" implies that both sides have some standing to argue their case. No such thing in the Dez case. There is zero controversy... the NFL confiscated that catch, and years later admitted, that they made the incorrect call.

Dez Bryant caught that ball, adjusted in the air, made several football moves, touching his elbow to the turf. Catch, 100%.

 

[nathanlt]

The rule at the time:
"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.... completely vague, designed to let referees steal a catch when they feel like it.

One foot down, process partially complete.
Two feet down, process of contacting the ground complete!! It has been this way for all of pro football, and the NFL admitted they got it wrong years later.

If two feet down is not process complete, then running downfield 100 yards might not qualify either. And then losing control of the ball by a celebratory spike in the endzone would be losing control and thus incomplete in this bizarro world that spurs on endless arguments.

You see, the referees can bend the vague rules to confiscate a catch, when 2 feet down with possession is not enough. They did this to Dallas, and Mike McCarthy enabled them. Blandino wrote the language, and enforced it from New York. He is a clown, an incompetent thief.

Zero controversy, The referees and chatroom instigators have nothing to stand on. They will always be wrong. Dez caught that ball, 100%

 

[DogFace]

Possession can't be established in the air though. Coming to the ground is essential to whether possession is established. The ruling was that he was immediately headed to the ground after coming down. The question was and still is whether what he did after coming down qualified as a "football move" under the rules. If not, he had to maintain possession all the way through falling to the ground. If so, the fact the ball touched the ground would be irrelevant.

The rule was time to make a football move. He displayed that was met by making 3 football moves. Moving the ball with his two hands to contact his right shoulder, helping brace it for ground contact, moving the ball from that spot to his left in in preparation for the reach, and executing the reach for the goal line.



As @McKDaddy explained he was going up in the air to make the catch. He wasn’t going to the ground to make the catch.

The old thread has the video with Blandino explaining (prior to the Dez catch) and completely contradicting his later ruling in the Dez catch.

You were there in the thread so it was presented to you. Go watch it and he’ll explain why Dez wasn’t in the process of making the catch as he was going to the ground. He’d already completed the 3 steps necessary to becoming a runner.

 

[DogFace]

If it was a catch under the rules, why would the rule need to be changed?

One of two things could have happened.

1. They realized the way the rule was written wasn't sufficient to convey the intent
2. They decided they didn't like the intent of the original rule and changed it to what they wanted in the present.

They later changed it again, right? Could be mistaken. But I thought they changed it again because the way they tried to word it (to fit the Dez catch being not one) defied logic, was overly complex, and didn’t come close to solving the problem they had created with a bad overruling .

 

[G2]

Our best chance was that 2016 team if Romo started later in the season and into the playoffs.

 

[Typhus]

Appreciate this has been talked about many times before but having watched it again just now it must go down as one of the worst reversals I have ever seen.

Surely when Dez touched the ground with his right elbow then he's down having completed the process of a catch (he had made a football move by taking 2-3 steps after securing the ball).

In any event, I haven't seen any clear and unequivocal footage of the ball touching the ground at any point - part of his arm looked to be under the ball when he went to ground so worst case scenario he has caught the ball in the end zone as Shields didn't mark him down by contact.

People say well Rodgers would have just marched down the field any way - great let's see him do it and it's irrelevant to the above call.

It's still annoying all these years on!

Sorry Swagger but you make me laugh, thats not a bad thing.....

 

[Typhus]

They later changed it again, right? Could be mistaken. But I thought they changed it again because the way they tried to word it (to fit the Dez catch being not one) defied logic, was overly complex, and didn’t come close to solving the problem they had created with a bad overruling .

This will be discussed as long as JFK theories.

 

[Typhus]

The point is he wasn't asked to and there's a different pressure at having to do it when the game is on the line.

When the game is on the line the adrenaline is pumping, but if I still remember I always liked that because I needed the energy boost at the end of a long physical game.
That much needed adrenaline boost increases focus in the moment.
You are either in the zone or not.

 

[Swagger]

Sorry Swagger but you make me laugh, thats not a bad thing.....

 

[Jarv]

Didn't the NFL a year later admit they got the call wrong?

 

[JohnsKey19]

Our best chance was that 2016 team if Romo started later in the season and into the playoffs.

2007. A more locked in team makes it to the Super Bowl but probably gets washed by the Patriots. At least they would have advanced to that point.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Your invention was the "can't reverse a subjective call" even though it happens regularly. You can indeed bobble a ball all the way down the field .... if you aren't touched and fall to the ground and replay shows the ball hit the ground too. You most especially can't if you're deemed going to the ground with those optics.


Unless the ref ruled that we went to ground but kept the ball off the ground, not seeing it hit. Because that's a possibility too, right? And even if not, they can take ruled catches and say that the receiver was going to the ground and look for those rules to be met as happened in the AZ/SEA game (no expose said they were wrong to, just your feeling). And if they said Dez scored with GTTG as you say, all scores are reviewable and they'd see the ball hit the ground and was incomplete.

Nope. The requirement to overturn a call is "indisputable video evidence" which removes subjectivity.

Then he is ruled down by contact - that was the call.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Not the point I was making. You said they couldn't reverse a subjective call. There's an actual game where they did, swapping the exact same catch rules. Nothing to do with contact. Your escape hatch reason is they got it wrong in both cases. Yeah, okay. Your claim was invented.

If he wasn't touched, yes. He was, so in both cases he is down at the one whether deemed a runner or deemed surviving the ground with the ball not seen. With the ball seen on replay, it's reversed and called no catch. Simple.

What if he was ruled to be GTTG and survived the ground after being touched, ball not seen on the ground? He is down at h 1 all the same. You are ignoring this part and left it out of your possibilities earlier. So you don't have to irrefutably prove he was falling if he was deemed to be falling. You DO have to prove whether the ball touches the ground. That was shown on replay and that was the reason for the overturn. Simple, I agree.

Nothing to do with schtick. It's saying what the rules actually were when people try to cry "we wuz robbed" / cheated victimhood when they don't even know the rules they're railing against but need a crutch for a loss.

They can't, by rule. "Indisputable video evidence" eliminates the possibility of subjectivity being applied to the replay. It applies to "did the ball touch the ground" but not "is the player falling or diving," which is what the review is predicated on.

He is not touched after possession unless possession is determined before the ball hits the ground, completing the catch. After Dez hits the ground, he is not touched.

It is a touchdown if they are ruling the ball is being bobbled after touching the ground, because after he contacts the ground he is not touched by the defender. You cannot be down by contact without possession. You are ignoring this fact.

It is a schtick. Every time someone says there's a bad call, you play the "refs don't matter" tough guy card. It's clockwork. You come in arguing holding calls like there is a right and wrong for that lol.


On this play, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what they had to rule to turnover the call. The review is predicated on whether or not Dez is going to the ground in the process of the catch OR if he is diving for the pilon as a runner. GTTG is not relevant in the review based on what the ruling on the field was because, to get to the point of that mattering, you have to overturn a subjective decision. The ruling on the field was that he is diving as a runner and there is not "indisputable video evidence" to say otherwise.

Done with this convo.

 

[Diehardblues]

Appreciate this has been talked about many times before but having watched it again just now it must go down as one of the worst reversals I have ever seen.

Surely when Dez touched the ground with his right elbow then he's down having completed the process of a catch (he had made a football move by taking 2-3 steps after securing the ball).

In any event, I haven't seen any clear and unequivocal footage of the ball touching the ground at any point - part of his arm looked to be under the ball when he went to ground so worst case scenario he has caught the ball in the end zone as Shields didn't mark him down by contact.

People say well Rodgers would have just marched down the field any way - great let's see him do it and it's irrelevant to the above call.

It's still annoying all these years on!

I agree the catch was very controversial. I’ve often called it the catch that wasn’t . It wasn’t a game ending play. And there is something to be said about leaving 4 minutes on the clock for a Packers comeback.

Another argument to be made is why on 4th and 1 were we taking such a risk on a deep sideline route with an all or nothing result.

After watching film there were some more conservative openings underneath to convert the 1st down. Which might have also provided opportunity to run the clock down before scoring not allowing Rodgers enough time for a comeback.

 

[DallasEast]

uhm..... yea it was all the defense's fault. Let's just forget about the Murray fumble when he was running through a hole the size of a mac truck that likely would have been a TD.

That play (link) has sat with me heavily as much as the Dez Bryant ref play. Julius Peppers made a fantastic play, literally launching and stretching back into the hole to strip the ball. Peppers' great effort would have been completely negated if Demarco Murray had simply covered up the ball like coaches teach running backs in junior high.

 

[MyFairLady]

I guess that he shouldn't have tried to score.

First secure the catch. Then try to score. He clearly wanted to score and was more than willing to put the catch in jeopardy to do so. He clearly cost the team big time because of his stupidity. He is 100% to blame.