Dez catch

[DogFace]

The catch had already been completed before the ball had made any contact with the ground.

Travelling 5 yards with a ball tightly gripped with one hand and making at least 2 clear steps in the process is a football move and a catch.

Otherwise how long does someone need to hold the ball before it's a catch - 50 yards?

Bryant didn't fall on the same spot or half a yard from when he first had control of the ball.

Exactly. Imagine had the defender knocked the ball loose as he dove. Can anyone really say they would've ruled that incomplete?

No. It would’ve been a fumble by a guy that took 3 steps then dove.

 

[G2]

I’ll be that guy. Rodgers doesn’t score and Cowboys make the superbowl!!!

If Romo didn't go for a 50/50 jump ball for 30+ yards on 4th down and 2 yards to go, maybe Dallas moves on.

Even IF Dez did catch and score, Green Bay came right back down the field and scored, because a TD doesn't knock off enough time from the clock.

If you can't get 2 yards with that offense you don't deserve to move on.

 

[DogFace]

Because it doesn't matter. All aspects of the rule must be met, not just some. The rule was poorly written. But in that poorly written rule it clearly states if he is going to the ground in the act of catching the pass and he loses control of the ball and it touches the ground, it is incomplete.

Does it say that in the catch rule?

"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.)."

Going to the ground is for when a player is going to the ground to make a catch or immediately and has no time to make a football move. Dez took 3 steps and performed 3 moves. So he displayed the time part had been met.

 

[DogFace]

Dez was never upright after he went for the ball; he was going to the ground from the moment he caught it

You’re wrong, but let’s say you’re right. Can you go to the ground for 15 steps? What about 8!? 3? How many steps before you weren’t simply going to the ground?

 

[McKDaddy]

If Romo didn't go for a 50/50 jump ball for 30+ yards on 4th down and 2 yards to go, maybe Dallas moves on.

Even IF Dez did catch and score, Green Bay came right back down the field and scored, because a TD doesn't knock off enough time from the clock.

If you can't get 2 yards with that offense you don't deserve to move on.

I encourage you to find \ watch video where Tony discusses the play & what they felt GB's defense was going to do on that play to make the quick \ short passes difficult. And they did exactly what he expected.

At the time I was expecting something to just try to convert the down & was shocked when he turned & fired to Dez. Watching the explanation video, it would have indeed been very low probability of converting to Witten or Beaze.

At the end of the day, the play worked. The officiating failed.

 

[McKDaddy]

Exactly. Imagine had the defender knocked the ball loose as he dove. Can anyone really say they would've ruled that incomplete?

No. It would’ve been a fumble by a guy that took 3 steps then dove.

That has always been my other argument as well.

Right after it happened, a guy I golf with was arguing with me & making all the arguments these guys are so I asked him that question and he pauses for a few seconds and goes "You're right, they would have ruled it a fumble. If it would have been a fumble, it had to be a catch."

Of course that assume GB recovered. If Dez recovered, then it still wouldn't have been a catch.

 

[McKDaddy]

Yes. I’ve told a mod. They said it’s out of their control. Google does it.

It has made the site really hard to navigate. Everytime you try to click and answer or god forbid go to another page to see what someone was saying—it’s an ad everytime. And not just a ad on the page you can see. It’s an Ad that covers the entire page and forces you to x it out. Then when you x out of it, the screen pauses and has to reload the page or whatever.

It’s making my internet experience worse. I was encouraged to pay for the upgrade. I’m not sure if they realize how bad it is.

have you tried using an ad blocker?

 

[mmohican29]

You’re wrong, but let’s say you’re right. Can you go to the ground for 15 steps? What about 8!? 3? How many steps before you weren’t simply going to the ground?

Lol... The #1 posting Eagles fan on this site doesn't think it was a catch. Color me surprised.

Everyone knows Dez caught the football, took 3 steps while switching ball carrying hands and was attempting to lunge to the goal line.

Well- except the total morons or shamelessly biased. Don't feed the troll.

 

[McKDaddy]

Well- except the total morons or shamelessly biased.

It's sad that folks can't understand the rule was put in for low balls not balls that the receiver has to elevate to catch.

 

[G2]

I encourage you to find \ watch video where Tony discusses the play & what they felt GB's defense was going to do on that play to make the quick \ short passes difficult. And they did exactly what he expected.

At the time I was expecting something to just try to convert the down & was shocked when he turned & fired to Dez. Watching the explanation video, it would have indeed been very low probability of converting to Witten or Beaze.

At the end of the day, the play worked. The officiating failed.

Sounds like an excuse to me. You can just watch the actual game sequence to see exactly what happened.

 

[DuncanIso]

That was a catch. I can't be convinced otherwise. As you said, Dez made a football move and tried to reach for the end zone. But the rule back then was confusing for the refs. But if you want a worse call, remember the Calvin Johnson play that was called a non-catch in the end zone?

NFL replay ref was crooked.

 

[McKDaddy]

Sounds like an excuse to me. You can just watch the actual game sequence to see exactly what happened.

Cool.

 

[G2]

Cool.

Great contribution.

 

[OmerV]

the 99 yard comment is meant to be extreme because if you can't admit that's enough to establish body control, and the possibility of a football move, nothing is.

i ignored it because it is nonsense. a player doesn't have to have established possession of the ball to make arm movements....well no, I guess not...but we are talking about catching and possessing a football, right?

when a quarterback throws a football, it sure helps if it's in his hand. soooo, when a receiver reaches towards the goal line, it sure helps when he's holding the football.

he caught the ball in the air (not enough), he landed with one foot still possessing the ball (not enough), he took another step (essentially the same as a toe tap, still needs to possess to the ground), he took another step (that's 3, incase you ran out of fingers) and is now a runner.

Goodnight.

It's so extreme as to be impossible. If you stay upright 99 yards obviously you weren't immediately falling upon jumping and landing. Accordingly, it's a nonsense situation.

And no, we aren't just talking about catching and possessing a football regardless of whether you are still in the air or falling to the ground. The NFL makes the rule on what constitutes possession, not you or I, and arm movement is and never has been the standard. Players leap for balls all the time and pull it to their bodies, then lose it when they hit the ground. The ability to pull it in is not enough.

By the way, you mentioned the toe tap, which is a fair analogy. What you apparently don't remember or don't realize though is that after the toe tap the receiver either has to stay upright or if going to the ground has to maintain possession all the way through, so your toe tap analogy actually works against you.

 

[MarcusRock]

NFL already discussed this, Mara himself publicly, and stated it was a catch the issue was with the wording of the rule. The ONLY time the catch was anywhere near controversial was on the field...with the refs. It's a play we'll never get back on a pass and catch that should have been a Romo and Dez legendary highlight. F the NFL and F refball. It started, among other things, me going from a passionate fan to a casual viewer.

Mara said the Dez play and Calvin Johnson's should be a catch and he was on the competition committee to help re-write the rule so they would be in the future.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...s-cowboys-dez-bryant-playoff-game-ruled-catch

 

[DogFace]

have you tried using an ad blocker?

No. What one should I look into?

 

[MarcusRock]

It’s because he lost the debate in the old thread and can’t accept that. Any debate coach that viewed that would say he lost.

Ah, revisionist history is great, ain't it? Why don't you tell the good people what really happened, bro. Don't you remember that you went into my PMs calling me names when I ignored you during those debates (5 years ago, mind you - and you're still holding on to it)? And I ignored you because you weren't contributing anything just like now ("3 steps" - weren't in the rules) and just parroting what the main guy brought to the discussion so I debated him instead. So you went full unhinged. Are those the actions of someone who "won" a debate (via parroting)? What would a "debate coach" say about that and you taking pot shots as part of some digital grudge over a 5 YEAR PERIOD? Lol.

Another poster even PM'd me about how unhinged you were during those discussions. Shall I pull the receipts? Lol.

 

[McKDaddy]

Great contribution.

That's what I thought.

 

[MarcusRock]

I encourage you to find \ watch video where Tony discusses the play & what they felt GB's defense was going to do on that play to make the quick \ short passes difficult. And they did exactly what he expected.

At the time I was expecting something to just try to convert the down & was shocked when he turned & fired to Dez. Watching the explanation video, it would have indeed been very low probability of converting to Witten or Beaze.

At the end of the day, the play worked. The officiating failed.

Go watch the replay video I posted. He had Beasley AND Murray open in the left flat. I don't fault Romo because he delivered a perfect ball to Dez but he did have several other higher percentage options.

 

[McKDaddy]

No. What one should I look into?

I'm not an expert on the subject but I'll tell you what I "think" I know.
I would do a search based on your browser. Should list some free ones that are recommended. I am generally using chrome at work when I access this site & I have a personal chromebook. My IT guy at work loaded something for me a few weeks back & it virtually eliminated all the ones that were popping up and making the site super frustrating.

There are also some settings within your browser that you can use to try to manage the way sites are allowed to behave. I don't think that alone was enough to deal with the issues we were having on this site but it may have been part of the solution.

Sorry, but the IT guy did it & I was only half paying attention.