Dez catch

[Mac_MaloneV1]

If you are touched by a defender and you and the ball hit the ground, you are down. You can't rollover and bobble the ball for more yards in an upright or GTTG case. Literally a made up rule. Same spot whether GTTG or not. Just like sliding out of bounds forward to maintain possession to determine if a catch was made. Your spot is where you were touched down or went out of bounds. There are no bobble/slide yards. But hey, show me in the rulebook where that is applicable.

You can't be "down" without possession. It doesn't matter if a receiver is on the ground and/or touched by a defender if they have not yet completed a catch. I'm not making anything up - you're making up some rule that you can't "bobble" a ball? Show me that in the rulebook lol.

If you are "down" when touched by a defender, then it doesn't matter if you bobble the ball after. That is no longer a catch/incompletion ruling, it is a down/fumble ruling. That's literally what happened - ref ruled that the catch was completed and the runner was down BEFORE the ball was bobbled. With that distinction, it means that Dez was ruled a runner and determined to be diving for the pilon, not still in the process of making the catch, so GTTG is irrelevant.

This is fundamental stuff - you are wrong about the definition of down by contact.

 

[mrmojo]

Ok time to sing that song that my grandaughter sings from that movie Frozen and...."Let it go".......

 

[MarcusRock]

You can't be "down" without possession. It doesn't matter if a receiver is on the ground and/or touched by a defender if they have not yet completed a catch. I'm not making anything up - you're making up some rule that you can't "bobble" a ball? Show me that in the rulebook lol.

If you are "down" when touched by a defender, then it doesn't matter if you bobble the ball after. That is no longer a catch/incompletion ruling, it is a down/fumble ruling. That's literally what happened - ref ruled that the catch was completed and the runner was down BEFORE the ball was bobbled. With that distinction, it means that Dez was ruled a runner and determined to be diving for the pilon, not still in the process of making the catch, so GTTG is irrelevant.

This is fundamental stuff - you are wrong about the definition of down by contact.

Unless the ref also ruled GTTG and didn't see the ball hit the ground which would be overturned on replay which it was. The ball would also be at the 1. You said if GTTG was ruled then it should have been a touchdown after Dez finally established possession in the endzone. Those are bobble/rollover yards allowing you to advance the ball after you were touched by a defender and hit the ground yourself. Literally not a rule with GTTG or anyplace else. Show me where it is in the 2014 rules.

 

[Jarntt]

Once he competes the 3 steps he became a runner.

Going to the ground doesn’t apply because he was no longer in the act. He competed the process and was then a runner.

There’s some good case videos (videos they use to teach refs) where Blandino himself contradicts his own later ruling. In this video the Giants (pretty sure) player was ruled to have competed the catch process even though he lost it once hitting
the ground.

It’s all in the old thread.

No. All parts of the rule must be satisfied. He was in the act of going to the ground. No catch. A couple years before it's a catch. Post 2016 it's a catch. Today it's a catch. That day he caught the ball in the act of going to the ground and the ball hit the ground. No catch.

 

[McKDaddy]

The league admitted it was an error. Why are people still defending it?

Any rule or interpretation of a rule that would have nullified that play would be completely contrary to the nature of the game, athleticism & effort.

 

[TwoDeep3]

What part of the rule wasn’t met?

1. Control?
2. Two feet down inbounds?
3 Time to make a football move?

The fact his leg and the leg of the defender collided and Dez went to the ground. That then requires the receiver to hold onto the ball and not bobble it.
It seems most fans believe the football move somehow eliminates the fact he was digging with his legs, which to the fans this was a football move. However Dez was falling forward. falling none the less. Maintaining control throughout the play was required when their legs hit together. From the angle of the camera which shows Dez from the endzone, it is crystal clear the ball moved to the point it popped up. The ground dislodged it.

No catch.

I hate it. I wanted Dallas to win. But Romo elected to push all in on a low percentage play and not buy time, as he was famous for, and find another receiver.

 

[TwoDeep3]

only if you think none of these things are football moves: 3 steps, switching the ball into one hand and reaching out for the goal line.

The moment Dez came down from jumping to catch the ball, and his leg and the leg of the defender bumped, all this other business about football move was eliminated. Because Dez was in the midst of falling to the ground. That superseded all this other business.

 

[MarcusRock]

The league admitted it was an error. Why are people still defending it?

Any rule or interpretation of a rule that would have nullified that play would be completely contrary to the nature of the game, athleticism & effort.

Show where the league admitted it was an error. That was the grand misconception when they announced the new catch rule but they were merely saying that under the new changed rules, the Dez catch would have been a catch after they adjusted the rules.

 

[G2]

 

[Jarntt]

Show where the league admitted it was an error. That was the grand misconception when they announced the new catch rule but they were merely saying that under the new changed rules, the Dez catch would have been a catch after they adjusted the rules.

I think you can say the league admitted it should have been a catch and changed the rule to reflect that going forward

 

[G2]

 

[MarcusRock]

I think you can say the league admitted it should have been a catch and changed the rule to reflect that going forward

Well it was the Pittsburgh TE getting snared that made them move on it the prior playoff season. So after several cases in high profile games they adjusted it.

 

[OmerV]

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!

The ruling was that the steps were taking as part of the act of falling to the ground, and when falling to the ground the ball as to stay secured through the catch and contact with the ground. The idea was that to establish possession you have to have enough control to make a move, such as turning or changing directions, or in the absence of that, keep the ball secure all the way through the contact with the ground.

The point of the ball did touch the ground when Dez landed, which is what caused it to pop up where he had to catch it again.

Ultimately, it was just about the definition of "football move", which has always been fairly vague"

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

It was actually 4th and 2. They sell out for the run and stop you, then what? And the pass worked. That great offensive line got Romo sacked 2 times on the prior drive and 1 on that final drive (GB had 4 the whole game). It was just an unknown but the element of surprised worked.

It was a high risk throw….that failed. And you are right 4th and 2 my mistake. I don’t deny it worked. 4th and 2…..go deep….not a fan. Sam Shields too? It worked….but it didn’t.;

 

[Swagger]

Show where the league admitted it was an error. That was the grand misconception when they announced the new catch rule but they were merely saying that under the new changed rules, the Dez catch would have been a catch after they adjusted the rules.

They subsequently changed the rule and cited the Dez Bryant catch.

Why would they charge the rule other than to clear up any potential ambiguity in future comprehension of what constitutes a catch because the incorrect decision was made with Dez Bryant?

That's the clear implication otherwise they wouldn't have specifically used the Bryant catch as an example.

They made an error with the wording in the rulebook which left it open to varying interpretations.

You contend that Bryant was falling down. My contention is that after his first step of holding the ball and after Shields had tried to dislodge it, Bryant had control of the ball for two further steps and travelled at least 4 yards in the process.

His right arm was down at the 1 yard line and he then tried to make another football move when lunging for the endzone. The ball at that point appears to touch the ground but that's after Bryant had already controlled, possessed and effectively caught the ball.

If he didn't try score a touchdown i.e., a footballing move, then the ball wouldn't have touched the ground as it appears in your photo.

My understanding is that the purpose of the old rule was for players who jumped for the ball and then lost control as they landed on the ground on the same spot - not 4-5 yards beyond that and after a receiver had control of the ball for 2-3 steps and then attempted a further football move when lunging for the end zone resulting in the ball touching the ground.

And it clearly wasn't a bang bang play either.
 
That's quite clearly the case otherwise they wouldn't have changed the rule, in other words the old rule was misinterpreted. What Blandino or the referees said at the time was utter nonsense. They had to all stick together and Blandino came under fire for apparently being seen on Cownoys bus earlier in the season and a week after the officials picking up the flag in the Lions vs Cowboys game (which was correct as Pettigrew either facemasked or had hands to the face on Hitchens preventing him from turning around - this is a fact from an angle behind Pettigrew). The Lions also benefitted on a nonsense roughing the kicker/punter penalty which resulted in a touchdown but let's not mention that.

If it wasn't a catch then why change the rule within a few years and cite this very case...

If the old rule was correctly applied which as stated above I considered it to have misinterpreted then essentially old rules did not want sporting excellence and did not want players expressing themselves whilst trying to make elite level plays...i.e., completely contrary to what football is all about and in my view that's why the rule was changed as it was misinterpreted in this instance.

 

[OmerV]

only if you think none of these things are football moves: 3 steps, switching the ball into one hand and reaching out for the goal line.

The idea of the "football move" was to have enough control for enough time to make a move such as cutting and changing directions. The ruling at the time was he was falling as he took those steps, so he really didn't have control of his body, and that reaching does not demonstrate that kind of control

 

[JBS]

I was at this game. The rule today isn’t the same as it was back then. They changed the rule because of this play. It was absolutely a stupid rule and it is a catch. But it wasn’t a catch during that season , under those rules. That was a difficult L to stomach.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Unless the ref also ruled GTTG and didn't see the ball hit the ground which would be overturned on replay which it was. The ball would also be at the 1. You said if GTTG was ruled then it should have been a touchdown after Dez finally established possession in the endzone. Those are bobble/rollover yards allowing you to advance the ball after you were touched by a defender and hit the ground yourself. Literally not a rule with GTTG or anyplace else. Show me where it is in the 2014 rules.

If the ref did not see the ball hit the ground then it is a touchdown because there was no possession until he was in the endzone, by that logic. Bobble rollover yards isn't a rule? What are you even talking about lol? There's nothing that says "a bobbled pass can't be advanced," which is what you're claiming. A player isn't down until they have possession and the spot of the the ball isn't determined until a catch isn't complete. A player can lay on they're back and bobble the ball 100 yards forward if they want.

A player can't be ruled down down by contact if they do not become a runner, and a player can't become a runner without completing a catch first. Again, there are two ways the ref can rule assuming, as you're claiming, that they did not see the ball hit the ground:

1. Down by contact at the half yardline. This means that the ball was possessed, the receiver became a runner, and was touched down. The ball moving after the fact is irrelevant.
2. Touchdown. Possession was not complete when the runner was down before the goalline, so the player was not down by contact before the endzone.

If the ref did see the ball hit the ground:

1. Down by contact at the half yardline. This means that the ball was possessed, the receiver became a runner, and was touched down. The ball moving after the fact is irrelevant.
2. Incomplete. Ball hit the ground and came loose.

In either instance, the ref ruled that the receiver was down by contact at the half yard line. Because of that, these things have to be true:

1. Possession was determined before the player reached for the goalline.
2. The player is down by contact before the ball comes lose.
3. GTTB is irrelevant, because possession is determined before the player makes the action that caused the ball to touch the ground.

As such, the only way to overturn the call is to determine that the player had not established possession before reaching for the goalline. However, possession is determined by the fact that the player is making a football move because they are diving/reaching for the pilon as a runner. You can't overturn that as there is not "indisputable evidence" saying otherwise, because it is a subjective call. There is no way to determine, in an indisputable way, that a player was falling, rather than diving/reaching.

They messed up the call. It is what it is.

 

[MarcusRock]

They subsequently changed the rule and cited the Dez Bryant catch.

Why would they charge the rule other than to clear up any potential ambiguity in future comprehension of what constitutes a catch because the incorrect decision was made with Dez Bryant?

That's the clear implication otherwise they wouldn't have specifically used the Bryant catch as an example.

They cited ALL the catches of the past that would then be catches with the new rules. It was the Pittsburgh TE's play that forced the changed years after the Dez play.

They made an error with the wording in the rulebook which left it open to varying interpretations.

You contend that Bryant was falling down. My contention is that after his first step of holding the ball and after Shields had tried to dislodge it, Bryant had control of the ball for two further steps and travelled at least 4 yards.

His right arm was down at the 1 yard line and he then tried to make another football move when lunging for the endzone. The ball at that point appears to touch the ground but that's after Bryant had already controlled, possessed and effectively caught the ball.

If he didn't try score a touchdown i.e., a footballing move, then the ball wouldn't have touched the ground as it appears in your photo.

My understanding is that the purpose of the old rule was for players who jumped for the ball and then lost control as they landed on the ground on the same spot - not 4-5 yards beyond that and after a receiver had control of the ball for 2-3 steps and them made a further football move when lunging for the end zone resulting in the ball touching the ground.
 
That's quite clearly the case otherwise they wouldn't have changed the rule, in other words it was misinterpreted. What Blandino or the referees said at the time was utter nonsense. They had to all stick together and Blandino came under fire for apparently being seen on Cownoys bus earlier in the seasin and a week after the officials picking up the flag in the Lions vs Cowboys game (which was correct as Pettigrew either facemasked or had hands to the face on Hitchens preventing him from turning around - this is a fact from an angle behind Pettigrew). The Lions also benefitted on a nonsense roughing the kicker/punter penalty which resulted in a touchdown but let's not mention that.

If it wasn't a catch then why change the rule within a few years and cite this very case...

What is the "error" you cite in the rulebook? It was the same for any receiver jumping straight up or while moving forward that they had to maintain possession of the ball "throughout the process of contacting the ground" if they fell to the ground after controlling the ball in the air. The rest of your claims are just conspiracy talk. What was the error in the rules?

 

[Swagger]

They cited ALL the catches of the past that would then be catches with the new rules. It was the Pittsburgh TE's play that forced the changed years after the Dez play.




What is the "error" you cite in the rulebook? It was the same for any receiver jumping straight up or while moving forward that they had to maintain possession of the ball "throughout the process of contacting the ground" if they fell to the ground after controlling the ball in the air. The rest of your claims are just conspiracy talk. What was the error in the rules?

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.