Dez catch

[Swagger]

Ask yourself this one simple question, if it wasn't a catch then why on earth would the rule be changed?

 

[Swagger]

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.

That's the point.

One person claims Bryant slipped but another claims he was lunging for the pylon i.e., making a football move and possession of the ball had already been established at that point.

 

[Swagger]

It doesn't take people 5 yards to fall inless it's a Laurel and Hardy sketch. If he was falling he hits the ground within a yard. The reason he travelled 5 yards is because he was trying to reach the endzone.

 

[CowboyFrog]

The anger is generally over the fact they overturned it while it was still clearly not undisputable either way...he wasnt clearly falling, had he clearly not made a football move it was reversed using a rule that shouldn't be overturned unless undisputable....clearly no football move, clearly no steps..thats how they explained the video replay would work and if they called it incomplete on the field you probably wouldn't have nearly as much anger...

 

[G2]

Ask yourself this one simple question, if it wasn't a catch then why on earth would the rule be changed?

Because it needed to be modified? It wasn't a catch, that's why they ruled the way they did at the time.

 

[Proof]

A true winner never drops that pass. Jerry Rice, Irvin, guys like that would have squeezed that thing like the world depended on it. They would have had no other thoughts.

A dope like Dez waves it around like a picnic ham. He dropped it. You guys need to accept that he failed and move on with life.

did dez adopt your monkey? how many posts are you going to make insulting him that no one interacts with? we get it, weirdo.

 

[Proof]

whining about it 8 years later doesn't change the fact that he didn't meet the standard of the rule at the time to be a completed catch...move on!

yes he did. and it's subjective. so piss off with "doesn't change the fact" that's the whole point of the discussion. just ignore it if you're concerned with moving on.

 

[Proof]

Yeah that was the best chance we've had since the 90s. Crushing, crushing loss.

i was in afghanistan at the time and had to stay up until 4 am to watch that heartbreaker. then work at 6 til 6. still scarred.

 

[DallasEast]

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

One of the best movies, in any genre, to have ever been released in my opinion. Classic reference but it was a pivotal event that occurred for some fans. It will not be soon forgotten and will continually resurface for discussion.

That said, the particular play and subsequent penalty would sting a little less for me if there was a real Princess Anna, who would punch Dean Blandino smack dab in his face. Yes. That would be very satisfying sight to see...

 

[Proof]

You going to join in or just bark from the porch? Anyone mad at me posting about this knows I'm right and can't oppose it. And at least get my name correct, lol.

Little Marco! Sad!

 

[DogFace]

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.

No part of the rule stated that. He wasn’t going to the ground to complete the process. He went up in the air to make the catch. Not to the ground. The process was complete once he brought it from above his head and secured it with two hands up against his shoulder.

At that point the process of the catch was complete. After that point he was a runner.
There’s a case study, or whatever the NFL called it with Blandino himself explained it. This was prior do his horrid Dez ruling.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

Agreed on the bold .... if they aren't touched down by a defender and the ball also didn't touch the ground. But replay showed both happened. (Are you still not going to show me where they can't go to replay to show whether a pass was actually complete or not? Because that's what happened that you say can't be reviewed and overturned.) So with either GTTG or not, you are down at the 1. With GTTG, the ball touches and you lose possession, it's not a catch whether you got touched down or not. Again, this is why I say everyone tries to legislate Dez as being upright because GTTG kills any case on the spot. But it's clear Dez is falling, it's clear the ball touched the ground, it's clear it came out of both hands, and it's he didn't execute the lunge that gets you out of GTTG. If anyone wants to attack something it's the last thing I listed.

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.

You missed one:
3. Going to the Gound was called but the ball did not touch the ground (because he didn't see it). A catch and down at the 1. He met the time element of the catch because he kept the ball off the ground or it touched but Dez controlled it. He doesn't get to bounce off the ground, have the ball come out and repossess it for a TD which is what you stated he could do even after being touched and the ball touching. He cannot.

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.

1. Not completely so. In either case, GTTG or not, this would be complete if Dez continued to possess/control the ball even though it hit the ground but it did not dislodge, even if there was "slight movement" per the rules. Under GTTG, the ball moves after he hits the ground and comes out of his control, it is not a catch. GTTG supercedes the upright catch rules and the ground becomes pivotal thing once that tag is applied.
2. If upright and ruled a runner, it's complete. It's incomplete under GTTG.

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.

1. Or the ref did cite GTTG but didn't see the ball hit the ground. Replay took care of that. He'd still be ruled as down at the 1 under GTTG.
2. If upright, but see my #1. Under GTTG, the player has to survive the ground with possession. He did not.
3. GTTG is the whole point of the call. You cannot legislate it away.

The rest is what the on-field ref or replay officials deem didn't happen. He was falling and did not "gather himself" to lunge forward to escape the GTTG tag per the rules. There was your time/football move. If he was ruled as GTTG by the on-field ref or replay officials, then the indisputable evidence was the ball touching the ground which you and others say didn't happen before today. It did though and was the basis for the overturn. Indisputable as in, neither you replied "no it didn't touch the ground." Ball off ground - catch. Ball on ground and dislodged - not a catch. That is indisputable. The other stuff you post is your opinion based on left out information I filled in above. Like the pass, incomplete.

 

[DogFace]

Exactly, and that’s what pissed me off . He came down with the ball, and now he turned from receiver to runner. So the ball coming loose when he was tackled and hit the ground was irrelevant.

Had he caught the ball and came down and hit the ground with the ball coming loose, then I can agree about no catch.

Yes. And as @McKDaddy explained. He was going up in the air to make the catch. Not going to the ground to make it.

The catch process was competed as he hit the ground with two feet because the time part, displayed by Dez bringing it down to his shoulder, was satisfied.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Agreed on the bold .... if they aren't touched down by a defender and the ball also didn't touch the ground. But replay showed both happened. (Are you still not going to show me where they can't go to replay to show whether a pass was actually complete or not? Because that's what happened that you say can't be reviewed and overturned.) So with either GTTG or not, you are down at the 1. With GTTG, the ball touches and you lose possession, it's not a catch whether you got touched down or not. Again, this is why I say everyone tries to legislate Dez as being upright because GTTG kills any case on the spot. But it's clear Dez is falling, it's clear the ball touched the ground, it's clear it came out of both hands, and it's he didn't execute the lunge that gets you out of GTTG. If anyone wants to attack something it's the last thing I listed.


You missed one:
3. Going to the Gound was called but the ball did not touch the ground (because he didn't see it). A catch and down at the 1. He met the time element of the catch because he kept the ball off the ground or it touched but Dez controlled it. He doesn't get to bounce off the ground, have the ball come out and repossess it for a TD which is what you stated he could do even after being touched and the ball touching. He cannot.


1. Not completely so. In either case, GTTG or not, this would be complete if Dez continued to possess/control the ball even though it hit the ground but it did not dislodge, even if there was "slight movement" per the rules. Under GTTG, the ball moves after he hits the ground and comes out of his control, it is not a catch. GTTG supercedes the upright catch rules and the ground becomes pivotal thing once that tag is applied.
2. If upright and ruled a runner, it's complete. It's incomplete under GTTG.


1. Or the ref did cite GTTG but didn't see the ball hit the ground. Replay took care of that. He'd still be ruled as down at the 1 under GTTG.
2. If upright, but see my #1. Under GTTG, the player has to survive the ground with possession. He did not.
3. GTTG is the whole point of the call. You cannot legislate it away.

The rest is what the on-field ref or replay officials deem didn't happen. He was falling and did not "gather himself" to lunge forward to escape the GTTG tag per the rules. There was your time/football move. If he was ruled as GTTG by the on-field ref or replay officials, then the indisputable evidence was the ball touching the ground which you and others say didn't happen before today. It did though and was the basis for the overturn. Indisputable as in, neither you replied "no it didn't touch the ground." Ball off ground - catch. Ball on ground and dislodged - not a catch. That is indisputable. The other stuff you post is your opinion based on left out information I filled in above. Like the pass, incomplete.

I appreciate the effort but this is just repetition of the same thing.

GTTG does not come into effect unless they rule that Dez was not a runner when the ball hit the ground. To do that, they have to make the judgement that he was not, which is subjective, and can't be overturned. You're missing or ignoring that fundamental point.

Again, if the ref did not see the ball hit the ground and was not ruling that Dez was a runner, then possession would not have occurred until the end zone. There is no scenario in which the ref determined that Dez was not a runner and had not completed the catch before hitting the ground but ruled him down at the half yardline.

 

[CowboyFrog]

I appreciate the effort but this is a tl;dr.

GTTG does not come into effect unless they rule that Dez was not a runner when the ball hit the ground. To do that, they have to make the judgement that he was not, which is subjective, and can't be overturned. You're missing or ignoring that fundamental point.

I said the same, they cant overturn a judgment call it has to be undisputable to be overtunred and judgment calls are not that....they had to really reach to overturn it which is why you have the anger. If it was called a no catch on the field then it would be a diferent story.

 

[OmerV]

Ask yourself this one simple question, if it wasn't a catch then why on earth would the rule be changed?

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.

 

[OmerV]

I said the same, they cant overturn a judgment call it has to be undisputable to be overtunred and judgment calls are not that....they had to really reach to overturn it which is why you have the anger. If it was called a no catch on the field then it would be a diferent story.

They review calls on whether possession was established all the time.

 

[ArtClink]

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!

Terrible call. But our defense lost that game, not the refs. Almost 5 min left on the clock, not 3 seconds. And our defense could not make any critical stops when we need it. This loss is 80% on the defense, 10% on Murray for fumbling, and 10% on the refs for blowing the call and finding a way to find fault with an obvious TD. Romo was great and deserves little or no blame.

 

[OmerV]

Yes. And as @McKDaddy explained. He was going up in the air to make the catch. Not going to the ground to make it.

The catch process was competed as he hit the ground with two feet because the time part, displayed by Dez bringing it down to his shoulder, was satisfied.

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.

 

[MarcusRock]

I appreciate the effort but this is just repetition of the same thing.

GTTG does not come into effect unless they rule that Dez was not a runner when the ball hit the ground. To do that, they have to make the judgement that he was not, which is subjective, and can't be overturned. You're missing or ignoring that fundamental point.

Again, if the ref did not see the ball hit the ground and was not ruling that Dez was a runner, then possession would not have occurred until the end zone. There is no scenario in which the ref determined that Dez was not a runner and had not completed the catch before hitting the ground but ruled him down at the half yardline.

In that new rule video I posted earlier they showed the Arizona/Seattle game where the AZ receiver caught the ball, took 4 steps as he was going to the ground and the ball came out. It was ruled a fumble, then changed to GTTG after replay. Same rule, same subjective call reversed. Why could that one be reversed between a completed catch and GTTG applied later but the Dez call could not? You keep trying to create this "they can't review a subjective call" rule with no citation. Do you have one? Where in the rules does it say you can't overturn a subjective call? There's literally an example on a "GTTG or not" play that says otherwise. Same for calling a run a 1st down when it was subjectively spotted short at first and overturned on replay.

What you're ignoring is the on-field ref could have ruled GTTG but didn't see the ball touch the ground where Dez would still be down at the 1 because in that case he had control, was contacted, and survived the ground and rolled over before the ball came out of his hands. If he didn't see it touch, then the player is ruled down where you survived the ground (at the 1). Anything else is post-bounce/slide/rollover YAC including scoring a TD from such. Zero basis in the rules for it unless you have a citation I keep asking for. Have any?