Dez no catch #2?

[Zekeats]

Yes, but this applies more in the open field. Of course it was a "catch" according to the rules, but at the time the ball was secured with control he was out of bounds.

"Item 2. Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, or the pass is incomplete."

http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/

This is listed before the Item 2 sideline catch. It pertains to any and all catches and is clearly stated:



Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

 

[Zekeats]

It popped lose when his hand hit the ground, to me that looks like the ball pops lose.

I guess the question you are asking is "what is the definition of slight movement".............I guess that is subjective and open to interpretation.

That ball never left the palm of his left hand. It never popped out. It is considered slight movement.

If you could freeze a pic of the ball out of his hand then that means it did pop out, but it never did that so you can't. Which also means that there was not inconclusive evidence to overturn the call.

 

[Beast_from_East]

That ball never left the palm of his left hand. It never popped out. It is considered slight movement.

If you could freeze a pic of the ball out of his hand then that means it did pop out, but it never did that so you can't. Which also means that there was not inconclusive evidence to overturn the call.

Well apparently the refs disagree with your interpretation of the rules. They say if the ball moves at all, its incomplete and that is how the game is going to be officiated.

So you can either complain about it or you tell your WRs to hold onto the ball with a cobra ki death grip and don't let it move at all.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what is written in the rule book, all that matters is how the officials on the field interpret what is written in the rule book.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

That ball never left contact with the palm of his left hand. Show me where it did?

It's called control. If the ball is jiggling around in your hand and you don't gain control of it until you're laying out of bounds, that's not a catch.

You're stuck on the fact the ball was contacting his palm, which is meaningless if you don't have control, which he never did until he was out of bounds.

https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/www....wn-was-reversed-091116.amp.html?client=safari

 

[big dog cowboy]

Some of you still don't understand the rule. Dez made the catch but when he hit the ground the ball came loose and although it didn't appear the ball touched the ground when Dez regained control of the ball he was out of bounds. That's a no catch! He's had a problem of allowing the ball to come loose when he hits the ground. In preseason against the Rams he made a similar play in the endzone and once again when he hit the ground the ball came loose but it appeared he scored and the ball may have been slapped away by the defender. It was another play that was questionable but they didn't review it. He has big, strong hands he has to try and hang onto the ball without it coming loose when he hits the ground. He does the hardest part by catching the ball and coming down with it but he continues to allow the ball to come loose when he hits the ground.

This is a good explaination.

 

[KJJ]

This is a good explaination.

 

[erod]

Seriously?

This clearly was not a catch. Please.

 

[BrassCowboy]

I know. That is what I seen too. My argument is that it never left his hand that he initially caught it with. It never bobbled out or came untouched by his hand during the catch. Once the ball touches his hand it is ALWAYS in contact with his hand. I just wonder what the rule book states as far as that is concerned.

like someone else pointed out, if he would of caught it like that in the middle of the field it would be a catch, but in this instance when he finally secured the ball it was out of bounds = no catch

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

The ruling was that the receiver lost control of the ball when he hit the ground but it looks like the ball never hit the ground. The ball did shift/move around a little but it never bobbled out of his hand/s. What is the correct ruling supposed to be? The rules are still insanely vague. They are still judgement calls and in this case was there ENOUGH EVIDENCE to over rule the original call.

See for yourself: 1:55

http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2016/09/11/highlights-giants-vs-cowboys

Game is lost. Move on.
But, blokes, Dez's arms-crossed gangsta pose in front of the ref was gold. Gold I tell you! A tip of his hat to the hood!

 

[DogFace]

I'm starting to think the catch rules are open to interpretation.

I've seen more movement than the ball moved on Dez while going out and a catch was awarded. We will see it again. Just never in our favor I fear.

 

[Zekeats]

It's called control. If the ball is jiggling around in your hand and you don't gain control of it until you're laying out of bounds, that's not a catch.

You're stuck on the fact the ball was contacting his palm, which is meaningless if you don't have control, which he never did until he was out of bounds.

https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/www....wn-was-reversed-091116.amp.html?client=safari

Well apparently the refs disagree with your interpretation of the rules. They say if the ball moves at all, its incomplete and that is how the game is going to be officiated.

So you can either complain about it or you tell your WRs to hold onto the ball with a cobra ki death grip and don't let it move at all.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what is written in the rule book, all that matters is how the officials on the field interpret what is written in the rule book.

LOL. It's not my rule, it's their own. And just because it's in the rule book doesn't mean they follow it (see Dez, Calvin, Golden, ect.). Listen at first I thought it wasn't a catch at all but now knowing the rules and that you need undisputed evidence to overturn the call on the field I really don't see how they could do so with what is stated in the rule book. I agree to that Dez needs to do a better job of just holding onto the dam ball.

 

[Zekeats]

It's called control. If the ball is jiggling around in your hand and you don't gain control of it until you're laying out of bounds, that's not a catch.

You're stuck on the fact the ball was contacting his palm, which is meaningless if you don't have control, which he never did until he was out of bounds.

https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/www....wn-was-reversed-091116.amp.html?client=safari

Don't start the videos of a no good piece of **** Cowboys hater. **** this ******* too! He just explained exactly why the "note" on slight movement was put in, for plays like this. And once again, show me where he LOST CONTROL OF THE BALL!?!?!? Neither you or anyone else can which is why I will keep defending this STILL BULL**** RULE!

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

 

[cowboys2233]

The ruling was that the receiver lost control of the ball when he hit the ground but it looks like the ball never hit the ground. The ball did shift/move around a little but it never bobbled out of his hand/s. What is the correct ruling supposed to be? The rules are still insanely vague. They are still judgement calls and in this case was there ENOUGH EVIDENCE to over rule the original call.

See for yourself: 1:55

http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2016/09/11/highlights-giants-vs-cowboys

I agree with you on the ridiculous and unnecessarily subjective definition of a catch, but the ball was definitely lose for a split second. You can see the ball spin in his hand, watch the laces.

 

[Zekeats]

By Nunzio IngrassiaSep 11, 2016 at 6:39p ET


It's probably safe to say Dez Bryant is not the biggest fan of replay.



The Dallas Cowboys star wideout appeared to haul in a spectacular leaping grab over Giants safety Landon Collins in the second quarter Sunday. The play was initially ruled a touchdown on the field, but like every TD in the NFL, it was automatically reviewed.



It appeared Bryant had control of the ball when the play occurred in real time, but when you take a closer look he loses control of it when he hits the ground.




So did the refs get it right?



"It is not a catch," FOX Sports NFL rules expert Mike Pereira said. "He's going to the ground, and the ball comes loose. Actually, it comes loose in his hands. ... The key point is even though the ball didn't hit the ground, which I don't think it did, it was loose in his hands while Dez was touching out of bounds.

There you have it folks. Mike ******* Pierea saying it was loose while he had it in his hands. Now that makes ******* sense. That ball never came out of his hands, and never touched the ******* ground. Sounds like this:

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

 

[Zekeats]

Well apparently the refs disagree with your interpretation of the rules. They say if the ball moves at all, its incomplete and that is how the game is going to be officiated.

So you can either complain about it or you tell your WRs to hold onto the ball with a cobra ki death grip and don't let it move at all.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what is written in the rule book, all that matters is how the officials on the field interpret what is written in the rule book.

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

HE HAD CONRTOL WHEN HE FIRST CAUGHT IT. HE WENT TO THE GROUND AND WHEN HE HIT THE GROUND THERE IS SLIGHT MOVEMENT OF THE BALL WHILE STILL BEING POSSESSED IN HIS HAND/S. HE NEVER LOSES CONTROL OF THE BALL IN ORDER TO RULE THERE WAS A LOSS OF POSSESSION.

NOBODY ON HERE CAN STILL SHOW ME HIM LOSING POSSESSION. JUST SHOW ME ONE STILL SHOT OF HIM WITHOUT THE BALL!

 

[landroverking]

I'm starting to think Dez's hands just aren't that great.
I wonder if he lost some grip.

 

[Zekeats]

Game is lost. Move on.
But, blokes, Dez's arms-crossed gangsta pose in front of the ref was gold. Gold I tell you! A tip of his hat to the hood!

I really can't stand you. You annoy and aggravate me.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

I really can't stand you. You annoy and aggravate me.

I'll tell me mum on you.

 

[Ken]

It's called control. If the ball is jiggling around in your hand and you don't gain control of it until you're laying out of bounds, that's not a catch.

You're stuck on the fact the ball was contacting his palm, which is meaningless if you don't have control, which he never did until he was out of bounds.

https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/www....wn-was-reversed-091116.amp.html?client=safari

He had control of the ball when he snatched it, turned with it and pulled it to his body. Of course when his elbow hit the ball would move but it never left his and and it never hit the ground.

They have made catching the ball a ridiculous circus.

 

[bandfan]

He had control of the ball when he snatched it, turned with it and pulled it to his body. Of course when his elbow hit the ball would move but it never left his and and it never hit the ground.

They have made catching the ball a ridiculous circus.

By "rule" it was not a catch.... tells me all I need to know about the "rule"