DMN: NFL VP of Officiating: It’s not unreasonable to watch everything Dez did and think

[percyhoward]

Not when contact was made which caused the fall and that was the second step.

It's much simpler than that. A football move establishes Dez as a runner. Reaching for the goal line is a football move, according to precedent. Blandino said it wasn't an "obvious" reach, so Dez never became a runner. He then explained what would have constituted an obvious reach for the goal line: arm extension, or two hands on the ball.

We are supposed to believe that if Dez had done one of those things, the catch would have stood as called on the field. Even though there was no logical reason for Dez to do either one of those things.

 

[gimmesix]

I have wrestled with me feelings about this play all off season. And as much as I want that to be a catch, I see exactly what the refs see. Contact by Dez and the defender, no matter how many steps he took, is what caused him to fall IN THEIR EYES. It was not the reaching out, or leaping forward, but IN THEIR EYES, it was the sense of out of control and pushing off toward the goal line in a continuation of what they considered falling that counts.

IN THEIR EYES, HE WAS FALLING FORWARD.

One can make the argument he was stepping forward, but his body angle gave them a sense he was losing a fight with his balance. And that was precipitated by the contact.

In that light, he had to maintain control of the ball. The ball popped out of his hand. There is no disputing that.

Football move is far too subjective for anyone to assign that to what transpired.

I hate it, But I get it.

The only problem I have with that is a judgment call had been made on the field that it was a catch. In that case, there needed to be indisputable evidence that it wasn't, and I don't think Blandino can say it existed.

If it had not been ruled a catch, you could say the same thing.

Replay is there to change the call in the face of indisputable evidence. It was misused on that play.

 

[Hardline]

If you knew the difference between moot and mute we'd all stop laughing and pointing.

No, we really wouldn't.

If you knew the difference between misspelling and autocorrect I would stop laughing at you.

 

[burmafrd]

everyone who ever coached or played football knows that was a catch. Only in the messed up NFL could a rule be cooked up to claim otherwise.

They never should make a rule because of a one time freak occurrence. They over reacted with Megatron and the chickens came home to roost with the Dez CATCH.

 

[AmericasTeam81]

The only problem I have with that is a judgment call had been made on the field that it was a catch. In that case, there needed to be indisputable evidence that it wasn't, and I don't think Blandino can say it existed.

If it had not been ruled a catch, you could say the same thing.

Replay is there to change the call in the face of indisputable evidence. It was misused on that play.

This is my BIGGEST gripe with the booth review ruling. There wasn't indisputable evidence to reverse the ruling on the field.

 

[dirtycallahan]

Has he ever addressed the blown call on the Cobb "catch" before halftime. Free pass on the worst replay overturn of the year.

 

[marchetta]

All this does is re-opens a wound that will NOT heal! "I'm still hurting dog, don't ask me if I'm alright!"

 

[AmericasTeam81]

The Dez Bryant "catch, non catch" will be like "remember the Alamo"

 

[jobberone]

I thought this thread would make 9-10 pages.

I should be flogged for starting it, huh?! Nah! Muhaha.***Evil Darth Sidious Laugh***

 

[big dog cowboy]

Replay is there to change the call in the face of indisputable evidence. It was misused on that play.

 

[theogt]

I have wrestled with me feelings about this play all off season. And as much as I want that to be a catch, I see exactly what the refs see. Contact by Dez and the defender, no matter how many steps he took, is what caused him to fall IN THEIR EYES. It was not the reaching out, or leaping forward, but IN THEIR EYES, it was the sense of out of control and pushing off toward the goal line in a continuation of what they considered falling that counts.

Right. A reasonable person can form the opinion that he was not lunging and was merely falling forward. No one can legitimately dispute there's reasonable basis for that opinion.

Also, a reasonable person can form the opinion that he was lunging and pushing forward to cross the plane -- an act that goes beyond merely falling forward. And again, no one can dispute there's a reasonable basis for that opinion.

But this doesn't mean the league is right. Actually, it means that overturning the call on the field was wrong. It is quite far from irrefutable evidence. The members of the competition committee couldn't even agree when they reviewed the play.

So, in the end, the referees got it wrong.

 

[kramskoi]

In the absence of clear, controvertible evidence, the ruling on the field stands as called. This means two things: One. They blew it. Two. They will NEVER admit it. Beckham Jr. said it best.

 

[Gator88]

Has he ever addressed the blown call on the Cobb "catch" before halftime. Free pass on the worst replay overturn of the year.

Yup. Supposedly, that one didn't have indisputable evidence to overturn. This is despite there being multiple angles clearly showing the ball touching the ground. The Dez catch on the other hand was clearly indisputable evidence though.

 

[nathanlt]

And now for a completely NEW twist to the Dez-catch-that-was-taken-away.

Because of all that Dez did during the catch, the NFL is stuck in a corner. They cannot publish a list of appropriate football moves, moves common to the game, etc. If they ever TRY to clarify what constitutes a catch, they will have, by default, admitted that Dez caught the ball.

Blandino will have to be fired before they can clarify anything. Prediction: This catch business during the 2015 season is only going to get MUCH WORSE. And, despite Blandino's lies about it being more consistent, the rule has been worded to be very loosely interpreted during the game. It will be inconsistently applied.

 

[nathanlt]

It's much simpler than that. A football move establishes Dez as a runner. Reaching for the goal line is a football move, according to precedent. Blandino said it wasn't an "obvious" reach, so Dez never became a runner. He then explained what would have constituted an obvious reach for the goal line: arm extension, or two hands on the ball.

We are supposed to believe that if Dez had done one of those things, the catch would have stood as called on the field. Even though there was no logical reason for Dez to do either one of those things.

Hmm... So he finally admitted that when Dez had the ball with two hands on his right shoulder, it was a catch???


Oh, this is getting good!

 

[cej757]

What really pissed me off was when he kept saying don't look at the play in slow motion you have to look at it in real time speed. I still don't understand that Bs? I watched it in both speeds and to me Dez caught the ball was contacted and went down at the 1 yard line.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Read me the process of a catch.

Contact - when their legs touched.

Going to the ground and maintaining the control of the ball.

The ball evidently moved when it rolled over the top of his hand after contacting the ground.

His third step was in the motiuon of falling. His intent didn't matter. That is what you and all the people supporting the play as a catch are using to hold up it was a catch. But his falli

You seem pretty sure...

Have you ever been wrong before?

So, let me see if I have this right. You are defending your opinion on this event. Yet you ask me if I have ever been wrong?

How am I doing anything different from you. Other than watching the video, and seeing the contact is construed as what sent him forward and to the ground. Which then makes his "football move" moot and the control issue with catching a ball is in play.

The ball then rolled over his hand after contact with the ground, which means it moved. That makes it not a catch. Period.

Yet you ask me in a condescending way if I have ever been wrong. So I'll ask you this.

Have you ever read my signature before?

And this.

When you have been wrong on this board, and you have because you are human, have you ever self imposed a sig that points it out?

As I stated in my initial post in this thread, I have wrestled with this all off season. But I have watched that video over and over and read a great deal about the decision and come to the conclusion the way the rule is written is how the rule was applied.

The people who suggest there was no evidence to overturn the call ignore the most damning piece of evidence, which was the ball rolling over the top of his hand after contact with the ground.

Which clearly meets the most basic criteria in the rule of a non-catch. The ball moved after contact with the ground. That rule is enforced every day when they play games in this league.

I don't like it. But I am not as jaded as to ignore the truth in how the rule is applied.

Should they change the rule? I think so. It is far too arbitrary and leave too much to interpretation.

But to recap, once contact had been made, and he went to the ground, he had to maintain control and the ball not move from his hand.

It did move and that is not a catch.

 

[AsthmaField]

Contact - when their legs touched.

Going to the ground and maintaining the control of the ball.

The ball evidently moved when it rolled over the top of his hand after contacting the ground.

His third step was in the motiuon of falling. His intent didn't matter. That is what you and all the people supporting the play as a catch are using to hold up it was a catch. But his falli


So, let me see if I have this right. You are defending your opinion on this event. Yet you ask me if I have ever been wrong?

How am I doing anything different from you. Other than watching the video, and seeing the contact is construed as what sent him forward and to the ground. Which then makes his "football move" moot and the control issue with catching a ball is in play.

The ball then rolled over his hand after contact with the ground, which means it moved. That makes it not a catch. Period.

Yet you ask me in a condescending way if I have ever been wrong. So I'll ask you this.

Have you ever read my signature before?

And this.

When you have been wrong on this board, and you have because you are human, have you ever self imposed a sig that points it out?

As I stated in my initial post in this thread, I have wrestled with this all off season. But I have watched that video over and over and read a great deal about the decision and come to the conclusion the way the rule is written is how the rule was applied.

The people who suggest there was no evidence to overturn the call ignore the most damning piece of evidence, which was the ball rolling over the top of his hand after contact with the ground.

Which clearly meets the most basic criteria in the rule of a non-catch. The ball moved after contact with the ground. That rule is enforced every day when they play games in this league.

I don't like it. But I am not as jaded as to ignore the truth in how the rule is applied.

Should they change the rule? I think so. It is far too arbitrary and leave too much to interpretation.

But to recap, once contact had been made, and he went to the ground, he had to maintain control and the ball not move from his hand.

It did move and that is not a catch.

I was just poking a little fun. Didn't mean to rile you up so.

But yeah, I've been wrong before. Although, maybe not on the dez catch. I don't really recall writing much on it but perhaps I did. Too touchy a subject for me, probably.

Maybe one day I'll be strong enough to admit my mistakes with a picture of a guy with pink hair saying that I was wrong.

Until then, I'm just admiring you from afar.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Right. A reasonable person can form the opinion that he was not lunging and was merely falling forward. No one can legitimately dispute there's reasonable basis for that opinion.

Also, a reasonable person can form the opinion that he was lunging and pushing forward to cross the plane -- an act that goes beyond merely falling forward. And again, no one can dispute there's a reasonable basis for that opinion.

But this doesn't mean the league is right. Actually, it means that overturning the call on the field was wrong. It is quite far from irrefutable evidence. The members of the competition committee couldn't even agree when they reviewed the play.

So, in the end, the referees got it wrong.

This is math. Plain and simple.

If they agree he was falling, then he needed to maintain control. 2+2=4.

If he lost control, then they overturn. Again, 2=2=4.

1. He was contacted by the defender.
2. He went toward the ground after that contact, ergo falling.
3. He dug in with a third step and lunged.
4. But he was initially falling.
5. Therefore he was going to the ground.
6. That initiates the rule of maintaining control of the ball.
7. The play was reviewed.
8. The play - like so many others during the season - was overturned because he did not maintain control of the ball to the ground.

Everything else is superfluous to the basic steps of this play. Al, the grousing over his intent and football move were moot if he was intentionally lunging because the step prior was contact and he fell forward.

That makes all of this one continuous move from grasping the ball to the ground. And that makes the rules of control apply.

They had a right to overturn it, because they do that over and over when control is not maintained. And they have done that in "catches" where the ball moved a lot less than rolling over the players hand after contacting the ground.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I was just poking a little fun. Didn't mean to rile you up so.

But yeah, I've been wrong before. Although, maybe not on the dez catch. I don't really recall writing much on it but perhaps I did. Too touchy a subject for me, probably.

Maybe one day I'll be strong enough to admit my mistakes with a picture of a guy with pink hair saying that I was wrong.

Until then, I'm just admiring you from afar.

You're good man, Charlie Brown.