News: DMN: Rule that overturned Dez Bryant’s catch doesn’t sound like it will be changed

[tyke1doe]

Why do they say that in mma or boxing?

The refs have little to do with the result in those sports.
Judges maybe.

I meant judges. My bad. Thanks for the correction. But I think you got my point.

 

[percyhoward]

This thread was supposed to be locked. I told you I'm not answering anymore questions I've invested far too much time on this topic and our views aren't going to change. The ban button looks like it's about to be pushed so I'm done!

It was because we have plays like the Thomas catch as an established precedent. If Dez had reached with two hands, they'd have had no choice but to rule it a catch. I'll sum it up in one mind-numbing sentence...

According to the NFL, you can break the plane while holding the ball in one hand, and trying to break the plane is a football move, but trying to break the plane while holding the ball in one hand is not a football move.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'll wait for the two genius on here to try to explain the terrible inconsistancy in that ruling above. It should be funnier than their other rants. Possibly.

If you go through life, you're bound to find a ton of inconsistencies. It happens. And that's because people are human. They make mistakes. They also don't possess complete understanding of situations and issues.
The way I perceived something when I was 20 might not be the same way I view it at age 40. Is that inconsistent? To those who are looking to use it to condemn my present action, yes.
Or maybe I've come to a better/more complete understanding of an issue.

As to the video percyhoward submitted, I don't think Julius Thomas' touchdown was a catch. It appears he's stumbling as he crosses the goal line. But ...
there are a few differences:
1. He's firmly on his feet when he catches the ball and is tripped by the defender. Dez, on the other hand, was in the air when he catches the ball and is falling to the ground. Although he's tripped by Shields, his initial momentum is carrying him to the ground.
2. Thomas makes it to the goal line. I wonder if Dez makes it to the goal line whether the catch would have been upheld. We'll never know.

Maybe that factored into the decision. I don't know. But all situations aren't the same. There are nuances to everything, even situations that appear to be the same but not. You may believe that's justification. I believe it's called life. And if you go around trying to find consistency in everyone's actions and in every situation, you'll drive yourself crazy (which is what some of you are doing to yourselves) because that's just not how the world works, unfortunately.

Anyway, my goal is not to defend the refs or Blandino based on how they interpreted rules previously. Based on how that play is called for the most part, it's not going to be a catch. I'm sure you'll find exceptions to all rules. But all I've been saying is I can understand why it wasn't a catch.

Would I have liked for it to have been a catch? Yes. Would I have been complaining if it was ultimately ruled a catch? No.

However, in the end, we're all Cowboys fans. I just feel the questioning allegiances or calling others shrills for the NFL is pointless.

So there's my take. Do with it what you will.

 

[DogFace]

I meant judges. My bad. Thanks for the correction. But I think you got my point.

I know what you meant. Just couldnt resist

 

[DogFace]

If you go through life, you're bound to find a ton of inconsistencies. It happens. And that's because people are human. They make mistakes. They also don't possess complete understanding of situations and issues.
The way I perceived something when I was 20 might not be the same way I view it at age 40. Is that inconsistent? To those who are looking to use it to condemn my present action, yes.
Or maybe I've come to a better/more complete understanding of an issue.

As to the video percyhoward submitted, I don't think Julius Thomas' touchdown was a catch. It appears he's stumbling as he crosses the goal line. But ...
there are a few differences:
1. He's firmly on his feet when he catches the ball and is tripped by the defender. Dez, on the other hand, was in the air when he catches the ball and is falling to the ground. Although he's tripped by Shields, his initial momentum is carrying him to the ground.
2. Thomas makes it to the goal line. I wonder if Dez makes it to the goal line whether the catch would have been upheld. We'll never know.

Maybe that factored into the decision. I don't know. But all situations aren't the same. There are nuances to everything, even situations that appear to be the same but not. You may believe that's justification. I believe it's called life. And if you go around trying to find consistency in everyone's actions and in every situation, you'll drive yourself crazy (which is what some of you are doing to yourselves) because that's just not how the world works, unfortunately.

Anyway, my goal is not to defend the refs or Blandino based on how they interpreted rules previously. Based on how that play is called for the most part, it's not going to be a catch. I'm sure you'll find exceptions to all rules. But all I've been saying is I can understand why it wasn't a catch.

Would I have liked for it to have been a catch? Yes. Would I have been complaining if it was ultimately ruled a catch? No.

However, in the end, we're all Cowboys fans. I just feel the questioning allegiances or calling others shrills for the NFL is pointless.

So there's my take. Do with it what you will.

That's fair and open minded

 

[tyke1doe]

I know what you meant. Just couldnt resist

The Cowboys motto next year should be: Don't leave it for the refs to decide.

 

[FloridaRob]

If Sam Shields does the exact same thing that Dez does and intercepts the ball but in going to the ground in the same stumbling manner, the ball pops up and he re-catches it, Are you guys screaming that it should have been an interception. Or are you going to go by the letter of the rule and say he did not hold it through the process. I would pretty much bet the house that all of you arguing that the replay overturning was wrong would be saying Shields should not get credit for the pick. Anybody that watched the game knows it was a catch. But by the letter of the rule, he did not complete the process and therefore was correctly overturned.

 

[percyhoward]

As to the video percyhoward submitted, I don't think Julius Thomas' touchdown was a catch. It appears he's stumbling as he crosses the goal line. But ...
there are a few differences:
1. He's firmly on his feet when he catches the ball and is tripped by the defender. Dez, on the other hand, was in the air when he catches the ball and is falling to the ground. Although he's tripped by Shields, his initial momentum is carrying him to the ground.
2. Thomas makes it to the goal line. I wonder if Dez makes it to the goal line whether the catch would have been upheld. We'll never know.

While those certainly are two differences, having feet firmly down when you catch the ball isn't one of the requirements for a catch in the NFL. You need control and two feet down, then hold the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game, but the two feet down can come after the catch. Gresham in the 2013 playoffs is an example of a player who went up to catch it, came down on both feet, then was immediately knocked out of bounds, and lost the ball when he hit the ground. Still a catch. The play and Blandino's explanation are @ 0:48 here.

#2, while also a difference, did not affect the ruling either. Blandino was specifically asked if Dez breaking the plane makes it a catch, and he said it did not. Which makes sense, because possession shouldn't be determined by being a a yard or two farther down field. That question and Blandino's answer @4:30 here.

Blandino explains the ruling of the Thomas play and gives the definitive description of the catch process @1:30 here. It was ruled a catch because of Thomas' reach for the goal line. That was the 3rd part (call it a football move, or act common to the game) that completed the catch process and made him a runner, so that he didn't have to maintain possession after he hit the ground. This is also why the NFL said Dez's catch would have stood if he had reached out with two hands instead of one.

 

[WV Cowboy]

I said it twice because it points to an objective measurement. What difference does it make that you think that lawyers, et. al., are ruining the NFL? How do we measure that OBJECTIVELY? By your feelings?
Well, you measure that by movements that measure decline.
If the NFL isn't declining in viewership, then it certainly isn't being ruined.
You want to make this a subjective exercise so your opinion can be the standard. I'm making this an objective exercise so we can measure "ruin" by an observable and quantifiable standard.

LOL, .. geesh, no wonder you must love all of the complicated new rules that have complicated the very simple game of football.

The decline in the quality of the game and the increase in viewership have nothing to do with each other.

The increase in viewership can be attributed to the growing number of women taking interest in the game, the growing number of foreign fans, the growing number of casual fans, and the birth of "Fantasy Football".

Many of those new fans are not truly students of the game, they just love all of the hoopla that surrounds the game.

Not that long ago the American male was the main fan of NFL football, .. and are still the core of true football fans.

 

[percyhoward]

Anybody that watched the game knows it was a catch. But by the letter of the rule, he did not complete the process and therefore was correctly overturned.

This is the three-part process that determines a catch in the NFL, from the official rule book:

COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass.
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.).

In your opinion, did Dez maintain control of the ball long enough to advance with it?


This is the NFL's explanation of a similar play from the 2013 playoffs:

Did the receiver have both feet down prior to him getting contacted, which sent him to the ground? If that's the case, then he doesn't have to hold onto it when he hits the ground.

In your opnion, did Dez have both feet down prior to being tripped by Shields?

 

[WV Cowboy]

. Anybody that watched the game knows it was a catch. But by the letter of the rule ...

This has been my problem with the entire play and resulting call.

They are messing with the game I grew up loving.

 

[cml750]

The problem was with the interpretation of the rule. That was a catch to anybody but the guy who made the call who obviously had an anti-Cowboy bias.

 

[tyke1doe]

LOL, .. geesh, no wonder you must love all of the complicated new rules that have complicated the very simple game of football.

The decline in the quality of the game and the increase in viewership have nothing to do with each other.

The increase in viewership can be attributed to the growing number of women taking interest in the game, the growing number of foreign fans, the growing number of casual fans, and the birth of "Fantasy Football".

Many of those new fans are not truly students of the game, they just love all of the hoopla that surrounds the game.

Not that long ago the American male was the main fan of NFL football, .. and are still the core of true football fans.

So how would you OBJECTIVELY measure the decline of the game?

 

[nathanlt]

The Calvin Johnson rule is flawed for this reason. The reciever must maintain control after going to the ground. How long after??

1 tenth of a second? Then the DEZ Catch qualifies. He maintained control 1 second after his elbow was down.
1 second?
1 minute?
1 day?

You might think I'm nitpicking, but "AFTER" is another undefined term for this stupid rule. The NFL has to change it.
And I still maintain that DEZ controlled the ball and made several football moves common to the game prior to touching the ground.

Lunged, but wasn't enough
Kicked up dirt with his lunge, but that wasn't enough.
Reached the ball toward the goal line, but that wasn't enough.
Rotated his body more than 90 degrees throughout the catch, but that wasn't enough.
Braced himself with his right arm, but that wasn't enough.

What defines "enough" ?? That's arbitrary too.
Football move? Arbitrary
Move common to the game? Arbitrary.

Unless the rule defines a specific situation, it a worthless rule, applicable 7 different ways to the same play.

 

[percyhoward]

Reached the ball toward the goal line, but that wasn't enough. What defines "enough" ?? That's arbitrary too.

The league officially said a two-handed reach would have been enough. But this is after the fact, not in the rule book, and only because they had no choice. They had already allowed that kind of catch to stand, so the precedent was set.

The problem with this is that there is no logical basis for requiring a two-handed reach. It only serves the purpose of justifying the overturn. Breaking the plane with only one hand on the ball has always been allowed.

 

[WV Cowboy]

So how would you OBJECTIVELY measure the decline of the game?

I never used the words "decline of the game." Those are your words. I said they are 'ruining' it, .. meaning that the changes they are making are gradually changing the game in a negative way.

Anyway, I probably won't be able to "OBJECTIVELY measure the decline of the game" to satisfy you, but I will say that this catch/play/replay/overturn is a great example of how it has changed, to the place where it is so complicated and it didn't used to be that way. It was always just about the game.

This play should have ended with Dez making one of the all time great "playoff catches", .. setting the Cowboys up on the 1 yard line late in a 2nd round playoff game.
NFL history being made.
Then the Dallas Cowboys, who are undefeated on the road, score and take the lead with the leagues leading rusher punching it in from the one. Romo, who is ridiculed for never stepping up in the big game, just stepped up and took his team down for the go-ahead score. The Cowboys, who could never win in December or could never win a playoff game, just took the lead late in the game.
All of those things are great for NFL lore, and the history of the NFL.

Then the Green Bay Packers, at Lambeau, .. having never lost at home this season, and the league's MVP had a chance to even elevate the NFL history being made by possibly taking the ball back down and scoring to regain the lead, and win the game!

First playoff game between the Cowboys and the Packers at Lambeau since the "Ice Bowl."

A moment THICK with NFL history!!

But none of that great NFL history ever happened because we are measuring and counting blades of grass, calculating the angle of the sun, mulling through three paragraphs of a rule, .. and trying to decifer all of the new 'lawyer verbage' to determine that even though Dez caught the ball, .. we can't call it a catch.

So instead of great NFL theatre playing out, we get to watch the Packers run out the clock.

Just one example.

Throw that in with 'can't tackle high', 'can't tackle low'', 'can't block too high', can't block low', can't touch here or there or after 5 yards down the field. Throw in athletes making millions upon millions, ... coaches making millions upon millions, ... players changing teams each year, ... coaches changing teams. Players and coaches that were on your own team one year, playing on your rival team the next, ... all because of $$$$$ and because somebody feels we have to change the rules.

Listen, I never got into this conversation to try and make anybody agree with me, I only wanted to vent my opinion. This is what I feel, you or others may disagree, and that's fine.

 

[tyke1doe]

I never used the words "decline of the game." Those are your words. I said they are 'ruining' it, .. meaning that the changes they are making are gradually changing the game in a negative way.

Anyway, I probably won't be able to "OBJECTIVELY measure the decline of the game" to satisfy you, but I will say that this catch/play/replay/overturn is a great example of how it has changed, to the place where it is so complicated and it didn't used to be that way. It was always just about the game.

This play should have ended with Dez making one of the all time great "playoff catches", .. setting the Cowboys up on the 1 yard line late in a 2nd round playoff game.
NFL history being made.
Then the Dallas Cowboys, who are undefeated on the road, score and take the lead with the leagues leading rusher punching it in from the one. Romo, who is ridiculed for never stepping up in the big game, just stepped up and took his team down for the go-ahead score. The Cowboys, who could never win in December or could never win a playoff game, just took the lead late in the game.
All of those things are great for NFL lore, and the history of the NFL.

Then the Green Bay Packers, at Lambeau, .. having never lost at home this season, and the league's MVP had a chance to even elevate the NFL history being made by possibly taking the ball back down and scoring to regain the lead, and win the game!

First playoff game between the Cowboys and the Packers at Lambeau since the "Ice Bowl."

A moment THICK with NFL history!!

But none of that great NFL history ever happened because we are measuring and counting blades of grass, calculating the angle of the sun, mulling through three paragraphs of a rule, .. and trying to decifer all of the new 'lawyer verbage' to determine that even though Dez caught the ball, .. we can't call it a catch.

So instead of great NFL theatre playing out, we get to watch the Packers run out the clock.

Just one example.

Throw that in with 'can't tackle high', 'can't tackle low'', 'can't block too high', can't block low', can't touch here or there or after 5 yards down the field. Throw in athletes making millions upon millions, ... coaches making millions upon millions, ... players changing teams each year, ... coaches changing teams. Players and coaches that were on your own team one year, playing on your rival team the next, ... all because of $$$$$ and because somebody feels we have to change the rules.

Listen, I never got into this conversation to try and make anybody agree with me, I only wanted to vent my opinion. This is what I feel, you or others may disagree, and that's fine.

First, I should remind you that change doesn't mean ruin. I asked you for an OBJECTIVE way to measure ruin. You give me examples that are matters of personal opinion.

Second, if this is all a matter of personal opinion, then why the hostility and insults when others, such as KJJ and myself, believe that the ruling of a no-catch was the right call based on the evidence and how those plays are generally called?

Look, I can handle Cowboys fans not liking the call. I, however, think it's unnecessary to question the allegiance of Cowboys fans who were disappointed the play was overturned upon replay but understood why.

And that's why I entered this discussion. KJJ made some excellent points. I agreed with him. Then I called out a poster for being juvenile by calling KJJ a "shrill" for the NFL because that poster couldn't handle the fact that a Cowboys fan happens to side with Blandino.

And then you entered to challenge my calling another juvenile for his comments.

If you feel that the NFL is being ruined, fine. But don't call us on the carpet if we don't agree.

There's still room for us to disagree and enjoy the game and the Cowboys.

 

[Nightman]

I thought we were closing this thread days ago

 

[WV Cowboy]

Trying to communicate with you has been difficult because you seem to move the goal-posts, or change the subject with each post. I feel at times that you have me mixed up with other posters. Are you sure this post was for me?

First, I should remind you that change doesn't mean ruin.

True, not always, .. but then I never said that it did.
Change CAN mean the beginning of ruin though.

I asked you for an OBJECTIVE way to measure ruin. You give me examples that are matters of personal opinion.

No, you asked me for an OBJECTIVE way to measure the decline of the game, ... and yes, all I have said all along was my opinion.

Second, if this is all a matter of personal opinion, then why the hostility and insults

I have shown no hostility and have not thrown any insults.

Look, I can handle Cowboys fans not liking the call. I, however, think it's unnecessary to question the allegiance of Cowboys fans who were disappointed the play was overturned upon replay

I never questioned anyone's allegiance to the Cowboys.

If you feel that the NFL is being ruined, fine. But don't call us on the carpet if we don't agree.

I haven't called anybody on the carpet.

Maybe it's best to just agree to disagree.