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

[TheCount]

As I've been saying, there's nothing wrong with the rule. To change it means even MORE uncertainty, not less.

What actually is wrong is the replay process that resulted in the play being overturned. To overturn the call on the field, the officials need to be 100% sure, and unless they had access to angles the rest of the world didn't - there simply wasn't enough on tape to overturn it.

The problem is that they went subjective on a process that's supposed to be objective, they need to put a stop to that.

 

[WV Cowboy]

I really don't care what anyone thinks that didn't play football.

That has ALWAYS been a catch in any pickup or organized football game that I have ever played in.

Forget all of the lawyer verbage, forget continuation, don't care if he was falling, etc. etc.

He caught the ball with both hands, switched from his right hand to his left, took three steps, .. and dove for the end zone. Anyone who ever played organized football knows that was a catch, .. no question.

If he had stumbled 2 or 3 more steps, which would have made him taking 5 for 6 steps, .. and then gone to the ground and the ball pop out, would it still be incomplete?

Foolishness, .. it was a terrific catch, .. should have made NFL history.

 

[tyke1doe]

Doesn't surprise me. I said as much.

 

[tyke1doe]

As I've been saying, there's nothing wrong with the rule. To change it means even MORE uncertainty, not less.

What actually is wrong is the replay process that resulted in the play being overturned. To overturn the call on the field, the officials need to be 100% sure, and unless they had access to angles the rest of the world didn't - there simply wasn't enough on tape to overturn it.

The problem is that they went subjective on a process that's supposed to be objective, they need to put a stop to that.

I agree except I thought the replay did show he lost control of the ball. I think it was a catch as ruled on the field. But the way they call such plays, I could understand the replay overruling it. But I don't want to rehash it. I'm ready to move on. As they say in boxing and MMA, don't leave it in the hands of the refs.

 

[tyke1doe]

its been a rule way before Dez's catch. Why people think it would be changed now? I think its been a rule since 2010

Because it happened to us in a playoff game. I'm just waiting for them to change the rule to enable a pathetic defense to sack a one-legged quarterback.

 

[tyke1doe]

No reason is needed and no one is assuming he was going to the ground because he clearly was going to the ground which is why he ended up on the ground and it's the ground that caused the ball to come loose. If a receiver is going to the ground they have to maintain possession of the football through the contact of the ground that's the rule! Had Dez concentrated on making the catch and not tried to reach the ball over the goal line he probably would have hung on to it.

This was beautiful in its obviousness and simplicity.

 

[Hoofbite]

As I've been saying, there's nothing wrong with the rule. To change it means even MORE uncertainty, not less.

What actually is wrong is the replay process that resulted in the play being overturned. To overturn the call on the field, the officials need to be 100% sure, and unless they had access to angles the rest of the world didn't - there simply wasn't enough on tape to overturn it.

The problem is that they went subjective on a process that's supposed to be objective, they need to put a stop to that.

I think there's a big problem with the rule in that "going to the ground" is undefined, which means that it occur over an indefinite time and distance traveled.

 

[percyhoward]

It makes absolutely no difference if contact with the defender contributed to Dez going to the ground.

That's incorrect. If the receiver has control of the ball and two feet down prior the contact that sends him to the ground, then he does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. IOW, a receiver going to the ground due to contact by a defender is not the same as a receiver going to the ground to make a catch.

Nobody knows how far Dez would have gone before falling, or if he would have fallen at all.

 

[KJJ]

That's incorrect. If the receiver has control of the ball and two feet down prior the contact that sends him to the ground, then he does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. IOW, a receiver going to the ground due to contact by a defender is not the same as a receiver going to the ground to make a catch.

Nobody knows how far Dez would have gone before falling, or if he would have fallen at all.

It wasn't just the contact that sent him to the ground it was his momentum/body lean as he was making the catch and his attempt to dive and extend the ball over the goal line. Control isn't established until the receiver completes the process of holding onto the ball through the contact of the ground. End of discussion!

 

[Kevinicus]

It wasn't just the contact that sent him to the ground it was his momentum/body lean as he was making the catch and his attempt to dive and extend the ball over the goal line. Control isn't established until the receiver completes the process of holding onto the ball through the contact of the ground. End of discussion!

Wrong (as usual). The process is complete when the criteria is met. Which occurred well before he went to the ground.

 

[KJJ]

Wrong (as usual). The process is complete when the criteria is met. Which occurred well before he went to the ground.

The process is complete when the ball is held onto through the contact of the ground that's what's called meeting the criteria....NEXT!

 

[percyhoward]

It wasn't just the contact that sent him to the ground it was his momentum/body lean as he was making the catch and his attempt to dive and extend the ball over the goal line. Control isn't established until the receiver completes the process of holding onto the ball through the contact of the ground. End of discussion!

How do you extend a ball you haven't even caught yet?

 

[KJJ]

How do you extend a ball you haven't even caught yet?

Have you been following this discussion? Dez caught the ball I've been saying that ever since I saw the play live but according to the RULE a receiver has to complete a process when going to the ground for a catch to be ruled a catch and Dez didn't complete the process which is holding onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

Dez caught the ball I've been saying that ever since I saw the play live but according to the RULE a receiver has to complete a process when going to the ground for a catch to be ruled a catch and Dez didn't complete the process which is holding onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

You just said Dez attempted to extend the ball over the goal line. This is of course a physical impossibility if he hasn't yet completed the process of catching the ball, and it's one of several reasons we know he wasn't simply going to the ground to make a catch. The contact by the defender, the three steps, the lunge, and the call on the field are other reasons.

The rule you keep talking about is very clear, it just doesn't apply to this kind of play. There's an obvious difference between Dez's catch, and when a receiver is actually going to the ground to make the catch, like this.

Both players got at least 2 feet down, but there is a major difference between these two plays. Johnson is simply falling because he had to stretch out for the ball, whereas Dez went up, high-pointed the ball, and kept running. If Dez isn't tripped, he's still going to gain several more yards, and certainly reach the end zone where he may or may not fall. In any case, there is no evidence that merely catching the ball is what caused him to fall, which has to be the case for the rule you're talking about to apply.

 

[KJJ]

You just said Dez attempted to extend the ball over the goal line. This is of course a physical impossibility if he hasn't yet completed the process of catching the ball, and it's one of several reasons we know he wasn't simply going to the ground to make a catch.

Dez caught the ball but he was going to the ground so to complete the process of a legal catch under the RULE he must hold onto the ball through the contact of the ground and he didn't. If you want to continue arguing this disputing the video evidence go waste someone else's time.

 

[percyhoward]

If he had stumbled 2 or 3 more steps, which would have made him taking 5 for 6 steps, .. and then gone to the ground and the ball pop out, would it still be incomplete?

If, in the eyes of the official, the player was going to the ground to make the catch, then...yes. It's all about his personal interpretation.

The ones who put the "going to the ground" rule in the book never anticipated that there would be a question about what constituted going to the ground. I'm sure the rule was meant for players laying out to make a catch, as opposed to players going up for a ball, taking steps, then falling.

And we all know it wasn't meant for a player going up for a ball, taking steps, getting tripped, and falling.

 

[percyhoward]

Dez caught the ball but he was going to the ground so to complete the process of a legal catch under the RULE he must hold onto the ball through the contact of the ground and he didn't.

I'm interested in knowing where someone like you draws the line. How many steps would he have had to take for you NOT to consider this a "going to the ground" catch?

 

[KJJ]

I'm interested in knowing where someone like you draws the line. How many steps would he have had to take for you NOT to consider this a "going to the ground" catch?

An athletically gifted player can take several steps as they're going to the ground and the video clearly shows Dez was immediately going to the ground once he came down with the ball. His feet weren't stable when he came down and he instantly/instinctively dove towards the end zone extending the ball trying to score and it came loose when it touched the ground. Under the RULE that's not a catch!

 

[TimHortons]

The rule is fine. The refs misapplied the rule in Dez's case. In CJ's case, he caught it and immediately went to the ground, thus invoking the rule. Dez caught it, took 3 steps with possession, thus making the rule not apply in this case.

 

[percyhoward]

An athletically gifted player can take several steps as they're going to the ground and the video clearly shows Dez was immediately going to the ground once he came down with the ball. His feet weren't stable when he came down and he instantly/instinctively dove towards the end zone extending the ball trying to score and it came loose when it touched the ground. Under the RULE that's not a catch!

Yeah, I get that we all have our own versions of what happened, and that there's this rule that says certain plays are "not a catch!" and all that. Time out from that for a second.

How many steps he would have had to take for you to NOT consider this "going to the ground?"