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

[nathanlt]

I'm really not interested in arguing over whether it was a catch or not, because the window is so tiny that anyone claiming it was obviously a catch is just showing their bias. If was a very very close call.

To me, what's important is that replay is meant to clear up that sort of situation and they ended up overruling an official standing right there on the field using evidence that doesn't exist.

The NFL rulebook defines it as a catch. Dez had firm possession from the point he secured it with both hands on his right shoulder, through transferring it to his left hand without wobble. It never wobbled all the way through completing the process of being down by contact. Like I said, he showed off by having both elbows down with the ball still firmly in his grasp. At that instant he was down by contact. Look at it again.

 

[WV Cowboy]

And yet you still watch the game, right? And the NFL is still the most popular sport in America.

You have said that twice now, .. what difference does it make whether I still watch or not?
It doesn't change the fact that they keep making more and more ridiculous rule changes. To the point that we now need 4 camera angles, a magnifying glass, replay officials in another city, and three paragraphs from a rule interpretation to determine a catch or a "ruling of a no-catch".

Well, seeing how this rule wasn't even an issue 50 years ago, let alone as long as you've been watching football,

Besides, over the course of 50 years, rules change. Butch Johnson's TD catch would not have been a catch under modern rules. Then, it was.

You are making a good case for what I am saying, .. the game has changed because they have implemented new rule after new rule. Which have only made it more complicated.
Players from those era's laugh at most of the new rules.

 

[Nightman]

The biggest problem with the Dez catch was that he jumped into the air to make the catch. he didn't dive for it.

When he came down he was contacted, took a couple steps and went to the ground. Without contact from the DB, it is very possible he never goes down.

-If the WR goes to the ground after contact it should like a normal catch and down by contact, ground can't cause a fumble.

-If the WR dives for the ball or goes to the ground on his own, he has to maintain possession throughout.

 

[percyhoward]

-If the WR goes to the ground after contact it should like a normal catch and down by contact, ground can't cause a fumble..

That's exactly how it's ruled. Except in the case of Dez Bryant.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...s-referees-made-correct-calls-in-playoff-game

 

[DogFace]

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.

Why do they say that in mma or boxing?

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

 

[DogFace]

To this point, I was looking forward to having Stephen Jones take over operations from Jerry. Now, since Stephen has said such a stupid thing, that the Calvin Johnson rule applied to DEZ's catch, I don't know if I feel so good about him taking over the organization. Dean Blandino must have tried the old, "you're stupid if you don't agree with me" technique.

Everyone knows it was a catch. KJJ, you must be an NFL schill, sent here to pacify outraged Dallas fans over Dean Blandino's tampering with the Packers Cowboys game. 6 football moves, with the ball secured over 5 yards of travel, with both elbows down before the ball contacted the ground. That, Mr. Blandino, I mean, KJJ, is a catch!!!

THE PROCESS OF GOING TO THE GROUND WAS COMPLETE WHEN HIS ELBOW TOUCHED. BOTH TOUCHED, BEFORE THE BALL MOVED. Anyone who pretends its not a catch, (including Stephen Jones, and the ACTUAL comedian turned NFL VP of officiating, Dean Blandino, is disconnected from reality) IT WAS A CATCH!!!

Nice.

 

[percyhoward]

@0:27 Control, 2-3 steps, reach. Ball comes out on contact with the ground.

Ruled a catch on the field, and confirmed by replay.



Blandino on why it was a catch: "Watch what Julius does. He's gonna get control, take two steps...and now reach for the goal line. He has established himself as a runner."

 

[DogFace]

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.

 

[percyhoward]

A "football move" doesn't matter when a receiver is "going to the ground." Jerry said pretty much the same thing.

“It’s a very difficult rule,” Jones said. “In terms of the rule and how they applied it in its truest sense to the Dez catch, at the end of the day, is probably correct. There are a few plays that have happened over the past 5-10 years that this rule catches that you maybe wish it didn’t catch. But at the end of the day, when a receiver is going to the ground, he’s got to hang onto the ball, and a football move doesn’t necessarily trump that. He’s got to gain possession, he’s got to get his feet down and then he’s got to retain the catch all the way through the ground.

You and Stephen Jones, and the few people left who stubbornly support the overturn of the catch, are wrong.

The rule that Blandino used to overturn the catch applies to receivers going to the ground, not runners. "Football move" is a generic term used to describe whatever a receiver does in order to become a runner. So Stephen's statement that "a football move doesn't necessarily trump that" contradicts itself. According to Blandino, Pereira, etc., a football move is exactly the kind of thing that trumps that.

A receiver with control of the ball and two feet down who makes a football move is then by definition a runner. Runners don't have to hang onto the ball when they hit the ground because they've already completed the process of the catch. IOW, they're no longer receivers. In fact, the receiver doesn't even have to make a football move, he just has to get his feet down and maintain control of the ball for enough time to make such a move. After all, he may get both feet down with control and then be tackled before he can make his move. That's also a catch.

In Dez's case, both of these things happened. He made several football moves and was tackled.

The key to understanding this is when you realize that two completely different kinds of things happened that made Dez a runner: the contact by the defender that sent Dez to the ground after he had control with both feet down, and everything Dez did after the catch despite that contact -- the extra step, the lunge, the reach -- that were all football moves.

 

[nalam]

I just want to know how many steps before the dive is no longer part of the catch. Is this a judgement?
I'm being serious. Ten steps is obviously enough. So how many? 5?
There has to be some uniformity to this questionable rule.

If he had lost possession at going to ground and GB CB had recovered it , it would be interesting to see what would be the ruling. They would have definitely claimed foot ball moves made fumble and recovery , I would think.

How many with me ?

 

[KJJ]

You and Stephen Jones, and the few people left who stubbornly support the overturn of the catch, are wrong.

The rule that Blandino used to overturn the catch applies to receivers going to the ground, not runners. "Football move" is a generic term used to describe whatever a receiver does in order to become a runner. So Stephen's statement that "a football move doesn't necessarily trump that" contradicts itself. According to Blandino, Pereira, etc., a football move is exactly the kind of thing that trumps that.

A receiver with control of the ball and two feet down who makes a football move is then by definition a runner. Runners don't have to hang onto the ball when they hit the ground because they've already completed the process of the catch. IOW, they're no longer receivers. In fact, the receiver doesn't even have to make a football move, he just has to get his feet down and maintain control of the ball for enough time to make such a move. After all, he may get both feet down with control and then be tackled before he can make his move. That's also a catch.

In Dez's case, both of these things happened. He made several football moves and was tackled.

The key to understanding this is when you realize that two completely different kinds of things happened that made Dez a runner: the contact by the defender that sent Dez to the ground after he had control with both feet down, and everything Dez did after the catch despite that contact -- the extra step, the lunge, the reach -- that were all football moves.

You're claiming Stephen Jones and all the experts including the ones that are paid to make these calls are wrong. Do you honestly believe making a statement like that is going to enhance your credibility? You told me a couple of days ago how you thought Blandino saw the play like you're inside his head. The only one who's wrong is you and the rest of the FANS here who continue to cry over the call explaining how it should have been ruled. This was a call that was reviewed along with the vice president of officiating and he along with the league continues to stand behind the call. Steratore who made the call was the same official who made the call on Calvin Johnson a few years ago so he knows the rule. You're saying Dez went down due to contact with the defender when he was going down anyway. There wasn't anymore contact between Dez and Shields than there was between Calvin Johnson and the defender that was covering him.

Go review the Johnson play there was some contact on that play the defenders arms hit Johnson's legs appearing to trip him up as he was going down. Everything is trumped when a receiver is going to the ground. When a receiver is still going through the process of the catch elbows and knees are irrelevant in relation to the ground they still must complete the entire process with the football and maintain possession through the contact of the ground. It's virtually impossible not to have some contact between the defender and receiver when the receiver is in the process of leaping into the air to make a contested catch. There isn't anything in the Dez or Johnson video that points to the defenders being the primary reason both receivers went to the ground. Most everyone agrees Dez caught the ball but because he was going to the ground during the catch by RULE he must complete a process through the contact of the ground.

Had the call been ruled incomplete "on the field" I don't think FANS would have as big an issue with it but having what was ruled a catch reversed has resulted in most of the outrage and is the primary reason we're still arguing over it almost 2 months later. No one likes to be given something then have it taken away. Replay can work for and against you but I'm at peace with the call because it was reviewed and by RULE it was the correct call. The call wasn't the problem it's the RULE that's the problem. It isn't likely the rule will be changed anytime soon because it's going to be virtually impossible to come up with a rule where judgement and interpretation isn't going to be involved. Everyone on this board has their own interpretation of the call and naturally it sways heavily in favor of a legal catch due to the strong Cowboy bias here. When you have some FANS who can't even admit the ball touched the ground despite clear visual evidence (HD video and still shots) of the ball on the ground you're wasting your time with people like that.

A lot of FANS think they're an expert sitting behind their computer monitors and you're one of them. You like many scoff at the experts and interpret the rules the way you see them provided if favors the Cowboys. In your eyes everyone's wrong from Blandino, Pereira, Steratore, Stephen Jones and anyone else who thinks the final ruling was the correct ruling. Go tweet to Blandino and Pereira and tell them how wrong they are and how their rules should be interpreted and enforced. You're wasting your time asking me questions and wanting my opinion on this when you think everyone involved in the ruling was wrong. I get called out for agreeing with the call and posting quotes from those involved in it while FANS here play piggyback defending each others lunacy.

 

[jobberone]

Ok gentlemen.

 

[KJJ]

The rule that Blandino used to overturn the catch applies to receivers going to the ground, not runners. "Football move" is a generic term used to describe whatever a receiver does in order to become a runner. So Stephen's statement that "a football move doesn't necessarily trump that" contradicts itself. According to Blandino, Pereira, etc., a football move is exactly the kind of thing that trumps that.

Dez was a receiver "going to the ground." The main reason I believe the call was so controversial is the NFL's insistence on using the term a "football move" or a "move common to the game" as part of the ruling. No one has a clear, absolute understanding of what exactly that means not even those who come up with the rules have an answer that satisfies everyone. Had Blandino and others not said Dez didn't perform a "football move" or a "move common to the game" and just stayed with he was "going to the ground" and didn't complete the process of the catch through the contact of the ground there wouldn't be as much debate. Although Dez took a couple of steps and some like you argue he was "running" he was actually "stumbling" down resulting in him having to dive and extend the ball towards the goal line. Many felt he made a "football move" by diving and extending the ball this is why the league has to remove or redefine the definition of a "football move" or a "move common to the game."

In my opinion in order for any player to become a "runner" they have to have firm footing as they're moving forward and not be "stumbling" to the ground. A couple of "stumbling" steps as a player is going to the ground is not "running" in my opinion. Any move where a receiver goes up and high points a football clearly catching and controlling it is a "football move" in my view so this term has to be removed/redefined or there's going to continue to be debate over it. Even Blandino was trying to steer away from the term "football move" and focus more on Dez "going to the ground" as the primary reason for the ruling.

The receivers in todays game are freaks of nature the incredible one handed catch by Beckham Jr vs the Cowboys is something you didn't see 20-30 years ago but we're seeing more of these one handed circus catches practically every Sunday as receivers get bigger, faster and better. These receivers can make "football moves" in mid flight battling a defender. Dez high pointed the ball and before he ever came down was already eyeing the end zone thinking TD. He's not you're ordinary NFL receiver he's special.

It's players getting better that's causing rule changes. The NFL can't play under the same rules as decades ago with the incredible athletes we're seeing in todays game especially at the WR position. Receivers like Dez, Beckham Jr and Calvin Johnson don't make moves common to the game because they're freaks! They have a Calvin Johnson rule for a reason due to receivers like him being so gifted. The league requires a "process" all receivers must go through to have a completed catch when going to the ground. If a receiver can go up and make an incredible catch with a defender battling with them they should be able to hold onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

If they can avoid losing the ball when being contested in mid flight they should be able to hang onto it when contacting the ground. I'm comfortable with that part of the rule but the league has to make it clear that a "football move" or a "move common to the game" as they call it does not apply to a receiver who's going to the ground during a catch. Either make it clear to remove that part of the argument or eliminate or redefine exactly what the hell a "football move" or "move common to the game" is so there isn't so much confusion on exactly what those terms mean.

 

[percyhoward]

Dez was a receiver "going to the ground."

So was Thomas, until he made the football move.

I've come to understand why the term "football move" is important. It's a line of demarcation. It's what officials use to determine when a receiver establishes himself as a runner.

In my opinion in order for any player to become a "runner" they have to have firm footing as they're moving forward and not be "stumbling" to the ground. A couple of "stumbling" steps as a player is going to the ground is not "running" in my opinion.

It's actually not at all a matter of opinion. These are precise terms. A "receiver" is a player who hasn't yet completed the catch process. In the video of the Thomas catch, you can see that he's going to the ground the whole time. But the moment he extended the ball toward the goal line (a "football move"), he established himself as a "runner." Blandino explains this clearly at about the 2:00 mark here.

I highly recommend that everyone watch that entire video from 1:30 on. It's as close as you'll come to getting a tutorial of the so-called "Calvin Johnson rule." In it, Blandino explains that the catch process has three parts: Control, two feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. "If you perform all three parts in that order," he says, "you have a catch." IOW, to be considered a catch, there is a series of acts that have to be checked off. Here's what he says about the Thomas play:

"Watch what Julius does. He's gonna get control, take two steps...and now reach for the goal line. He has established himself as a runner."

That last sentence is huge. By establishing himself as a runner, Thomas was no longer a "receiver going to the ground." Of course, he still went to the ground, but as a runner. That's why it was ruled a catch. All three acts were checked off. And that's why they keep repeating the mantra that Dez was a "receiver going to the ground." The emphasis isn't really on the going to the ground part, as I had believed, but on the "receiver" part, with the "going to the ground" to explain that he wasn't doing anything else but falling. Wasn't running, wasn't reaching, wasn't being tackled, etc. Just falling down.

And it is very important to note what Blandino says about performing all three parts in order. Of course going up and high-pointing a ball is a football move, but it doesn't factor into this because according to the order, the catch must come before the football move. It starts with control of the ball, then both feet down, then the football move.

According to Blandino, Thomas' play was ruled a catch because he got both feet down and then reached for the goal line. Blandino said the Johnson catch vs. the Vikings (first half of video) was overturned because he did not get both feet down before reaching out. That's huge, because it shows us they're not even worried about body control or balance. Just a series of acts that have to be checked off.

Compare those two plays to the Dez play. On all three plays, the receiver ended up on the ground, and on all three plays the ball came loose when they hit the ground. Like Thomas, Dez got both feet down and then reached for the goal line, but Blandino said Dez's reach needed to be "more obvious" than it was. That was the only thing standing between a catch or not. That was what overturned the field judge's ruling of a catch. The reach needed to be "more obvious!"

No one is disputing the fact that Dez had control and two feet down. In Blandino's own words, there was only one act left to check off. Dez only needed to hold onto the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game in order to complete the catch process. In order to become a "runner" as opposed to a "receiver going to the ground."

Between the moment Dez's second foot came down and the moment the ball popped out of his left hand, four things happened that all constitute acts common to the game.

1. a 3rd step by Dez
2. a tackle by the defender
3. a lunge by Dez
4. a reach for the goal line by Dez

Of those four things, three are completely ignored by Blandino in all the interviews. Only the reach is mentioned, with the comment that it needed to be "more obvious." If the reach wasn't obvious enough to be considered an act other than simply falling, then surely the 3rd step, Shields' trip, and Dez's lunge are all non-falling acts. All things that occurred after control and two feet down.

Any one of those things is part three of the process.

 

[percyhoward]

Ok gentlemen.

I shouldn't have called supporters of Blandino's overturn "stubborn." That was negative. I should have used "resolute."

 

[nathanlt]

Dez was a receiver "going to the ground." The main reason I believe the call was so controversial is the NFL's insistence on using the term a "football move" or a "move common to the game" as part of the ruling. No one has a clear, absolute understanding of what exactly that means not even those who come up with the rules have an answer that satisfies everyone. Had Blandino and others not said Dez didn't perform a "football move" or a "move common to the game" and just stayed with he was "going to the ground" and didn't complete the process of the catch through the contact of the ground there wouldn't be as much debate. Although Dez took a couple of steps and some like you argue he was "running" he was actually "stumbling" down resulting in him having to dive and extend the ball towards the goal line. Many felt he made a "football move" by diving and extending the ball this is why the league has to remove or redefine the definition of a "football move" or a "move common to the game."

In my opinion in order for any player to become a "runner" they have to have firm footing as they're moving forward and not be "stumbling" to the ground. A couple of "stumbling" steps as a player is going to the ground is not "running" in my opinion. Any move where a receiver goes up and high points a football clearly catching and controlling it is a "football move" in my view so this term has to be removed/redefined or there's going to continue to be debate over it. Even Blandino was trying to steer away from the term "football move" and focus more on Dez "going to the ground" as the primary reason for the ruling.

The receivers in todays game are freaks of nature the incredible one handed catch by Beckham Jr vs the Cowboys is something you didn't see 20-30 years ago but we're seeing more of these one handed circus catches practically every Sunday as receivers get bigger, faster and better. These receivers can make "football moves" in mid flight battling a defender. Dez high pointed the ball and before he ever came down was already eyeing the end zone thinking TD. He's not you're ordinary NFL receiver he's special.

It's players getting better that's causing rule changes. The NFL can't play under the same rules as decades ago with the incredible athletes we're seeing in todays game especially at the WR position. Receivers like Dez, Beckham Jr and Calvin Johnson don't make moves common to the game because they're freaks! They have a Calvin Johnson rule for a reason due to receivers like him being so gifted. The league requires a "process" all receivers must go through to have a completed catch when going to the ground. If a receiver can go up and make an incredible catch with a defender battling with them they should be able to hold onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

If they can avoid losing the ball when being contested in mid flight they should be able to hang onto it when contacting the ground. I'm comfortable with that part of the rule but the league has to make it clear that a "football move" or a "move common to the game" as they call it does not apply to a receiver who's going to the ground during a catch. Either make it clear to remove that part of the argument or eliminate or redefine exactly what the hell a "football move" or "move common to the game" is so there isn't so much confusion on exactly what those terms mean.

Oh my goodness, you finally got half of it. Trying to enforce a rule with meaningless phrases is a ripe opportunity for inconsistency. That's why I liked your post.

Once you realize that the only "going to the ground" definition that exists in the NFL rule book is one knee or elbow contacting the ground, then you'll understand my point.

The Calvin Johnson rule, if applied, (and it shouldn't be) still means Dez caught the ball. Completing the process does not mean even a fraction of a second past getting a knee or elbow down.

Going one fraction of a second past getting an elbow down means there is no limit to the phrase, making an incompletion out of spiking the ball, handing the ball to a ref, handing the ball to an equipment manager, etc. I'm not exaggerating in the slightest, "down by contact" and "contacting the ground" or "completing the process of going to the ground " are the same concept.

If you don't respond to my post, I'll assume you concede that completing the process has one NFL defined meaning. Down by contact=one knee or elbow down. There's nothing in the rule book to support any other definition, right??

What are your thoughts??

 

[jobberone]

I shouldn't have called supporters of Blandino's overturn "stubborn." That was negative. I should have used "resolute."

I like that word.

 

[percyhoward]

Oh my goodness, you finally got half of it. Trying to enforce a rule with meaningless phrases is a ripe opportunity for inconsistency. That's why I liked your post.

Once you realize that the only "going to the ground" definition that exists in the NFL rule book is one knee or elbow contacting the ground, then you'll understand my point.

The Calvin Johnson rule, if applied, (and it shouldn't be) still means Dez caught the ball. Completing the process does not mean even a fraction of a second past getting a knee or elbow down.

Going one fraction of a second past getting an elbow down means there is no limit to the phrase, making an incompletion out of spiking the ball, handing the ball to a ref, handing the ball to an equipment manager, etc. I'm not exaggerating in the slightest, "down by contact" and "contacting the ground" or "completing the process of going to the ground " are the same concept.

I know that wasn't meant for me, but these really aren't meaningless phrases that they're just throwing around. That doesn't mean they're always using them sincerely, either, I'm just saying they have a very specific meaning. In fact, the specific meaning of "receiver going to the ground" is the very reason the Johnson rule doesn't apply to the Dez catch. Dez was a runner going to the ground, not a receiver, because he'd completed all three parts of the catch process. (Or for those who only believe the official version of these things, it's the reason the Johnson rule doesn't apply to the Thomas catch. Thomas was a runner because he had completed all three parts of the catch process.)

They do use these words in a political way, though. By saying Dez was a receiver going to the ground and not a runner, they justify overturning the catch by simply pointing to the fact that the ball came loose when he hit the ground. That works on a lot of people who don't bother to ask what determines that Dez was a receiver and not a runner in the first place.

 

[KJJ]

I shouldn't have called supporters of Blandino's overturn "stubborn." That was negative. I should have used "resolute."

His comment had nothing to do with our discussion.

 

[nathanlt]

I know that wasn't meant for me, but these really aren't meaningless phrases that they're just throwing around. That doesn't mean they're always using them sincerely, either, I'm just saying they have a very specific meaning. In fact, the specific meaning of "receiver going to the ground" is the very reason the Johnson rule doesn't apply to the Dez catch. Dez was a runner going to the ground, not a receiver, because he'd completed all three parts of the catch process. (Or for those who only believe the official version of these things, it's the reason the Johnson rule doesn't apply to the Thomas catch. Thomas was a runner because he had completed all three parts of the catch process.)

They do use these words in a political way, though. By saying Dez was a receiver going to the ground and not a runner, they justify overturning the catch by simply pointing to the fact that the ball came loose when he hit the ground. That works on a lot of people who don't bother to ask what determines that Dez was a receiver and not a runner in the first place.

Right. But even if he was not classified as a runner, it makes no difference. Yes, the ball touched the ground, but it was AFTER Dez hit the ground. It is incorrect to say that the ball came loose WHEN Dez hit the ground.

It is accurate to say that the ball came loose AFTER Dez was down by contact. The runner receiver distinction makes no difference since "down by contact" is synonymous with "completing the process of going to the ground."