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

[CrownCowboy]

Going to the ground, making football moves, maintaining possession......

This has been analyzed and looked at millions of times. I agree that it was a catch. The mere fact that he lunged for the goal line after he planted and pushed off from his last step presents two clear observations: The first being that the lunge clearly demonstrated a football move. People can argue that he was in the process of going to the ground. Well I can argue that he clearly and purposely lunged toward the endzone, with a planted foot pushing off the ground, before completing the process of going to the ground. The second observation is that Dez has been involved in this almost exact play and circumstance before and they called it a catch and on more than one occasion.

Despite all of that and despite the back and forth, none of that matters when I watch the play over and over again. It's close, but there is not enough evidence to say that the ball even hit the ground.

Whatever the rule is, it's garbage. For an official to see undisputable evidence that the ball hit the ground is ridiculous to me. It may have or it may not have but there is nothing conclusive about the ball hitting the ground there. That's where the real joke of all this is in my opinion. This is nothing like the Calvin Johnson play. The ruling on the field was that of a catch and the ball never hit the ground imo.

Dez Bryant did what few have the talent to do and stuck his foot in the ground in that position and lunged for the goal line. Hell, you can even see some of the turf come up where he planted his foot when he pushed off from the ground.

 

[blue knights]

Going to the ground, making football moves, maintaining possession......

This has been analyzed and looked at millions of times. I agree that it was a catch. The mere fact that he lunged for the goal line after he planted and pushed off from his last step presents two clear observations: The first being that the lunge clearly demonstrated a football move. People can argue that he was in the process of going to the ground. Well I can argue that he clearly and purposely lunged toward the endzone, with a planted foot pushing off the ground, before completing the process of going to the ground. The second observation is that Dez has been involved in this almost exact play and circumstance before and they called it a catch and on more than one occasion.

Despite all of that and despite the back and forth, none of that matters when I watch the play over and over again. It's close, but there is not enough evidence to say that the ball even hit the ground.

Whatever the rule is, it's garbage. For an official to see undisputable evidence that the ball hit the ground is ridiculous to me. It may have or it may not have but there is nothing conclusive about the ball hitting the ground there. That's where the real joke of all this is in my opinion. This is nothing like the Calvin Johnson play. The ruling on the field was that of a catch and the ball never hit the ground imo.

Dez Bryant did what few have the talent to do and stuck his foot in the ground in that position and lunged for the goal line. Hell, you can even see some of the turf come up where he planted his foot when he pushed off from the ground.

I agree on the last step part where he plants his foot .iIsee some people saying he took 3 steps but I think the replay officials viewed those first two steps when he lands as momemntum carrying him forward and not being in total control of his body and them thinking its not a football move . Just like a receiver jumps straight up comes down with the ball gets hit ans loses it, they call incomplete because he didnt make a football move. The plant step and the lunge should have been called a football move. If he had only had straightened out his arm where elbow wasnt bent at all then that definitely would have to be recognized as a football move and no way it could be changed because at worst theyd have to rule down by contact cause of the trip which ends the play so even the ball popping up in the air doesnt matter because the plays already dead at that point . once his elbow hits the ground and he's down at the 1

 

[Kevinicus]

He was going to the ground DURING the process. The process isn't complete until possession is maintained through the "contact of the ground." How many times do I have to repeat that?

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

 

[tyke1doe]

I don't think losing control in and off itself is automatically incomplete (which I'm sure you know), Dez did re-catch it on his back without ever going out of bounds. The reason "losing control" was given as the reason in this case was because they said he lost control when the ball hit the ground which is automatically incomplete.

Huh?

 

[tyke1doe]

You want an answer I'll give you an answer but this is the last question I'm addressing because I'm not going to invest the next 2-3 days or how ever long you want to dig your heels in with this question and answer session. Giving my view isn't going to change yours or anyone else's opinion of the play it's just going to keep this argument going. lol FANS belly aching over my opinion isn't going to change the rule I dislike it as much as everyone else but I understand the rule and accept it. Your question was And what defines "going to the ground to make a catch?" Here's how I see it and I believe the league views it pretty much the same way. "Going to the ground to make a catch" has to occur "during the process" of a receiver making a catch it has to be "bang bang." Watching the video the defender Sam Shields was in great position but Dez did what Dez does he went up and high pointed the ball and Shields couldn't defend it.

When Dez was in the air it was clear to me watching the play live there was no way he would be able to maintain his footing once he landed with Shields battling right there with him. I was just hoping Dez could make the catch and stay in bounds. As Dez went up and caught the ball and came down he "immediately" started losing his footing. Although he took 2 steps after landing he was STUMBLING forward as he took them heading towards the ground. He realized he couldn't maintain his footing and dove at the 5 yard line to extend the ball over the goal line and the ball briefly came loose as it contacted the ground resulting in the catch being reversed. I was on the game chat and immediately after I saw the first replay I posted the play would be reviewed and the call reversed.

An excellent description of what happened.

The question I asked is this: "Would Dez have been able to come down with the ball and stay on his feet?"
The answer is "No."

Therefore, he was going to the ground as he made the catch. If he had caught the ball and stayed on his feet, then made a move and fell going toward the ground and the ball popped out, it would have been ruled a catch.

But his catch and movement to the ground was a continual motion. And because that was the case, he had to maintain control of the ball.

 

[tyke1doe]

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

And disputing it doesn't change the call.

 

[tyke1doe]

LOL, ... I love it.

Actually, it's quite juvenile. Basically it's saying if anyone agrees with the call, he must be in on the conspiracy. Basically, it's saying he can't handle disagreement without resorting to insults.

I thought we were adults around here.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Actually, it's quite juvenile. Basically it's saying if anyone agrees with the call, he must be in on the conspiracy. Basically, it's saying he can't handle disagreement without resorting to insults.

So you call him juvenile because he resorted to an insult? That's funny.

All he was saying, for those not looking to be offended, .. was what anyone that has watched football for the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years already knew.

Dez Bryant caught the football.

It's just another example of how lawyers, committees, commissioners, heads of this and heads of that are ruining football.

 

[tyke1doe]

So you call him juvenile because he resorted to an insult? That's funny.

I didn't call him juvenile. I said the retort is juvenile.

All he was saying, for those not looking to be offended, .. was what anyone that has watched football for the past 20, 30, 40 or 50 years already knew.

Yeah, and many other people who've actually PLAYED the game have said the ruling of a no-catch was the correct one.
He and you are merely engaging in a silly validation game that two can play.

Dez Bryant caught the football.

That's your opinion. But ultimately your opinion doesn't matter. Only the opinion of those who have the ultimate decision-making power.

It's just another example of how lawyers, committees, commissioners, heads of this and heads of that are ruining football.

Yet, you still watch and the game is still growing in popularity. Go figure.

 

[KJJ]

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

The replay confirmed it's true and it's true replay after replay after replay. Calls on the field aren't reversed if there's not "conclusive" evidence that the original call was wrong. Some FANS are so in denial over the play they claim the ball never even touched the ground. There's zoomed in HD shots of the ball CLEARLY on the ground and some can't even admit that. LOL If that same play happened to Green Bay do you think anyone here would be arguing the Packers got screwed? It would be CRYSTAL CLEAR to even the most diehard Cowboy FANS that the Packers receiver was going to the ground during the process of the catch and the ball came loose when it contacted the ground. There's such an incredible bias on FAN boards like this that a few years ago some FAN claimed Dwight Clark pushed off on "The Catch" and the Cowboys got robbed.

 

[Kevinicus]

The replay confirmed it's true and it's true replay after replay after replay. Calls on the field aren't reversed if there's not "conclusive" evidence that the original call was wrong. Some FANS are so in denial over the play they claim the ball never even touched the ground. There's zoomed in HD shots of the ball CLEARLY on the ground and some can't even admit that. LOL If that same play happened to Green Bay do you think anyone here would be arguing the Packers got screwed? It would be CRYSTAL CLEAR to even the most diehard Cowboy FANS that the Packers receiver was going to the ground during the process of the catch and the ball came loose when it contacted the ground. There's such an incredible bias on FAN boards like this that a few years ago some FAN claimed Dwight Clark pushed off on "The Catch" and the Cowboys got robbed.

You're very, very naive if you don't think calls aren't reversed without conclusive evidence. That's just an absurd statement. That's ANOTHER rule that wasn't followed. The replay clearly showed the process being complete before he went to the ground, but if you choose to believe otherwise...okay.

But yes, the ball did hit the ground when he finally did go to the ground. I don't know why some refuse to acknowledge that, but it's irrelevant.

 

[KJJ]

An excellent description of what happened.

The question I asked is this: "Would Dez have been able to come down with the ball and stay on his feet?"
The answer is "No."

Therefore, he was going to the ground as he made the catch. If he had caught the ball and stayed on his feet, then made a move and fell going toward the ground and the ball popped out, it would have been ruled a catch.

But his catch and movement to the ground was a continual motion. And because that was the case, he had to maintain control of the ball.

I've watched the replay probably more than most here due to so many who are in denial over the call and can't stop arguing over it. It's CLEAR Dez was going to the ground as soon as his feet contacted the ground and he took his first stumbling step. He couldn't maintain his footing and dove trying to extend the ball over the goal line. Some are so lost they're trying to spin that if a receiver catches a ball and runs 5 yards down the field and slips down or is tackled and the ball pops loose while they're going to the ground the ruling should be the same as with Dez a non catch. lol Someone would have to be in complete denial to not see why the ruling went the way it did with Dez. It all comes down to understanding the rule and accepting it.

 

[KJJ]

You're very, very naive if you don't think calls aren't reversed without conclusive evidence. That's just an absurd statement. That's ANOTHER rule that wasn't followed. The replay clearly showed the process being complete before he went to the ground, but if you choose to believe otherwise...okay.

But yes, the ball did hit the ground when he finally did go to the ground. I don't know why some refuse to acknowledge that, but it's irrelevant.

You're the one who's naive because calls on the field aren't reversed unless there's conclusive evidence the original call was wrong. You don't see it that way because it's clear you don't know conclusive evidence when you see it. Dude, for the "process" to be complete a receiver "who's going to the ground" must hold onto the ball through the contact of the ground and Dez DIDN'T! Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Even Jerry understands the rule read his comments.

 

[WV Cowboy]

I didn't call him juvenile. I said the retort is juvenile.

You call him out, and say his post is juvenile, .. but you now want us to believe that you weren't also meaning that he was juvenile. LOL, .. ok.

Yeah, and many other people who've actually PLAYED the game have said the ruling of a no-catch was the correct one.
He and you are merely engaging in a silly validation game that two can play.

Ah yes, the "ruling of a no-catch", .. the "RULING of a no-catch".
Yes or no, did he catch it?
We don't know but we have a "ruling of a no-catch." LOL ... Foolishness!

That is exactly what I'm talking about with the involvement of lawyers, committees, commissioners, heads of this and that.

And talk about a validation, .. many many current and ex-NFL players say it WAS a catch, .. including the guy that was guarding him. You know, the guy that was closer to the action than anybody but Dez.

Listen, you believe who you want, .. I'll believe what 50 years of watching football tells me.

 

[WV Cowboy]

It all comes down to understanding the rule and accepting it.

But in your heart of hearts, from all of the football that you have watched, foolish made up rules aside, .. do you think he caught the football?

Yes or no.

 

[KJJ]

But in your heart of hearts, from all of the football that you have watched, foolish made up rules aside, .. do you think he caught the football?

Yes or no.

I've said repeatedly that Dez caught the ball but under the RULE a receiver "going to the ground" must hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. There's a "process" under the RULE that a receiver "who's going to the ground" has to complete for a catch to be ruled a catch. I don't like the rule but it's a RULE.

 

[Kevinicus]

You're the one who's naive because calls on the field aren't reversed unless there's conclusive evidence the original call was wrong. You don't see it that way because it's clear you don't know conclusive evidence when you see it. Dude, for the "process" to be complete a receiver "who's going to the ground" must hold onto the ball through the contact of the ground and Dez DIDN'T! Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Even Jerry understands the rule read his comments.

Even the NFL doesn't agree with you with their explanations.

THE RULE says calls aren't supposed to be reversed without conclusive evidence. Anyone who has watched football since replay has been around knows that it isn't always the case. Well, anyone except for one person I guess. Guess what. There are also instances where there is conclusive evidence, yet the play isn't reversed. I hope your mind isn't blown by that revelation.

You think he went to the ground during the process of the catch. We get it. But he got two feet down before being tripped causing him to fall. That means it was not making the catch that was what caused him to go to the ground. And he made several moves to complete the process before he went to the ground as well. The NFL's previous rulings, and their case book confirm this.

 

[Kevinicus]

"A.R. 8.13 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who is contacted by a defender before he completes the catch at the three-yard line. Despite B2’s contact, A2 keeps his balance, gets both feet down, and lunges over the goal line. The ball comes out as he hits the ground. Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The receiver went to the ground as the result of lunging for the goal line, not in the process of making the catch"

The only difference here is Dez is tripped before he lunges towards the end zone. Oh, and he gets his 2 feet down before the contact. Dez's catch is more complete than this example.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

The ref said it was a catch from a few feet away, the D back said it was a catch. I saw that it was a catch. the only person who didn't had zero business making the call.

 

[WV Cowboy]

"A.R. 8.13 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who is contacted by a defender before he completes the catch at the three-yard line. Despite B2’s contact, A2 keeps his balance, gets both feet down, and lunges over the goal line. The ball comes out as he hits the ground. Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The receiver went to the ground as the result of lunging for the goal line, not in the process of making the catch"

The only difference here is Dez is tripped before he lunges towards the end zone. Oh, and he gets his 2 feet down before the contact. Dez's catch is more complete than this example.

But but but, the lawyers and committees say it is a "ruling of a no-catch".