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

[KJJ]

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.

The games are officiated by human beings and judgement is involved in every call on the field and during replay. Not everyone sees things the same way just look at the discussions we have here. Even in the booth game announcers disagree on calls because a lot of calls come down to personal judgement. The networks are using former officials to give their opinion on booth reviews and sometimes they disagree with the final ruling. This past season we had two sets of eyes reviewing plays Blandino in NY and the official on the field. The NFL is doing everything possible to try and get these calls right but judgement will always be involved and not everyone is going to see things the same way. It's easy to see from our discussion we see things differently. There was "conclusive" evidence to anyone who's not living in denial that Dez DID NOT complete the "process" after the ball contacted the ground under the RULE.

Getting both feet down or an elbow/knee down doesn't matter if a receiver isn't going to the ground during a catch the "process" has to be completed through the contact of the ground. Calvin Johnson had both feet down but he was going to the ground and didn't complete the process and his catch was waved off. As Dez was up in the air making the catch it was clear his stability wasn't going to be there when his feet contacted the ground which caused him to immediately stumble towards the ground as he took 2 steps trying to maintain his footing. He was CLEARLY going to the ground and did not hold onto the ball through the contact of the ground. You think because he got both feet down it's a catch and you're WRONG in this situation. He was "going to the ground" when he got both feet down therefore he has to complete the "process" of hanging onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Accept it and move on!

 

[KJJ]

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.

Naturally he called it a catch on the field it took replay to see the ball come loose as it contacted the ground. When the play was replayed and you could see the ball come loose as it contacted the ground even the Packer players on the sideline were yelling the Calvin Johnson rule. It would have been a catch had Dez not been going to the ground but under the RULE he has to complete a process in that situation.

 

[KJJ]

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

THE RULE says calls aren't supposed to be reversed without conclusive evidence.

LOL They do agree with me I just said that very same thing that calls on the field aren't suppose to be reversed without conclusive evidence. The call on the field was reversed because there was "conclusive" evidence that Dez didn't complete the process of the catch through the contact of the ground.

 

[Kevinicus]

LOL They do agree with me I just said that very same thing that calls on the field aren't suppose to be reversed without conclusive evidence. The call on the field was reversed because there was "conclusive" evidence that Dez didn't complete the process of the catch through the contact of the ground.

I was referring to the going to the ground part. Your arguments are that "football moves" don't matter, the NFL disagrees.

 

[Kevinicus]

The games are officiated by human beings and judgement is involved in every call on the field and during replay. Not everyone sees things the same way just look at the discussions we have here. Even in the booth game announcers disagree on calls because a lot of calls come down to personal judgement. The networks are using former officials to give their opinion on booth reviews and sometimes they disagree with the final ruling. This past season we had two sets of eyes reviewing plays Blandino in NY and the official on the field. The NFL is doing everything possible to try and get these calls right but judgement will always be involved and not everyone is going to see things the same way. It's easy to see from our discussion we see things differently. There was "conclusive" evidence to anyone who's not living in denial that Dez DID NOT complete the "process" after the ball contacted the ground under the RULE.

Getting both feet down or an elbow/knee down doesn't matter if a receiver isn't going to the ground during a catch the "process" has to be completed through the contact of the ground. Calvin Johnson had both feet down but he was going to the ground and didn't complete the process and his catch was waved off. As Dez was up in the air making the catch it was clear his stability wasn't going to be there when his feet contacted the ground which caused him to immediately stumble towards the ground as he took 2 steps trying to maintain his footing. He was CLEARLY going to the ground and did not hold onto the ball through the contact of the ground. You think because he got both feet down it's a catch and you're WRONG in this situation. He was "going to the ground" when he got both feet down therefore he has to complete the "process" of hanging onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Accept it and move on!

You aren't comprehending what you're reading. I have never said 2 feet ONLY = a catch. There's another criteria to be met. The receiver has to maintain possession long enough to perform a move common to the game (note, they don't actually have to make a movie, only possess it long enough to do so). The NFL has clearly stated that contact that causes the receiver to go to the ground that occurs after 2 feet down nullifies the "going to the ground" rule. The NFL's case book also clearly indicates Dez's play was a catch. And most people would say the NFL got the Calvin Johnson call wrong...even according to the rule. And Dez did a lot more than CJ did.

 

[KJJ]

I was referring to the going to the ground part. Your arguments are that "football moves" don't matter, the NFL disagrees.

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.

 

[KJJ]

You aren't comprehending what you're reading. I have never said 2 feet ONLY = a catch. There's another criteria to be met. The receiver has to maintain possession long enough to perform a move common to the game (note, they don't actually have to make a movie, only possess it long enough to do so). The NFL has clearly stated that contact that causes the receiver to go to the ground that occurs after 2 feet down nullifies the "going to the ground" rule. The NFL's case book also clearly indicates Dez's play was a catch. And most people would say the NFL got the Calvin Johnson call wrong...even according to the rule. And Dez did a lot more than CJ did.

A move common to the game goes out the window when a receiver is "going to the ground" read Jerry's comment. A receiver that's "going to the ground" has to possess the ball through the contact of the ground that's the RULE! When you watch the replay Dez going to the ground had more to do with his body lean as he was concentrating on catching the ball than the contact with the defender. He was off balance! You could tell while he was in the air high pointing the ball he would never be able to maintain a solid base when his feet hit the ground. The momentum of his body was leaning towards the ball and even while in the air catching it he was thinking end zone. All of this caused him to immediately start going to the ground as his feet landed which made him dive and extend the ball towards the goal line.

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

Well, some people can tell the difference between a person doing bad and a person who is bad. It's the same as if I call my son out for doing something bad while understanding he's not a bad boy.

We do it all the time.

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!

Regardless, the ruling didn't change after replay. And there was no apology. What you believe and what I believe really doesn't matter. It's what was ruled.

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

And yet you still watch the game, right? And the NFL is still the most popular sport in America. You do know that those who contribute to its popularity are the same people you're criticizing, right?

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.

Uh, yeah, I know. But I'm not the one who is attacking others by saying they don't know football if they conclude that Dez's catch was not a catch.
I'm not pulling the "If you don't agree with me, you don't know anything about football" trump card.
I understand and accept that reasonable and knowledgeable people can disagree. Hence my "juvenile" comment.

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

Well, seeing how this rule wasn't even an issue 50 years ago, let alone as long as you've been watching football, I don't think your comment makes much sense.

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.

But here again, it doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe. What matters is what the refs ultimately decided, and that decision was that it was a no-catch.

But I guess there is some consolation in beating your chest and proclaiming that your beliefs trump reality. If so, have at it.

 

[Kevinicus]

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.

Pretty sure that's Stephen, and that's wrong. Do we need to rehash all the quotes from officials and Blandino saying it does matter?

 

[nathanlt]

A move common to the game goes out the window when a receiver is "going to the ground" read Jerry's comment. A receiver that's "going to the ground" has to possess the ball through the contact of the ground that's the RULE! When you watch the replay Dez going to the ground had more to do with his body lean as he was concentrating on catching the ball than the contact with the defender. He was off balance! You could tell while he was in the air high pointing the ball he would never be able to maintain a solid base when his feet hit the ground. The momentum of his body was leaning towards the ball and even while in the air catching it he was thinking end zone. All of this caused him to immediately start going to the ground as his feet landed which made him dive and extend the ball towards the goal line.

Hmmm... I guess we partially agree after all. I agree with your subconscious. It WAS a catch.

The process of going to the ground was COMPLETE when his elbows touched, while the ball was firmly clutched in his hand. You will NEVER, NEVER be able to point to an NFL rule that disputes the process is complete when the elbows touch.

Your pile of words is quite high, but they have NO BASIS in the NFL rule book.

 

[percyhoward]

In application, the rule is trumping the requirements for a completed pass and it shouldn't.

Very good point.

 

[percyhoward]

Let's say a player catches a pass, takes three steps, drops the ball, then falls down.

Incomplete pass?

Same player, same play, except he stays on his feet.

Fumble?

 

[percyhoward]

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.

He did. It was.

 

[nathanlt]

To kind of re-cage and discuss the Calvin Johnson rule, the DEZ catch illustrated how ill-defined the terms are in the Calvin Johnson rule.

That rule can be made to nullify a 9 yard catch and a 90 yard run to the end zone, then falling to the ground in the end zone where the ball falls out. Because the following terms:

move natural to the game
contacting the ground.
completing the process

Have NO DEFINITION in the NFL rule book, they can be made to apply to any receiver catch.

Move natural to the game - should have examples, (lunging, moving the ball from one hand to the other, twisting to avoid contact, breaking a fall with an arm, juking, etc)
Contacting the ground- (when an elbow or knee contacts the ground, in or out of bounds)
Completing the process- (three steps, moving until going out of bounds or contacting a knee/elbow in or out of bounds)

Without precise definitions, TAMPERING by officials will always be an opportunity, hanging there until a homer ref or instant replay official, or former comedian injects their bias into the game.

 

[KJJ]

Pretty sure that's Stephen, and that's wrong. Do we need to rehash all the quotes from officials and Blandino saying it does matter?

Stephen or Jerry it makes no difference you saw the quote and he said what I've been saying ever since the play happened. Go dig up all the quotes from the officials and Blandino would rather read the opinions of those who get paid to make calls than FANS some of which are so in denial they won't even admit the ball touched the ground. Here's a quote from Blandino after the game posted on his Twitter account.

"Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete."

 

[KJJ]

Let's say a player catches a pass, takes three steps, drops the ball, then falls down.

Incomplete pass?

Same player, same play, except he stays on his feet.

Fumble?

That would be a fumble. If a receiver keeps their feet "on the ground" while making a routine catch and begins to run with the ball secured and drops it that's a fumble. I can't recall ever seeing the Calvin Johnson rule applied to a receiver who keeps their feet on the ground while making a catch. Dez and Calvin Johnson "leaped" to make their catches because they were contested and both began going to the ground as they came down and didn't complete the process of the catch by holding onto the ball through the contact of the ground. If you watch the Calvin Johnson play he held onto the ball longer than Dez but like Dez as he was going to the ground the ball came loose when it contacted the ground. Watch how long Johnson held onto the ball but it didn't matter because as he was going to the ground he didn't complete the process of the catch by holding onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

I agree that if Dez had dropped the ball after his third step and before going to the ground, that would have been a fumble.

 

[TheCount]

You need possession, 2 feet down, and the time necessary to complete a football move. No move needed, just afforded the time to make a move or ward off contact.

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.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

I think for that to be true, you'd have to find another case of somebody catching a ball, taking three steps, losing the ball after hitting the ground, and it not being ruled a catch.

Good luck with that.

 

[nathanlt]

Stephen or Jerry it makes no difference you saw the quote and he said what I've been saying ever since the play happened. Go dig up all the quotes from the officials and Blandino would rather read the opinions of those who get paid to make calls than FANS some of which are so in denial they won't even admit the ball touched the ground. Here's a quote from Blandino after the game posted on his Twitter account.

"Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete."

I am absolutely impartial. I admit that the ball touched the ground. What happened before it touched the ground makes it and INDISPUTABLE CATCH. You have never ventured to provide the NFL definition of "contacting the ground" That definition, which you refuse to produce is this.
Article 7
Item 1: Player in Possession
.
A player is in possession when he is in bounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball with his hands or arms
.
To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds,

That bolded portion is the definition of contacting the ground. At that instant, the process of going to the ground was complete, as long as the ball didn't move. It was still secure, until the ball contacted the ground 1 second after the process was complete. Dez had 2 elbows down, just to show off. Now you have the official NFL terms defined.
The picture is the final proof of one of the most spectacular catches ever made.