News: ESPN: How the Dez Bryant no-catch call changed the NFL forever

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,965
Reaction score
16,265
Dez taking 3 steps after he caught it wasn't enough? How many steps do you need?

When it came to the Going to the Ground rule, the number of steps did not matter. Not 3, not 5. If you were Going to the Ground, that aspect of the catch rule applied, period and you can't let the ball touch the ground and have it come loose.

Wasn't the rule at the time that you have to make a "football move" after the catch? I thought him stretching the ball out toward the goal line was a football move.

Was not a football move. Dez intended it but slipped on his 3rd step down to the ground and could not execute a proper lunge, which is the only thing that could get you out of going to the ground per the rules. Otherwise you have to control the ball while keeping it off the ground.

Secondly, I’m not even sure the football even ever touched the ground.

Yeah, it did, unfortunately.

Ball-On-Ground.jpg
 

ghst187

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,574
Reaction score
11,385
When it came to the Going to the Ground rule, the number of steps did not matter. Not 3, not 5. If you were Going to the Ground, that aspect of the catch rule applied, period and you can't let the ball touch the ground and have it come loose.



Was not a football move. Dez intended it but slipped on his 3rd step down to the ground and could not execute a proper lunge, which is the only thing that could get you out of going to the ground per the rules. Otherwise you have to control the ball while keeping it off the ground.



Yeah, it did, unfortunately.

Ball-On-Ground.jpg

3 steps and the catch was more than completed at that time and yes it was a football move. He was lunging towards the goal line. It was a bogus call regardless of the rule.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,965
Reaction score
16,265
3 steps and the catch was more than completed at that time and yes it was a football move. He was lunging towards the goal line. It was a bogus call regardless of the rule.

Did the ball touch the ground?
 

Oz-of-Cowboy-Country

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,259
Reaction score
17,077
Did the ball touch the ground?
Did he have control when he took those three steps? Three steps is suppose to overcome the ball touching the ground. The problem was the picked up flag against our linebacker the week before, IMO. Can't have too many game changing calls going the Cowboys way.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,965
Reaction score
16,265
Did he have control when he took those three steps? Three steps is suppose to overcome the ball touching the ground. The problem was the picked up flag against our linebacker the week before, IMO. Can't have too many game changing calls going the Cowboys way.

Don't know where you pulled that one out of but show me a rule current or former where 3 steps overcomes the ball touching the ground. Once again, at the time (2014) the number of steps Dez took on the way to the ground is irrelevant when he was determined to be going to the ground. He is either upright, and those rules apply or going to the ground and those rules applied and that required keeping the ball off the ground plus maintaining possession after hitting the ground. It was negative on each which is why it was overturned.
 

buybuydandavis

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,940
Reaction score
21,000
Some of the calls that are made on the field and in the booth in the NFL worry me sometimes. Sometimes it really feels like there has to be more going on here than just a bad call. There is no way that call should have been overturned.

Didn't you see the required "indisputable visual evidence" on the call we're still disputing almost 10 years later?
The UnCatch will never, ever be forgotten.
 

Cowboys5217

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,696
Reaction score
8,353
Did he have control when he took those three steps? Three steps is suppose to overcome the ball touching the ground. The problem was the picked up flag against our linebacker the week before, IMO. Can't have too many game changing calls going the Cowboys way.
Again, the Lions player committed a penalty on the same play, but no flag thrown. Plus, blowing a call in one game in no way justifies intentionally screwing a team in another game.

Also, regardless of the reasoning some use to try and justify the bad call against Dez, this does not excuse the bad call that went 100% the other way in the same game on Cobb's obvious trapped pass catch that was clear as day on the review yet he gets credit for the catch.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,965
Reaction score
16,265
Didn't you see the required "indisputable visual evidence" on the call we're still disputing almost 10 years later?
The UnCatch will never, ever be forgotten.

I posted the indisputable evidence above. The ball clearly touched the ground, the ball then clearly came out of Dez' possession which the going to the ground rule states cannot happen. People dispute the call 10 years later because they really, really wanted it to be true and because playing victim tastes better than swallowing a loss. It was a hard loss because we had a good team that we thought could contend. If we sneaked in the playoffs at 9-7 there would have been less expectation and we were playing above our paygrade in giving the Packers all they could handle. But because more was expected, the disappointment was greater and people get more creative to keep the soul from getting crushed when there's greater disappointment. Hence, 10 years later we wuz robbed and people aren't even trying to understand what the rules were at the time. They do though because they keep trying to legislate a football move when they know if they look at the requirements for the going to the ground rule, they're dead in the water. Thus, if they never address it, it didn't happen. But it happened.
 

glimmerman

Well-Known Member
Messages
30,055
Reaction score
29,911
Robbed of watching a exciting finish to a good game. If marinelli didn’t start backing off of rogers I would have felt more confident. Then murray fumbles a possible TD. To me that was catch. The refs used a stupid rendition of the rules. Like the 12 men on the field penalty.
 

SultanOfSix

Star Power
Messages
12,320
Reaction score
7,181
Did the ball touch the ground?
Doesn't matter if it just "touches" the ground. Possession has to be maintained through the process of touching the ground.

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete."

Nothing in the video suggests that he lost control of the ball and it touched the ground before he regained control. Dez had full control of the ball going to the ground. Enough to switch from two hands to one hand, take three steps and lunge for the goal line with it. Dez didn't even trap the ball with ground to maintain possession. Even when the ball could have partially touched the ground when his arm hit because he was reaching for the goal line which the nose of the ball looks like it crossed, he had full possession of it in his one arm. The momentum from the fall then caused the ball to POP UP back and into his arms where he regained a temporary loss of possession due to it. He should've either been ruled down by contact before the ball crossed the line or it should've been a TD.

HORRIBLE, rigged call. Nothing indisputable suggested it should've been reversed. It took a massive interpretation twist of the NFL monopoly's own rules to overturn it, and it still MADE NO SENSE from their own rules.
 
Last edited:

Reverend Conehead

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,938
Reaction score
11,822
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34997228/how-dez-bryant-no-catch-changed-nfl-forever

WE ALL SAW IT. It happened right before our very eyes.

Fifty-two point three million of us watched it live on television. Untold millions have watched it since, in its YouTube afterlife. And to watch it once is to watch it many times, almost by definition -- nobody even had the chance to watch it just once, since the replays started rolling as soon as the ball was whistled dead. The play itself took about seven seconds, snap to signal. The ensuing deliberation took another four minutes, give or take, and the controversy the play generated has lasted for nearly eight years and counting.

It was a catch, of course. It was ruled a catch on the field at 3:58:43 p.m. on Jan. 11, 2015, and it remained a catch until 4:02:29, when the referee announced the reversal by the letter of the law. Then three years later, it became a catch again, when the NFL changed the rules to accommodate its brilliance. Now every time we watch an NFL game we witness some aspect of its legacy, because one of the greatest catches in the history of the game was ruled, "after review," incomplete.

There have been other catches that have, in the space of a few seconds, caused football empires to rise and fall. Bradshaw-Swann, 1976; Montana-Clark, 1982; Manning-Tyree, 2008; Roethlisberger-Holmes, 2009; Brady-Edelman 2017: these are catches that have changed games, careers, fortunes and lives. But they all counted. The pass that Tony Romo threw to Dez Bryant in a playoff game between the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers in 2015 -- or, in its enduring social media afterlife, #DezCaughtIt -- did not, and yet it has changed the way we watch football.

This Sunday's game between the Cowboys and Packers allows us yet again to think about a play that has changed our expectations and our perceptions, the leaps of imagination we once thought impossible and the rounds of on-field litigation we now accept as inevitable. It brought football into its modern era, when we can scarcely believe what we have just seen and then can expect to be told we have not seen it. There was a before and there was an after, and if we wonder why in 2022 we live in a time when nobody can agree on anything, when unlimited scrutiny and maximum technological expertise have combined to produce an age of endless uncertainty, all we have to do is watch, once again, these teams play in January 2015, and try to tell each other, what happens when Tony Romo throws the ball down the sideline and Dez Bryant goes up to get it.

The play was the play because the moment was the moment. It was a divisional playoff game. It was in Green Bay, on an afternoon that was 24 degrees at game time, and though the tundra remained unfrozen, it was a game with a Lombardi-era pedigree as well as high stakes for the outcome of the 2014 football season. Both teams had finished 12-4; the Packers, with an unjaded Aaron Rodgers at quarterback, were 6½-point favorites, but the Cowboys had gone unbeaten on the road, and at least three of their players, Tony Romo and Dez Bryant and DeMarco Murray, were having career years. Dallas had gone ahead by eight points midway through the third quarter, but Green Bay had scored two touchdowns and now Cowboys coach Jason Garrett's team faced the moment that would decide if this was their moment.

That rule of securing the catch and then making a "football move" was way over thinking things. That would have been a catch in any decade prior to that one.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,965
Reaction score
16,265
Doesn't matter if it just "touches" the ground. Possession has to be maintained through the process of touching the ground.

Exactly. And this did not happen. Through the process of touching the ground, the ball came loose. It cannot by the rule, thus it was overturned. You've heard the phrase "survive the ground" and Dez did not. All the other stuff you posted doesn't legislate getting past this fact.
 

SultanOfSix

Star Power
Messages
12,320
Reaction score
7,181
Exactly. And this did not happen. Through the process of touching the ground, the ball came loose. It cannot by the rule, thus it was overturned. You've heard the phrase "survive the ground" and Dez did not. All the other stuff you posted doesn't legislate getting past this fact.

Just saying "exactly" doesn't reinforce what you're implying. It says "If he loses control of the ball and the ball touches the ground before he regains control". The first part is precondition to the second part which follows serially in time.

The ball did not come loose because it touched the ground. He already had control of the ball and it came lose because of the momentum of his arm reaching for the goal line hitting the ground because he held it in one hand. The ball simply touching the ground does not enable loss of control and make it an incomplete pass. That quoted portion of the rule can only apply to AFTER that and it is clear that the ball never touched the ground once it popped up in the air and Dez still caught it in the end zone before it hit the ground.
 
Last edited:

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,965
Reaction score
16,265
Just saying "exactly" doesn't reinforce what you're implying. It says "If he loses control of the ball and the ball touches the ground before he regains control". The first part is precondition to the second part which follows serially in time.

The ball did not come loose because it touched the ground. He already had control of the ball and it came lose because of the momentum of his arm reaching for the goal line hitting the ground because he held it in one hand. The ball simply touching the ground does not enable loss of control and make it an incomplete pass. That quoted portion of the rule can only apply to AFTER that and it is clear that the ball never touched the ground once it popped up in the air and Dez still caught it in the end zone before it hit the ground.

Nice convenient interpretation of a rule that was enforced the same way every time (i.e., not the way you want to see it) but since you like sequence and all, why not look at the complete rule and not just pieces:

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact
by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.​

The overarching part of the rule is you "must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. Literally the first sentence introducing he rule. Therefore, "If he loses control..." means AT ANY POINT throughout the process of contacting the ground in that whole catch sequence because the first sentence describes the whole catch sequence. So if there's ever loss of control but ball touches the ground before control is regained, it is incomplete. Nice try though. No one's ever tried that angle. There's also no record ever of anyone enforcing the rule that way either. But you're welcome to present your evidence that shows they have or any article that was written about this play that says the officials should have interpreted the rule this way and didn't. A hunch says neither exists. See what I mean about a hard loss and creativity?
 

Reid1boys

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
10,032
I was trying to remember which playoff game Rodgers was walking around with one leg and we couldn't sack him.
The fact it was that game makes it all the more egregious and reminded me that if we can't stop a quarterback hopping around the field on one good leg, we were as good as done if we left any time on the clock.
yawn
 

Reid1boys

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
10,032
Stop talking like this is a fact. It’s not.

We may have lost the game in the end. If we won we may have lost the next week. That’s not the point.

The point is we never got the chance due to that horrible call reversal.
If it was susch a fact GB would have scored, why didnt they already have 40 points?
 

SultanOfSix

Star Power
Messages
12,320
Reaction score
7,181
Nice convenient interpretation of a rule that was enforced the same way every time (i.e., not the way you want to see it) but since you like sequence and all, why not look at the complete rule and not just pieces:

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact
by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.​

The overarching part of the rule is you "must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. Literally the first sentence introducing he rule. Therefore, "If he loses control..." means AT ANY POINT throughout the process of contacting the ground in that whole catch sequence because the first sentence describes the whole catch sequence. So if there's ever loss of control but ball touches the ground before control is regained, it is incomplete. Nice try though. No one's ever tried that angle. There's also no record ever of anyone enforcing the rule that way either. But you're welcome to present your evidence that shows they have or any article that was written about this play that says the officials should have interpreted the rule this way and didn't. A hunch says neither exists. See what I mean about a hard loss and creativity?
Umm...no.

I quoted the entire rule.

The first sentence is the PLAYER [he] must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, referring to the player as going through that process not the ball. The second part of the rule references the ball TOUCHING the ground.

There have been plenty of plays where the the receiver has cupped a short-armed ball underneath it while falling to the ground and the ball has touched the ground (like the nose) but the pass has been ruled complete because he still had control of it.

Nothing in the Dez catch provided any significant evidence to overturn that initial ruling and claim that Dez lost control of the ball due to the ground per se, as his arm was more under the ball than the ball touching the ground. He had already maintained possession of the ball to switch hands, take three steps in the process, and do a football move to lunge for the goal line. It was the act of lunging and his arm hitting the ground that caused the ball to pop up from his arm and never touch the ground again because he caught it as he rolled into the end zone. Therefore, even then he maintained control throughout the process of going to the ground and possessed it in the end zone.
 
Last edited:

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,965
Reaction score
16,265
Umm...no.

I quoted the entire rule.

The first sentence is the PLAYER [he] must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, referring to the player as going through that process not the ball. The second part of the rule references the ball TOUCHING the ground.

There have been plenty of plays where the the receiver has cupped a short-armed ball underneath it while falling to the ground and the ball has touched the ground (like the nose) but the pass has been ruled complete because he still had control of it.

Umm...yes. And Dez didn't have control of it which is why his pass was ruled incomplete. Why? Because by rule he needed to "maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground." He did not "maintain" control "throughout the process of contacting the ground." The difference in other plays being called catches is they "maintained" control. The ball can touch the ground, it can't come loose. Dez let it. Incomplete.

Nothing in the Dez catch provided any significant evidence to overturn that initial ruling and claim that Dez lost control of the ball due to the ground per se, as his arm was more under the ball than the ball touching the ground.

Except this big ol' still picture of the video that showed the ball almost flat on the ground. Unless Dez had some funky skin that allowed a flap to unfold and was under the ball in this picture it clearly shows the ball on the ground halfly if not mostly. Ball pops up off the ground, possession is lost and then regained. Incomplete.

Ball-Ground2.jpg


He had already maintained possession of the ball to switch hands, take three steps in the process, and do a football move to lunge for the goal line. It was the act of lunging and his arm hitting the ground that caused the ball to pop up from his arm and never touch the ground again because he caught it as he rolled into the end zone. Therefore, even then he maintained control throughout the process of going to the ground and possessed it in the end zone.

What do "maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground" mean? It means the ball never leaves your grip. It did. Further, it hit the ground to pop it up out of his control before being repossessed. By the literal wording of the rules it is incomplete.

But again, show me the exposé from a major media outlet that shows the NFL applied its own rules wrong. This play was pretty popular in its day. Surely it exists, right? I mean, as much as a bunch of Cowboys fans with vested interest in the play being ruled a catch can be trusted, a little support for the argument wouldn't hurt, would it? So where is it?
 
Top