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

[xwalker]

I wholeheartedly believe that if that were Jordy Nelson or Davante Adams, they would not have overturned the call.

I just can’t…

Dez put it into the hands of the refs.

If he didn't try to reach the goalline, they would have had the ball with less than 1 yard to go. They had the best OL and running game in the league that season...

 

[MarcusRock]

The DeMarco Murray strip fumble in the open field with nothing but daylight in front of him haunts me more. That was a guaranteed TD.

Dez didn't make that catch. He thought it was more important to make an ESPN highlight video than to secure the ball to his chest and then line up for the next play with a 1st and goal and a chance to eat up more clock or force the Packers to burn time outs.

I actually don't blame Dez for trying to score. It's what receivers do and instinctual. Same way I don't blame Heath for not stripping Rodgers of the ball in 2016. He's not a DE so that didn't come natural to him. The Dez play was a gamble of a play and it almost worked out. Perfect pass and perfect highpointing of the ball but the DB Shields got just enough of Dez to cause him to slip on his 3rd step to force the ball to hit the ground hard and pop out of Dez' possession. Just a gamble that didn't pay off. Almost had it. No blame. Things don't always work out and this was one of those times.

 

[SultanOfSix]

"... throughout the process of contacting the ground." The act AND the aftermath. Ball can't touch the ground. Ball can't come loose. It did. No amount of wordsmithing gets around this.

4th time asking. Where are the articles that show the NFL didn't apply their own rules correctly?

"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."

You're getting annoying dude. You're interpolating words into the rule that do not exist. Once again:

1) The subject of the first sentence is the PLAYER. The phrase "he must maintain control of the ball after HIS initial contact with the ground" applies only to the player NOT the ball.
2) The second sentence applies to him losing control of the ball and the BALL touching the ground. It references the notion of control. It is a temporal sentence, meaning it presumes that events execute serially in time. Dez did not lose control of the ball going to the ground. He CLEARLY had control of the ball from the many events that occurred before his arm even touched the ground: catching the ball with two hands, switching it to one hand, taking multiple steps going to the ground, AND lunging for the goal line with it already possessed in his hands. It is only when his arm hit the ground as he was reaching for the goal line and possibly a portion of the ball touching the ground (it is NOT indisputable from the evidence), did the ball come lose (he lost control) and POPUP up into the air onto his shoulder and into his arms in the end zone where it never touched the ground again because he possessed it (regained control). The rule references regaining control AFTER the ball touches the ground where it is presupposed that HE HAS LOST control of it before doing so.
3) The ground cannot cause a fumble. Even if you presume the entire act of "throughout the process of contacting the ground" negates this rule, the ball just touching the ground does NOT NECESSARILY negate control. My previous example of players cupping the ball and it touching the ground and still being ruled complete shows this. Such a play happened in the SAME game on the other side by Cobb. The rule doesn't even say ANYTHING about that. A loss of control would be if the ball hit the ground and rolled out of his hands onto the grass. That clearly did NOT happen here.
4) That you keep mentioning some strawman notion that the NFL didn't admit to applying their own rules correctly is IRRELEVANT. They are a monopoly. There is no independent arbiter, like a court system, that can judge them based on the meaning of words that exist in the rule. But that's the thing about words: they are INDEPENDENT concepts that people can understand on their own from a dictionary and rules of grammar. They are not dependent upon the NFL's seal of approval.

 

[terra]

The DeMarco Murray strip fumble in the open field with nothing but daylight in front of him haunts me more. That was a guaranteed TD.

Dez didn't make that catch. He thought it was more important to make an ESPN highlight video than to secure the ball to his chest and then line up for the next play with a 1st and goal and a chance to eat up more clock or force the Packers to burn time outs.

That is such a pile of crap. Dez was ALWAYS an aggressive WR- most are.
He as NOT thinking about ESPN or anything like that and frankly you are OUT OF LINE FOR SAYING THAT.

 

[xwalker]

I actually don't blame Dez for trying to score. It's what receivers do and instinctual. Same way I don't blame Heath for not stripping Rodgers of the ball in 2016. He's not a DE so that didn't come natural to him. The Dez play was a gamble of a play and it almost worked out. Perfect pass and perfect highpointing of the ball but the DB Shields got just enough of Dez to cause him to slip on his 3rd step to force the ball to hit the ground hard and pop out of Dez' possession. Just a gamble that didn't pay off. Almost had it. No blame. Things don't always work out and this was one of those times.

I blame Dez more than the refs.

Lack of situational awareness.

Reaching is always a risk. Many players gave fumbled when trying to reach for the TD. Non-catch or fumble...same result.

It's like a DB that gets an INT but then fumbles it and the offense ends up with a 1st down...Just going down after the INT would have guaranteed the win.

The Cowboys with 4 downs starting inside the 1 yard line would have been very close to a guaranteed TD that season. It was the best OL and running game in the league. One of the best OLines in history with prime Tyron, Frederick and Martin plus Leary and Parnell. Leary & Parnell were playing as well as any 4th & 5th OL in any season for the Cowboys.

 

[xwalker]

That is such a pile of crap. Dez was ALWAYS an aggressive WR- most are.
He as NOT thinking about ESPN or anything like that and frankly you are OUT OF LINE FOR SAYING THAT.

Lack of situational awareness by Dez.

Getting the ball at the 1 yard line would actually have been better than scoring a TD. They would used more clock and with that OL the probability of scoring was as close to a guarantee as anything in sports.

Even if he had taken 6 steps with the ball to guarantee it was a catch, reaching would still risk a fumble.

Dez is the biggest moron in the history of Cowboys players...

 

[Hardline]

That is such a pile of crap. Dez was ALWAYS an aggressive WR- most are.
He as NOT thinking about ESPN or anything like that and frankly you are OUT OF LINE FOR SAYING THAT.

I am 100% correct and I will double down on my original post. Try to debunk me.

 

[MarcusRock]

"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."

You're getting annoying dude. You're interpolating words into the rule that do not exist. Once again:

1) The subject of the first sentence is the PLAYER. The phrase "he must maintain control of the ball after HIS initial contact with the ground" applies only to the player NOT the ball.
2) The second sentence applies to him losing control of the ball and the BALL touching the ground. It references the notion of control. It is a temporal sentence, meaning it presumes that events execute serially in time. Dez did not lose control of the ball going to the ground. He CLEARLY had control of the ball from the many events that occurred before his arm even touched the ground: catching the ball with two hands, switching it to one hand, taking multiple steps going to the ground, AND lunging for the goal line with it already possessed in his hands. It is only when his arm hit the ground as he was reaching for the goal line and possibly a portion of the ball touching the ground (it is NOT indisputable from the evidence), did the ball come lose (he lost control) and POPUP up into the air onto his shoulder and into his arms in the end zone where it never touched the ground again because he possessed it (regained control). The rule references regaining control AFTER the ball touches the ground where it is presupposed that HE HAS LOST control of it before doing so.
3) The ground cannot cause a fumble. Even if you presume the entire act of "throughout the process of contacting the ground" negates this rule, the ball just touching the ground does NOT NECESSARILY negate control. My previous example of players cupping the ball and it touching the ground and still being ruled complete shows this. Such a play happened in the SAME game on the other side by Cobb. The rule doesn't even say ANYTHING about that. A loss of control would be if the ball hit the ground and rolled out of his hands onto the grass. That clearly did NOT happen here.
4) That you keep mentioning some strawman notion that the NFL didn't admit to applying their own rules correctly is IRRELEVANT. They are a monopoly. There is no independent arbiter, like a court system, that can judge them based on the meaning of words that exist in the rule. But that's the thing about words: they are INDEPENDENT concepts that people can understand on their own from a dictionary and rules of grammar. They are not dependent upon the NFL's seal of approval.

I'm annoying because you can't overcome the truth, neither with your many words or trying to change the meaning of the rules while accusing me of the same. Now I remember you. You were the guy who tried to debate this with me before that I called Mr. Wordsalad. Lol.

Here's more of your crooked trying. NOW you're trying to use the 2015 rules, which changed the words a little but not the application of the rule. This play was governed by the 2014 rules though. The ones that say "throughout the process of contacting the ground." Even by the 2015 rules your mansplaining is wrong.

"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."

1) The subject of the first sentence is the PLAYER. The phrase "he must maintain control of the ball after HIS initial contact with the ground" applies only to the player NOT the ball.

Yeah, doesn't apply to the ball except the part that says the player "must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground." But yeah, nothing to do with the ball at all. Did Dez (the player) maintain control of the ball "throughout (in the applicable 2014 rules)" or even "until after his initial contact with the ground (in 2015 rules)?" That answer would be NO. Therefore, incomplete pass. The rest of what you wrote is irrelevant after this laughable attempt. Trying to ignore a dead to rights indictment of Dez in plain sight with your wordsalad deep fake. Lol.

Once again, FIFTH time asking. Where are the articles that show the NFL misapplied their own rules? Spare the NFL monopoly deep fake. None of that has stopped sports articles from being written about the application of rules. Why are you ignoring this question? Because there are none and only the Dez catch theorists have figured this out like the Scooby-Doo crew always did. Makes sense .... until it doesn't.

 

[SultanOfSix]

I'm annoying because you can't overcome the truth, neither with your many words or trying to change the meaning of the rules while accusing me of the same. Now I remember you. You were the guy who tried to debate this with me before that I called Mr. Wordsalad. Lol.

Here's more of your crooked trying. NOW you're trying to use the 2015 rules, which changed the words a little but not the application of the rule. This play was governed by the 2014 rules though. The ones that say "throughout the process of contacting the ground." Even by the 2015 rules your mansplaining is wrong.


Yeah, doesn't apply to the ball except the part that says the player "must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground." But yeah, nothing to do with the ball at all. Did Dez (the player) maintain control of the ball "throughout (in the applicable 2014 rules)" or even "until after his initial contact with the ground (in 2015 rules)?" That answer would be NO. Therefore, incomplete pass. The rest of what you wrote is irrelevant after this laughable attempt. Trying to ignore a dead to rights indictment of Dez in plain sight with your wordsalad deep fake. Lol.

Once again, FIFTH time asking. Where are the articles that show the NFL misapplied their own rules? Spare the NFL monopoly deep fake. None of that has stopped sports articles from being written about the application of rules. Why are you ignoring this question? Because there are none and only the Dez catch theorists have figured this out like the Scooby-Doo crew always did. Makes sense .... until it doesn't.

You’re clueless.

The receiver can bobble the ball while falling to the ground and through the process of contacting the ground. As long as he controls it at the end and it doesn’t hit the ground while he is bobbling it, if he regains control of it even while he is laying on the ground then that means he has possessed it. That is what the second sentence of the rule implies. Otherwise, any ball that is bobbled and the receiver falls to the ground would be ruled incomplete and that has never been the case. And that’s not even what happened to Dez. He already controlled the ball while falling to the ground and only lost control of the ball when his arm hit the ground reaching for the goal line and even then it popped up and rolled onto his body and never touched the ground after that.

Learn what a straw man is.

 

[buybuydandavis]

I keep telling y'all and people just refuse to see it for obvious reasons. None of what you mention was a football move when you are labeled as going to the ground.

Wasn't "labeled as going to the ground" by the call on the field.

Incorrect judgment calls contradicting the call on the field are not "indisputable visual evidence".

Completion.

 

[MarcusRock]

You’re clueless.

The receiver can bobble the ball while falling to the ground and through the process of contacting the ground. As long as he controls it at the end and it doesn’t hit the ground while he is bobbling it, if he regains control of it even while he is laying on the ground then that means he has possessed it. That is what the second sentence of the rule implies. Otherwise, any ball that is bobbled and the receiver falls to the ground would be ruled incomplete and that has never been the case. And that’s not even what happened to Dez. He already controlled the ball while falling to the ground and only lost control of the ball when his arm hit the ground reaching for the goal line and even then it popped up and rolled onto his body and never touched the ground after that.

Learn what a straw man is.

I'm so clueless that I know this rule inside and out and can thus detect BS when I see it.

If the overarching first sentence isn't performed, it doesn't matter how you try to twist the second sentence. It's the whole point of the rule itself.

"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..."​

There was no maintenance of control of the ball throughout the process seeing as the ball came loose. Clearly.

I've learned that using "strawman" is a great cover for deflecting away from zero support for a faulty argument. Say it again, though. "They're a monopoly and thus prevent articles from being written about the plays that happen in their games." Lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

Wasn't "labeled as going to the ground" by the call on the field.

Incorrect judgment calls contradicting the call on the field are not "indisputable visual evidence".

Completion.

The official on the field was shielded from seeing the ball on the ground since the reverse angle is what showed it. You can label going to the ground and still call it a good catch if you don't see the ball touch the ground. Replay was there to correct. The ball did touch the ground, didn't it? I mean this is clear. Therefore, those rules apply and when the ball came loose the rules say incomplete. Not hard at all. Not wanting to accept it is a different process.

 

[buybuydandavis]

The official on the field was shielded from seeing the ball on the ground since the reverse angle is what showed it. You can label going to the ground and still call it a good catch if you don't see the ball touch the ground. Replay was there to correct. The ball did touch the ground, didn't it? I mean this is clear. Therefore, those rules apply and when the ball came loose the rules say incomplete. Not hard at all. Not wanting to accept it is a different process.

Evidence the refs "labeled" going to the ground on the field?

We know they "labeled" it a catch.

 

[SultanOfSix]

I'm so clueless that I know this rule inside and out and can thus detect BS when I see it.

If the overarching first sentence isn't performed, it doesn't matter how you try to twist the second sentence. It's the whole point of the rule itself.

"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..."​

There was no maintenance of control of the ball throughout the process seeing as the ball came loose. Clearly.

I've learned that using "strawman" is a great cover for deflecting away from zero support for a faulty argument. Say it again, though. "They're a monopoly and thus prevent articles from being written about the plays that happen in their games." Lol.

You just keep repeating the same phrase over and over again. Unlike you, I’ve provided an actual argument and explained myself based on the meaning of terms, the visual evidence of the play, and REALITY. Your single frame of a video represented in an image proves nothing.

All you have is is “Derp. The NFL never admitted to a mistake.”

 

[DFWJC]

Dez taking 3 steps after he caught it wasn't enough? How many steps do you need?

Yeah. It was a catch. Plain and simple.

 

[leeblair]

I actually don't blame Dez for trying to score. It's what receivers do and instinctual. Same way I don't blame Heath for not stripping Rodgers of the ball in 2016. He's not a DE so that didn't come natural to him. The Dez play was a gamble of a play and it almost worked out. Perfect pass and perfect highpointing of the ball but the DB Shields got just enough of Dez to cause him to slip on his 3rd step to force the ball to hit the ground hard and pop out of Dez' possession. Just a gamble that didn't pay off. Almost had it. No blame. Things don't always work out and this was one of those times.

Even if Dez had scored on that play, it wouldn't have mattered. The Cowboys couldn't have stopped Rogers from getting the Packers up the field and setting up a field goal.
That game was lost in the 3rd quarter when DeMarco Murray had a clear path to the end zone but was stripped of the ball. That play also sealed Murray's fate in Dallas, as the Cowboys let him walk the next season.
But, Bryant caught the ball.

 

[MarcusRock]

Evidence the refs "labeled" going to the ground on the field?

We know they "labeled" it a catch.

Evidence the one ref didn't label it going to the ground but was shielded from seeing the ball hit the ground which would make it a catch in his mind and would be correct by the rules if the ball in fact didn't. Because either case could have been true.

 

[black label]

dez eats daks cheeto right now

 

[MarcusRock]

You just keep repeating the same phrase over and over again. Unlike you, I’ve provided an actual argument and explained myself based on the meaning of terms, the visual evidence of the play, and REALITY. Your single frame of a video represented in an image proves nothing.

All you have is is “Derp. The NFL never admitted to a mistake.”

You've provided a twisting of parts of the rules via word salad to try to ignore what the first sentence shows needed to happen on the play that didn't happen on the play to make it complete. And my frame of the video PROVES the ball hit the ground so that no one attempting to twist reality as you are can say it didn't touch the ground. So it at least head's off and limits an aspect one could use to make a dishonest argument. Hasn't stopped you on the rest though. There's no mistake for the NFL to admit because it was the correct call by the rules. Anyone making a knowingly dishonest argument realizes this too which is why there's no one else in the world corroborating their versions. But "Derp. The NFL's monopoly prevents sports articles from being written about dere plays, guys. Y'all believe me, right?" You're better than that, Word Salad. Lol.

 

[SultanOfSix]

You've provided a twisting of parts of the rules via word salad to try to ignore what the first sentence shows needed to happen on the play that didn't happen on the play to make it complete. And my frame of the video PROVES the ball hit the ground so that no one attempting to twist reality as you are can say it didn't touch the ground. So it at least head's off and limits an aspect one could use to make a dishonest argument. Hasn't stopped you on the rest though. There's no mistake for the NFL to admit because it was the correct call by the rules. Anyone making a knowingly dishonest argument realizes this too which is why there's no one else in the world corroborating their versions. But "Derp. The NFL's monopoly prevents sports articles from being written about dere plays, guys. Y'all believe me, right?" You're better than that, Word Salad. Lol.

All you’ve proven is you can’t understand English.