Explain to me how that wasn't a 'football move' **Bryant Reversed Call Thread**

[nathanlt]

I think the point is, as you are going to the ground, you could switch the ball back and forth from your right and left hand or hell duct tape the ball to your chest during that period and if you hit the ground and the ball comes loose, its still incomplete because at the end of the process (the hitting the ground) control was not MAINTAINED. It's NOT just full control at any point DURING the catch, but maintaining control THROUGHOUT the WHOLE process. Hitting the ground is apart of the process unfortunately. I hate the rule, but by rule it was the correct call. Sucks for us though.

NO IT WAS NOT THE CORRECT CALL!! Every time someone is tackled, they hit the ground. Tell me why it's not a fumble-recovered for a touchdown. HIS RIGHT ELBOW was down before his left hand touched the ground. You are either trolling or have overlooked the elbow being down after 3 steps. That's a fumble if anything.

What if they take 40 steps and then hit the ground, and the ball pops loose.... Incomplete??? You are being irrational if you consider this anything but a catch.

 

[TimHortons]

Yup. Clearly a football move. The narrative I've heard is that they believe it wasn't a football move because he was just falling the whole time. I don't see how anyone thinks this. You can clearly see he would have ran it in if not for his second step being tripped up by the CB. The third step was a lunge forward and ball stretched for the score. Horrible turnover, especially since it was such a crucial play and should have been inconclusive.

I think the tripping part is fairly subjective, the argument can be made that he was going down anyway. What isn't debatable however, that the stretch for the goal line was a football move, therefore the catch is complete before anything with the ground comes in to play. Once the football move is complete (stretching out for the TD) then the catch is complete. Then the ground causes a fumble.

 

[nathanlt]

THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY. IT IS A CATCH. 1ST AND GOAL AT THE 1/2 YARD LINE WITH 4:09 LEFT TO PLAY. THIS GAME IS YET TO BE FINISHED.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

I work with a lot of rabid, ant-Cowboy fans here in Balt. We have a diverse fan base and have fans of almost all teams at work here. I have yet to hear from any football fan saying that was not a catch.

Ridiculous! That was a catch. Pure and simple. The NFL and Blandino and whatever fool they trot out there to cover their rear ends is just blowing smoke and lying.

Blandino just didn't want to make the right call and be plastered with people accusing him of improprietary since he was on the party bus with JJ a long time ago.

 

[TheIceman]

NO IT WAS NOT THE CORRECT CALL!! Every time someone is tackled, they hit the ground. Tell me why it's not a fumble-recovered for a touchdown. HIS RIGHT ELBOW was down before his left hand touched the ground. You are either trolling or have overlooked the elbow being down after 3 steps. That's a fumble if anything.

What if they take 40 steps and then hit the ground, and the ball pops loose.... Incomplete??? You are being irrational if you consider this anything but a catch.

If you come down with the ball and then are in control and turn up field then are tackled that is a different story...but here is momentum is carrying him down to the ground...so his stumbling steps are immaterial in the eyes of the rule because theyre happening as hes going to the ground. Because he is falling down during the process of the catch control must be MAINTAINED. It was not. Dumb rule, but correct call. Not trolling man, just not letting my emotions control my opinion. Again, DUMB RULE. But correct call by said dumb rule.

 

[kapolani]

If you come down with the ball and then are in control and turn up field then are tackled that is a different story...but here is momentum is carrying him down to the ground...so his stumbling steps are immaterial in the eyes of the rule because theyre happening as hes going to the ground. Because he is falling down during the process of the catch control must be MAINTAINED. It was not. Dumb rule, but correct call. Not trolling man, just not letting my emotions control my opinion. Again, DUMB RULE. But correct call by said dumb rule.

Momentum isn't carrying him to the ground.

He got tripped.

If anything he should have been down by contact from the tripping since his elbow hit the ground causing the ball to pop loose.

He maintained possession the whole time.

Not the correct call.

 

[nathanlt]

If you come down with the ball and then are in control and turn up field then are tackled that is a different story...but here is momentum is carrying him down to the ground...so his stumbling steps are immaterial in the eyes of the rule because theyre happening as hes going to the ground. Because he is falling down during the process of the catch control must be MAINTAINED. It was not. Dumb rule, but correct call. Not trolling man, just not letting my emotions control my opinion. Again, DUMB RULE. But correct call by said dumb rule.

You have a major problem. There is no conclusive evidence that the ball even touched the ground. Not only did Dez's right elbow touch the ground prior to the ball coming out, DEZ's LEFT ELBOW contacted the ground first. I thought that the ground may have caused the ball to come loose initially, but it didn't. The ground contacted the LEFT ELBOW, causing the ball to move, BEFORE it ever touched the ground. I've rewound this play 30 times already. There's never a definitive frame that shows the ball touching the ground. I've looked for it. It was assumed that because the ball moved, the ground caused it. The LEFT ELBOW contacting early caused the ball to rotate above the ground!!!! Dez regained control, on his back in the end zone. NO DEFINITIVE PROOF THE BALL EVER TOUCHED THE GROUND,

MASSIVE OVERSIGHT, THE BALL NEVER TOUCHED THE GROUND. PERIOD.

 

[Derinyar]

I think the point is, as you are going to the ground, you could switch the ball back and forth from your right and left hand or hell duct tape the ball to your chest during that period and if you hit the ground and the ball comes loose, its still incomplete because at the end of the process (the hitting the ground) control was not MAINTAINED. It's NOT just full control at any point DURING the catch, but maintaining control THROUGHOUT the WHOLE process. Hitting the ground is apart of the process unfortunately. I hate the rule, but by rule it was the correct call. Sucks for us though.

The problem I have with that interpretation is that you have to ignore the basic rules above it to actually use it. You have to ignore (c) on the list of what constitutes a catch to invoke the process rule in this case.

 

[nathanlt]

For those that don't get it.
Dez gets, WITHOUT DISPUTE, the following
Two hands on the ball, securing it to his left hand. NO DISPUTE
Three steps WITH THE BALL SECURED. NO DISPUTE
Right elbow down prior to the ball moving. NO DISPUTE
Reaching out with the left arm, demonstrating a secure ball. NO DISPUTE
Left elbow down prior to the ball moving. NO DISPUTE
5 yards traveled during two football moves, (1. moving from both hands to left hand) (2. reaching forward with the left hand)

Ball rotation near the ground, it is possible to assume the ball may have touched the ground. It is more likely that the LEFT ELBOW contacting early caused the ball to rotate. However, there is no definitive way to prove that it did.
By this time, SIX SEPARATE EVENTS have occurred, as mentioned above. Without concrete evidence that the ball EVER contacted the ground, it is down at the 1 foot line. THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY HERE. The officials got it wrong.

Dez re-secures the ball, on his back in the end zone. Result: Cowboys should have the ball at the 1 foot line.

Watch the replay 30 times in HD, like I did, you'll be convinced.

 

[speedkilz88]

If you come down with the ball and then are in control and turn up field then are tackled that is a different story...but here is momentum is carrying him down to the ground...so his stumbling steps are immaterial in the eyes of the rule because theyre happening as hes going to the ground. Because he is falling down during the process of the catch control must be MAINTAINED. It was not. Dumb rule, but correct call. Not trolling man, just not letting my emotions control my opinion. Again, DUMB RULE. But correct call by said dumb rule.

Refs have already admitted that if he made a football move it is a catch by definition. There were multiple football moves pointed out.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

If you come down with the ball and then are in control and turn up field then are tackled that is a different story...but here is momentum is carrying him down to the ground...so his stumbling steps are immaterial in the eyes of the rule because theyre happening as hes going to the ground. Because he is falling down during the process of the catch control must be MAINTAINED. It was not. Dumb rule, but correct call. Not trolling man, just not letting my emotions control my opinion. Again, DUMB RULE. But correct call by said dumb rule.

His momentum is carrying him towards the end zone. and if you're momentum is carrying you towards the end zone, you stretch towards the marker and try to score. And if that isnt a "football move" then I am not sure what is. Football players don't do this unless they have....control of the freaking ball!!! He had already switched the ball from one arm to another and taken 3 steps....And further more, this application of the rule had to come with no doubt. There had to be No doubt what so ever that this was the right call in order for it to be over turned!

It was a bad call. plain and simple. Just a really really ....bad call.

 

[Coy]

He nailed it, plus you can see clearly he launches in his thrid step, ridiculous.

 

[djmajestik]

NO IT WAS NOT THE CORRECT CALL!! Every time someone is tackled, they hit the ground. Tell me why it's not a fumble-recovered for a touchdown. HIS RIGHT ELBOW was down before his left hand touched the ground. You are either trolling or have overlooked the elbow being down after 3 steps. That's a fumble if anything.

What if they take 40 steps and then hit the ground, and the ball pops loose.... Incomplete??? You are being irrational if you consider this anything but a catch.

I want to like this post more than once.

 

[Tenkamenin]

Mike Pererira is on the TheTicket defending the reversal and he admits that in slow motion it looks bit like he lunged, well if it that's the case then he sort of made a football move, so how the heck could they overturn the call?

 

[djmajestik]

I work with a lot of rabid, ant-Cowboy fans here in Balt. We have a diverse fan base and have fans of almost all teams at work here. I have yet to hear from any football fan saying that was not a catch.

Ridiculous! That was a catch. Pure and simple. The NFL and Blandino and whatever fool they trot out there to cover their rear ends is just blowing smoke and lying.

Blandino just didn't want to make the right call and be plastered with people accusing him of improprietary since he was on the party bus with JJ a long time ago.

I try to be fairly subjective in my homerism. A lot of people at my work are haters, and I have asked EACH one about it, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON I come across says it's a catch. ODB says it's a catch. That leaves the true rabid haters, a few of the true rabid hater mediots, and the NFL.

 

[nathanlt]

I want to like this post more than once.

Thanks. It would have to have touched the ground to be a fumble.

 

[wick]

Mike Pererira is on the TheTicket defending the reversal and he admits that in slow motion it looks bit like he lunged, well if it that's the case then he sort of made a football move, so how the heck could they overturn the call?

Because the football move is irrelevant if the act of the catch results in the player going to the ground. In that scenario, the specific focus item part of the rule must be applied, football move or no football move. Put another way, falling to the ground as part of the process of the catch essentially means you cannot be making a football move while doing so.

 

[djmajestik]

It's very clear with the picture that has been posted several times, but that's not something they would have had with review. I saw it clearly on my TV though, going frame by frame. I had to look closely, but it is clear on a few frames. But again, it's irrelevant since the catch was already made.

Agree to disagree then. I have seen a lot of pics, did some rewinding of my own, and have heard people that have done the same say they don't see it. So I ask, if you have that many people perplexed on whether it did or not, how in any world does that constitute indisputable??

in·dis·put·a·ble
ˌindəˈspyo͞odəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. unable to be challenged or denied.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

Mike Pererira is on the TheTicket defending the reversal and he admits that in slow motion it looks bit like he lunged, well if it that's the case then he sort of made a football move, so how the heck could they overturn the call?

its beyond me how this replay official determined in his thought process that he had 100% justification to over turn the call on the field.

its beyond me...........

does not compute.

He should be fired!!!

 

[ThrowuptheXDez88]

It's obvious from the sideline camera angle that Dez put his left foot in the turf & lunged off to get an extra 2-3 yards.. I am so sick, so freakin sick!!! That lung isn't even my argument though, He clearly caught the d@@@mn ball, took 2 steps, collided with Packers CB, took another step & still transferred ball to left hand, then lunges off with left foot.. dang dang dang