McCarthy Says Dez Didn’t Catch It?

[OmerV]

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm not arguing about Dez's catch -- I'm talking about the rules as they stand today. Yessir, Dez's catch according to the rules back then was right by calling it incomplete. No problem, there. Yes, what was true back then isn't the case now and yes, it wasn't a catch back then, even though it would be a catch in the here and now.

Just my opinion but these rules of what's a catch and what isn't have become so convoluted that it takes away from what's in the best interest of the game itself. Many have become disenchanted with what the rules committee has seen fit to change on a regular basis. It's disturbing and frankly, not in the best interest of what the NFL should be. The endless complexities have reduced the game into an exercise of interpretation. Not a good thing, imho.

I didn't think you were specifically talking about Dez's catch, I was just clarifying that the rules apply to all receivers regardless of position, and that establishing possession before going to the ground is the factor that determines whether a player hitting the ground ends up with a fumble or an incompletion.

I don't at all disagree that the rules are convoluted and cause confusion. But I also think no matter how the rule reads there will always be some controversy because there always has be some way to decide if a receiver seems to catch the ball then loses if it was ever a catch to begin with.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that a player diving for the ball should maintain control through the catch, but with a play like Dez's play I think it was very clear even though he was going to the ground that he had the ball firmly in his grasp and his feet had obviously contacted the ground (several times), so the rule needed to be changed to allow that kind of play to be a catch.

Maybe the best we could do is make it that if the receiver has the ball in his grasp and control, and he contacts the ground without losing it, it's a catch. There would still be individual plays that would be questioned, such as the bang bang play where a receiver gets hit immediately after appearing to catch the ball, or immediately after contacting the ground after leaping to catch a pass, but the simpler the rule is the easier it will be to apply.

 

[OmerV]

A RB doesn't maintain control if he loses the ball going to the ground. The ground can't cause a fumble. If a receiver loses the ball going to the ground, even if he maintains possession and the ball pops out upon hitting the ground, it's an incompletion. In one case with the RB, it's a dead ball and the offense retains possession. If a receiver establishes possession and loses possession as he hits the ground, it's an incompletion and the offense gets penalized by losing the down. That's an inconsistent circumstance. Simple contention in my estimation. That should justifiably change, imho.

The ground can cause a fumble if the RB trips and goes down without being touched, but I know that's not what we are talking about.

But, again, what you are talking about is a situation where, under the rules, the receiver has not established possession and established himself as a runner before going to the ground. The refs aren't ruling a receiver made a legal catch, and then when he hits the ground and the ball pops away they take the catch away from him, they are ruling that it never became a legal catch to begin with.

The situation you keep thinking of with a RB is where a catch and possession have been ruled, and therefore he is established as a runner and the catch is no longer in question. At that point if he hits the ground and loses the ball he either is down by contact assuming he got tackled or touched on his way to the ground, or if he is untouched it is a fumble.

 

[DogFace]

Or, maybe he really believes it wasn’t a catch

No. I don’t believe anyone that makes themselves so clear in those very carefully rehearsed tutorials to explain what a catch was could believe anything other than it was a catch. Unless he forgot his own teaching.
Which I guess is possible because he seemed under qualified for his job.

The examples couldn’t have been more similar to the Dez catch.


It’s fine. It really is. I just want to make it clear one last (maybe) time that no one can or will be able dispute the head of officials own explanation of the rule.

 

[MarcusRock]

Making it up....This whole football move is made up. So who and when and how do they decide what a football move is - Making it up -smh!

The act of the "catch": never involves reaching out with the ball to reach the goal line. There is nothing made up about that. Nobody catches the ball and reaches out as part of a catch. If there is a football move, stretching it out for the line to gain is definitely one!

If it's all about reaching out for the goal line, why haven't you answered my question on the difference between Dez' reach and a classic, every day reach like you see in the NFL? Is there a difference here? Because Pereira mentioned it the day of the game and even before the reversal he said the call would be reversed. Once again, is there a difference?

 

[MarcusRock]

For those who think it's a catch, why aren't you debating with the actual rules to support your case? Come on, show your work like you were taught in school. Enough of this "feeling" crap.

 

[MyFairLady]

Dez is, was and always will be a moron. Just hang onto the ball you tool.

 

[aikemirv]

If it's all about reaching out for the goal line, why haven't you answered my question on the difference between Dez' reach and a classic, every day reach like you see in the NFL? Is there a difference here? Because Pereira mentioned it the day of the game and even before the reversal he said the call would be reversed. Once again, is there a difference?

Why have I not responded? Because no response is necessary. They are 2 totally different plays. One is a run and one is right after a catch. The runner obviously has more time to reach and reach further. Dez did not have that much time - does not mean he did not reach. The extent of the reach does not determine the act!

 

[aikemirv]

Dez is, was and always will be a moron. Just hang onto the ball you tool.

Most of Dez's errors were trying to do too much. This WAS a classic case. Just come down with the ball. No need to try to score there. Just tuck and roll. Nobody ever accused Dez of being a smart football player but I loved his heart and effort!

 

[OmerV]

No. I don’t believe anyone that makes themselves so clear in those very carefully rehearsed tutorials to explain what a catch was could believe anything other than it was a catch. Unless he forgot his own teaching.
Which I guess is possible because he seemed under qualified for his job.

The examples couldn’t have been more similar to the Dez catch.

Blandino has said over and over and over the last 5 years that the Dez play was ruled correctly, so it's really not credible to cite him as proof that it wasn't.

The thing you are missing is that the play Blandino talks about that most closely resembles the Dez play is the one involving Calvin Johnson (not the infamous Calvin Johnson play, but another one), and he said that one also was not a catch, and for the same reasons he says the Dez play was not a catch. In short, if you are in the process of going to the ground, possession has to be maintained all the way through. If you listen to him directly talk about the Dez catch, that's what he said, and he further said that the steps and reach were deemed things done in the process of going to the ground and therefore not enough to qualify as the "move common to the game".

 

[MarcusRock]

Why have I not responded? Because no response is necessary. They are 2 totally different plays. One is a run and one is right after a catch. The runner obviously has more time to reach and reach further. Dez did not have that much time - does not mean he did not reach. The extent of the reach does not determine the act!

LOL. It wasn't an illustration of time, it was an illustration of execution. That's what I was asking you about. But you just outlined why Dez' play wasn't a catch. First, he didn't "reach further" as you say, which is exactly what Pereira said the day of the game and Blandino the day after. Also, you mention that Dez did not have that much time. Well, time is part of the rule and was also a determination because Dez didn't meet the time element of the UPRIGHT catch rule which would have suppressed the going to the ground rule. A lunge would have done that per the rules, but as you say (and Pereira, whom you agree with), Dez didn't "reach further" and execute. Therefore, GTTG applies, ball comes out and it's no catch.

Do you see how easy that was? So you did answer my question without meaning to. By your own admission, this was not a catch if you understand the rules then. But most do not.

 

[MarcusRock]

Blandino has said over and over and over the last 5 years that the Dez play was ruled correctly, so it's really not credible to cite him as proof that it wasn't.

The thing you are missing is that the play Blandino talks about that most closely resembles the Dez play is the one involving Calvin Johnson (not the infamous Calvin Johnson play, but another one), and he said that one also was not a catch, and for the same reasons he says the Dez play was not a catch. In short, if you are in the process of going to the ground, possession has to be maintained all the way through. If you listen to him directly talk about the Dez catch, that's what he said, and he further said that the steps and reach were deemed things done in the process of going to the ground and therefore not enough to qualify as the "move common to the game".

This was a good video where Blandino illustrates the rule per the Dez play and even compares it to another Dez play.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00457361/Dean-Blandino-reviews-Bryant-s-catch

A good quote that comes from this is:

"This is a good illustration of a football move where he gathers himself and now he's gonna lunge. It's clear, it's obvious. He's reaching that ball, extending it, versus just going to the ground with his momentum."

There's nothing here clear and obvious to show that Dez gathered himself or launched to change his trajectory or anything that interrupted his singular path of falling to the ground. Hope sees a lot of things but it can't see a proper lunge or reach on this play. Protect the ball and we are golden.

 

[tyke1doe]

Are we still arguing this? Is the outcome going to change?

 

[MarcusRock]

Are we still arguing this? Is the outcome going to change?

No, but if some can somehow inject MALFEASANCE! into the equation (because they dang sure can't argue the rules), they get to play victim and the sting hurts less.

 

[OmerV]

This was a good video where Blandino illustrates the rule per the Dez play and even compares it to another Dez play.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00457361/Dean-Blandino-reviews-Bryant-s-catch

A good quote that comes from this is:

"This is a good illustration of a football move where he gathers himself and now he's gonna lunge. It's clear, it's obvious. He's reaching that ball, extending it, versus just going to the ground with his momentum."

There's nothing here clear and obvious to show that Dez gathered himself or launched to change his trajectory or anything that interrupted his singular path of falling to the ground. Hope sees a lot of things but it can't see a proper lunge or reach on this play. Protect the ball and we are golden.

That's a great videw to show the difference between a catch and a non-catch on similar plays

 

[DogFace]

Blandino has said over and over and over the last 5 years that the Dez play was ruled correctly, so it's really not credible to cite him as proof that it wasn't.

The thing you are missing is that the play Blandino talks about that most closely resembles the Dez play is the one involving Calvin Johnson (not the infamous Calvin Johnson play, but another one), and he said that one also was not a catch, and for the same reasons he says the Dez play was not a catch. In short, if you are in the process of going to the ground, possession has to be maintained all the way through. If you listen to him directly talk about the Dez catch, that's what he said, and he further said that the steps and reach were deemed things done in the process of going to the ground and therefore not enough to qualify as the "move common to the game".

No. I’m sorry you’re wrong, but you are right the Calvin play in the example did most closely resemble the Dez play.

What you missed was Dean saying had Calvin gotten two feet down prior to his lunge, as Dez clearly did, it would’ve been a catch. That not getting two feet down was the only difference between the two plays.

 

[pansophy]

Are we still arguing this? Is the outcome going to change?

Would it be wrong to bring up this play? I still think he should have caught it.

 

[G2]

I retrospect, I wouldn't have gone for it on 4th and short. I would have run the ball and kept the clock rolling.

 

[gjkoeppen]

What's funny about it? I posted 2 videos of the exact same style of catch to show that Dez was going to the ground no matter what. In the other video the DB doesn't even touch him and he falls by himself. And you don't "switch hands" by having 2 hands on a ball and then choosing to remove one. Not that it matters anyway by the going to the ground rule then. Maybe Dez should have kept both hands on the ball in both cases seeing as it was 4th Down and there'd be no do-over. As I said before, he tried to do too much?

I have 2 other videos for you to comment on. Does Dez' attempted lunge look anything like what people consider a proper lunge as illustrated by Jacoby Brisett here? Dez hardly even moves the ball forward from where he is but you think that was a demonstrative reach/lunge with his face plant there?

Your second clip isn't relevant to Bryant's non-catch. Brisett wasn't in the process of making a catch so he didn't have to maintain possession all the way to the ground. According to the rules then, if the ground causes the ball to move then it's not a catch and the ground did cause the ball to move. I know that you were trying to show different ways to stretch with the ball but again if it's not part of making a catch it really doesn't count.
.

 

[OmerV]

No. I’m sorry you’re wrong, but you are right the Calvin play in the example did most closely resemble the Dez play.

What you missed was Dean saying had Calvin gotten two feet down prior to his lunge, as Dez clearly did, it would’ve been a catch. That not getting two feet down was the only difference between the two plays.

He did not say getting 2 feet down was the only difference between the plays. He has also said Dez did not make a "move that is common to the game"

Look at this. Blandino clearly shows the difference in what would be a catch and what wouldn't using 2 similar plays involving Dez.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00457361/Dean-Blandino-reviews-Bryant-s-catch

 

[gjkoeppen]

Would it be wrong to bring up this play? I still think he should have caught it.

Ya and if the dog hadn't stopped to take a dump he would have caught the rabbit too. People get over these plays that aren't going to change.
.