McCarthy Says Dez Didn’t Catch It?

[MarcusRock]

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.
.

It does count because those who opined that Dez didn't establish himself as a runner point to the fact that he did not make a demonstrative reach/lunge. Those 2 videos I posted show the difference and why Pereira was right even before the call was reversed and Blandino's explanation afterwards that I've posted.

 

[MarcusRock]

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

It was a catch! The ball hit his body while he was firmly planted on the ground. TD! Go back and replay the game.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

LOL. Futile, young man. Futile. Still trying to peddle catching someone in his words to inject doubt instead of citing rules.

The difference is in the reach/lunge, which is what Pereira and Blandino have said all along, as well as the rules. It was clearly lacking. Even your catch theorist ringleader I debated with says Dez didn't reach demonstratively when I pressed him on your (same old) video you copied to parrot from him (LINK). Does Dez' reach/lunge look anything like a classic reach/lunge like I keep posting or is it lacking like your leader admitted?

 

[Bullflop]

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.

Thanks. You've just rendered me truly thankful and appreciative that I'm not an NFL official. It also explains, in minute detail, why the average fan like myself absolutely hates these rules. They've been complicated to the point where it takes much of the pleasure out of watching something that requires the constant flags, consultations, many delays, official conferences and interpretations, as these violations are assessed and explained. It's becoming officiated almost as much as it's being played, it seems. Yes, that's just an exaggeration but to most fans, it's unpleasant to tolerate. I believe the NFL needs to slow their roll with their incessant changes.

 

[droopdog7]

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!

So let's be clear. Dez didn't reach out but we can quibble about what reaching out means all day long. What is clear is that he was falling and the rules states that he needs to maintain control of the ball, which he didn't.

And of course the whole football move part is made up. That is precisely what was changed recently and what may be changed in the future. None of that matters. The only thing that matters is what does the rule say and I do not see anything in the play that would suggest it was a catch. You're making all kinds of inferences but none of them are grounded in the language of the rule.

 

[Proximo]

Holy crap 12 pages??
It’s like January 2015 all over again in here, lol.

 

[DogFace]

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

What was Calvin’s act? Answer: the reach.

Dez reached after two feet were down.

The examples you used were after his embarrassment and while trying to justify the botched call. Sure, he’d say anything then.


The only difference in the two examples (Dez vs Calvin) is Calvin didn’t get two feet down. Dez had much more time for a football move during his 3 steps.

 

[aikemirv]

So let's be clear. Dez didn't reach out but we can quibble about what reaching out means all day long. What is clear is that he was falling and the rules states that he needs to maintain control of the ball, which he didn't.

And of course the whole football move part is made up. That is precisely what was changed recently and what may be changed in the future. None of that matters. The only thing that matters is what does the rule say and I do not see anything in the play that would suggest it was a catch. You're making all kinds of inferences but none of them are grounded in the language of the rule.

Inferences, the whole rule is inferences. The fact is that he took 3 steps and reached out to the endzone. The fact is that he moved the ball from 2 hands to 1 hand. The reach out is a move common to the game, that is a fact. If he were still gaing control he never sticks the ball out or takes his other hand away. If he is using the off hand to brace the fall, then he tucks the ball to maintain control. He demonstrated complete control of the ball. How many steps can you take if you are stumbling to the ground? - what if it was a 5 step stumble to the ground - 7?

His going to the ground, while may be stumbling was not part of the catch, he had already demonstrated control and Mr C already used Blandinos description of the rule in another catch to prove this one could have EASILY been ruled a catch!

 

[DogFace]

So let's be clear. Dez didn't reach out but we can quibble about what reaching out means all day long. What is clear is that he was falling and the rules states that he needs to maintain control of the ball, which he didn't.

And of course the whole football move part is made up. That is precisely what was changed recently and what may be changed in the future. None of that matters. The only thing that matters is what does the rule say and I do not see anything in the play that would suggest it was a catch. You're making all kinds of inferences but none of them are grounded in the language of the rule.

The rule was 1. Control (did that clearly) 2. Two feet down (got 3) 3. Time to make a football move—he demonstrated that by bringing the ball to his shoulder, switching to one hand, and reaching. Ask yourself. Could he have lateraled the ball? That is an act and he demonstrated he had more than enough time to do that.


Go backand look at Blandino’s example before the Dez catch. It showed, and he explained very clearly, the Dez catch should’ve stood.

He went to the ground as a runner. All three parts of the catch process were already met.

Dean Blandino:
“This is something we’ve worked really hard at to educate people, in terms of the catch process.”

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
“Let’s look at the play from week one, the Minn. Det. Game where Calvin is GOING TO THE GROUND in the PROCESS of MAKING THE CATCH.
The process of the catch is a 3 part process-control, 2 feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 parts, in that order, you HAVE a catch. If not AND you’re GOING TO THE GROUND you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.”

Dez had both feet down. Otherwise these examples are exactly the same.

 

[aikemirv]

The rule was 1. Control (did that clearly) 2. Two feet down (got 3) 3. Time to make a football move—he demonstrated that by bringing the ball to his shoulder, switching to one hand, and reaching. Ask yourself. Could he have lateraled the ball? That is an act and he demonstrated he had more than enough time to do that.


Go backand look at Blandino’s example before the Dez catch. It showed, and he explained very clearly, the Dez catch should’ve stood.

He went to the ground as a runner. All three parts of the catch process were already met.

Dean Blandino:
“This is something we’ve worked really hard at to educate people, in terms of the catch process.”

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
“Let’s look at the play from week one, the Minn. Det. Game where Calvin is GOING TO THE GROUND in the PROCESS of MAKING THE CATCH.
The process of the catch is a 3 part process-control, 2 feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 parts, in that order, you HAVE a catch. If not AND you’re GOING TO THE GROUND you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.”

Dez had both feet down. Otherwise these examples are exactly the same.

Can't like this enough and no one wants to address Blandino's quote at the bottom.

 

[G2]

The laces were out!

 

[aikemirv]

The laces were out!

I remember that catch!

 

[Toruk_Makto]

At the time, it was not a catch.

It was not called a catch. Then and now common sense says it was a catch.

Posts like this act as if there is an algorithm calling catches and incompletions.

 

[G2]

It was not called a catch. Then and now common sense says it was a catch.

Posts like this act as if there is an algorithm calling catches and incompletions.

No, then it wasn't a catch. They changed the rule and not it would be considered a catch.
I thought it was ridiculous at the time, but am willing to see it as the rule WAS written.

 

[MarcusRock]

Can't like this enough and no one wants to address Blandino's quote at the bottom.

Dude, it's been addressed (and avoided). The simple answer is there was no reach. Pereira said so day of game, Steratore said so day of game, and Blandino said so the day after in that video I posted (that was avoided) where he says "this is what we were looking for" in a football move. I've been saying it for several pages. No one wants to address me in this. I asked you and you avoided, I asked your boy here and he avoided. Blandino says almost the same thing he says for Calvin as he did for Dez:

For Johnson: "... this is all one process" (because 2 feet weren't down)
For Dez: "... we consider this all one act" (because there was no reach)

What more do you need? And are you going to address the 2 reaches here .... EVER? Which is more obvious and demonstrative of a reach? Is there a difference in reaches? Stop avoiding.

 

[SSGMIKE]

Its was the right call during that time when the rules stated you must have full control going to the ground, the 3 step process wasn't apply at that time. Hate to say it, but McCarthy being aware of the rules, challenge it and won it... Give credit to the Packers

 

[DFWJC]

At the time, it was not a catch.

Sure it was.

 

[DFWJC]

One thing I have noticed over the years though, the heavy Romo critics....the ones who borderline didn't even want us to win because he was QB because they had argued against him personally for so long.....almost alway squeal that it was not a catch.

Just something I started noticing awhile ago. Its very consistant.

 

[gjkoeppen]

It does count because those who opined that Dez didn't establish himself as a runner point to the fact that he did not make a demonstrative reach/lunge. Those 2 videos I posted show the difference and why Pereira was right even before the call was reversed and Blandino's explanation afterwards that I've posted.

How can you say 1 pic of Bryant in the process of making a catch and a QB just running with the ball show the same thing. That's like saying on Tuesday this week it was sunny and Tuesday last week it was cloudy but because they were both Tuesdays they're the same. Just so you know, back then a catch was defined as catching the ball and making a football move ( they used the 2 step) PRIOR to being tackled and then controlling the ball all the way through the tackle. Bryant didn't have any football move prior to being tackled. He did get 2 steps in while being tackled but the football move back then had to be done BEFORE being hit. Then as he was going down he tried to extend his arm over the goal line and as his arm hit the turf the ball touched the turf and bounced up not maintaining control of the ball all through the tackle. The rules have changed since then and everyone knows that if that was today it would have been ruled a catch but not back then. As much as I wanted that to be a catch, I knew as soon as I saw in one of the many replays while waiting for the ruling that as I saw the ball bounce up I knew they were going to call it a incomplete pass. And as we all know it was. Back then anytime the turf caused the ball to move it was ruled an incomplete pass.
.
.

 

[TwentyOne]

It was a question that needed to be asked.

McCarthy said:

"It was a great catch, I can say now. It wasn't then - technically."

That's all we needed to know!

Of course it wasnt a catch back then. What should he say ?

Let it go.