McCarthy Says Dez Didn’t Catch It?

[MarcusRock]

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.
.
.

Not sure how you're not able to glean 2 players each attempting to reach out the ball as they're going to the ground and comparing each of the attempts. Who cares if one was already an established runner? I'm comparing the reaches as they fell. By the way, I have the rulebook from 2014 and have quoted the complete catch rules in this thread and many others. There is nothing like what you say about catching the ball and performing a football move before being tackled. I have zero idea where you're getting that so what source are you citing?

 

[joe_vato]

He never said he didn’t catch it

 

[DogFace]

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

Right that’s how the last long thread on this ended. It’s amazing how some, even over the internet, will not face losing a disagreement.


Let the record show I posted the video and Blandino’s quote and not one single person has successfully challenged it. I give the one that tried credit again. But all the others just continue posting that it wasn’t a catch etc. all while ignoring the evidence and facts.


It’s like some strange form of self hating of one’s team denial.

 

[DogFace]

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 (midway through the tutorial is where it begins)

“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 prior to the reach so this is all one process. Other than Calvin not having both feet down these examples are exactly the same.

 

[MarcusRock]

Dez had both feet down prior to the reach so this is all one process. Other than Calvin not having both feet down these examples are exactly the same.

Exactly the same? Calvin took 3 steps on the way to the ground? Funny, it looked like 1. Repeating your false interpretation doesn't make it true. Quite simple. Calvin reached. Dez did not. It's "all one process" because in each case all 3 requirements for an UPRIGHT catch were not satisfied triggering the going to the ground rule. Of course every catch theorist HAS to deny that or face what they can't admit. It's no coincidence that both were ruled incomplete. No feet for Calvin, "so" this is all one process then look at the requirements for going to the ground. No reach for Dez, "we consider this one act" then look at the requirements for going to the ground. Neither met the latter.

I can play the link and transcript game too but my video actually talks about the play in question and doesn't require creative license to draw conclusions I want to see.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00457361/Dean-Blandino-reviews-Bryant-s-catch

"... we consider this all one act."
"This was indisputable to us that he did not perform an act common to the game. That has to be an act where I gather myself and I lunge."
"This is Dez earlier in the season against the Giants. 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. That's what we're looking for for a football move and we thought it was indisputable that he didn't perform that on the play yesterday."

So I addressed your video. Why won't you or ANY catch theorist address mine or answer about the difference in reaches I keep posting below to support the "no reach" every rules person says didn't happen to satisfy the UPRIGHT catch rules? We know why.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Not sure how you're not able to glean 2 players each attempting to reach out the ball as they're going to the ground and comparing each of the attempts. Who cares if one was already an established runner? I'm comparing the reaches as they fell. By the way, I have the rulebook from 2014 and have quoted the complete catch rules in this thread and many others. There is nothing like what you say about catching the ball and performing a football move before being tackled. I have zero idea where you're getting that so what source are you citing?

'The reason is because with the non-catch according to the rules THEN a receiver had to do TWO things for it to be

Not sure how you're not able to glean 2 players each attempting to reach out the ball as they're going to the ground and comparing each of the attempts. Who cares if one was already an established runner? I'm comparing the reaches as they fell. By the way, I have the rulebook from 2014 and have quoted the complete catch rules in this thread and many others. There is nothing like what you say about catching the ball and performing a football move before being tackled. I have zero idea where you're getting that so what source are you citing?

If you don't see the difference of in the process of catching a pass and a runner, this time a QB, stretching his arm out and then losing control of the ball out of bounds in not the same thing then there is no hope for you. For the QB there is NOTHING in the rules that say he MUST retain control of the ball once being out of bounds, but there was a rule that said that a receiver in the process of catching a pass must retain COMPLETE control during the catch process which includes through either being tackled or going out of bounds.
.
.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

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.

They clarified out "football move"

Because it was controversial.

If you think high pointing a football with two hands. Switching it between hands twice and diving for the pylon isn't a "football move" then we disagree.

 

[Diehardblues]

At the time, it was not a catch.

Right... but it could have been a catch. It was ruled a catch but over turned. So if it was held up would have been a catch. I call it the catch that wasn’t. Lol

 

[MarcusRock]

'The reason is because with the non-catch according to the rules THEN a receiver had to do TWO things for it to be

Not even sure what you're trying to explain but a receiver has THREE things he has to do per the rules:

a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.).​

Dez clearly didn't do C and those videos I showed are examples of why. I wasn't trying to find a receiver making a lunge, I was looking for a good example of a lunge, period to compare with Dez' failed attempt and why he was ruled as such. You don't have to find a video of a receiver video to find an example. Can't make this any clearer than this. But because you need to see a receiver compared to a receiver, like Rodney Harrison in those Lowe's commercials: "I gotchu" See below.

So when you don't meet a, b, and c above and you're going to the ground, then Item 1 requirements take over and you can't lose control of the ball.

If you don't see the difference of in the process of catching a pass and a runner, this time a QB, stretching his arm out and then losing control of the ball out of bounds in not the same thing then there is no hope for you. For the QB there is NOTHING in the rules that say he MUST retain control of the ball once being out of bounds, but there was a rule that said that a receiver in the process of catching a pass must retain COMPLETE control during the catch process which includes through either being tackled or going out of bounds.
.
.

LOL. I know this. I've tried to explain how I know this. I have the freakin' rulebooks from then and now. Trust me, I know this.



So here's receiver on receiver, okay? Dez vs. Thomas as taken from that video being parroted. Who has a more demonstrative reach of the ball here? Dez or Thomas? Also, Does Dez' reach even resemble Thomas' here at all? Your (honest) answers to these questions will be the point of the video I posted earlier explaining why it wasn't a catch (see here).

 

[MarcusRock]

They clarified out "football move"

Because it was controversial.

If you think high pointing a football with two hands. Switching it between hands twice and diving for the pylon isn't a "football move" then we disagree.

LOL @ "switching it between hands twice"

Having two hands on a ball and then choosing to take one off isn't "switching hands." But word gymnastics are necessary to make this non-catch a catch so I get it.

 

[DFWJC]

He never said he didn’t catch it

In fact, pretty much the while Green Bay team said it was a catch. The DB sure did.

But the flaw in the rule--which has since been corrected--left the door open for debate.
McCarthy made the great move to challenge it. Nobody even considered that it wasn't a catch--the debate was more if he scored or not.
There would be no be debate now. It would be a catch every time--replay or not. The NFL fixed that flaw.

Such a a shame it turned out that way. Kind of the straw that broke the camels' back for me.
I still love the NFL and the Cowboys, but am not nearly as into it as I once was. Not even close.

For whatever reason, guys like Marcus Rock in this thread seem to argue REALLY hard against the catch. Not surprisingly, he is one that was seemingly almost invested in hoping we lose the game. Anti-Romo dude. If we advanced to the finals it'd further damage his narrative. There are a few of those.

100% of the time you'll see him show up in these threads arguing with all his might against the catch.

 

[DFWJC]

Exactly...……people act like that was the final play of the game and if it was ruled a catch we would have won.

There was still 4 min left in the game. Does anybody seriously think we would have kept Aaron Rogers out of the end zone for another 4 min?

Please, we would have lost in the final seconds just like we did in 2016, so the catch really doesn't matter to me, we still would have lost.

If everyone is being honest, the best we can say is "We'll never know".
GB would've lost their (final?) timeout with the failed challenge. We could've run time off before scoring. And unlike after the huge deflator of an overturned catch, the D would've been way more hyped.

Doesn't mean we would've won, but sure increased the odds.
We'll never know.

 

[Blackspider214]

Why on earth are we discussing this 5 years later?? I get bringing it up in passing but to have 13 pages and in depth analysis of it? Let it go people.

 

[MarcusRock]

Nobody even considered that it wasn't a catch

Except, you know, Pereira live on the broadcast before the call was even reversed real time.

For whatever reason, guys like Marcus Rock in this thread seem to argue REALLY hard against the catch. Not surprisingly, he is one that was seemingly almost invested in hoping we lose the game. Anti-Romo dude. If we advanced to the finals it'd further damage his narrative. There are a few of those.

Now THAT'S hilarious! Show me posts I've made where I'm even remotely close to being anti-Romo. I've said time and again that Romo's pass on this play was perfect. Just like it was when they did it in preseason that year. Dez tried to do too much and got burned.

Posts like yours are tale-tell of people who can't join in a discussion because they lack knowledge and then try to character assassinate because they can't overcome the proof being presented. Exactly what CONSPIRACY! theorists do. There are MORE than a few of those. The only thing I'm anti- is anti-whining. So I look at the truth of a situation. Hypocrites like you say you want cleanly called games but what you really want are things to only go your way and then hate on those that tell you it doesn't always go that way. Like spoiled brats in need of a spanking. So I oblige with truth you can't overcome and then you label as if I live in your world of needing to be coddled. Buck up and be a man.

But before you run in frustration, show me the anti-Romo posts I've made.

 

[DFWJC]

Except, you know, Pereira live on the broadcast before the call was even reversed real time.



Now THAT'S hilarious! Show me posts I've made where I'm even remotely close to being anti-Romo. I've said time and again that Romo's pass on this play was perfect. Just like it was when they did it in preseason that year. Dez tried to do too much and got burned.

Posts like yours are tale-tell of people who can't join in a discussion because they lack knowledge and then try to character assassinate because they can't overcome the proof being presented. Exactly what CONSPIRACY! theorists do. There are MORE than a few of those. The only thing I'm anti- is anti-whining. So I look at the truth of a situation. Hypocrites like you say you want cleanly called games but what you really want are things to only go your way and then hate on those that tell you it doesn't always go that way. Like spoiled brats in need of a spanking. So I oblige with truth you can't overcome and then you label as if I live in your world of needing to be coddled. Buck up and be a man.

But before you run in frustration, show me the anti-Romo posts I've made.

Just speaking truth Marcus.

You seem more invested in Dez' catch NOT being real than any other threads that ever participate in this forum.
Just admit it

Now if you say you were NOT anti-Romo, then I'll be lazy and not do the research right now...and will take your word for it. Would not call someone a liar randomly like that.

So maybe you aren't one of them. But there is a pattern there with anti-Romo dudes and anti Dez catch folks. The overall bias is real.
At some point, I'll take the time and look it up to see if the pattern holds true.

I disagree with you on the catch. But what stands out to me is how invested you seem to be in arguing the non catch angle.

 

[G2]

Right... but it could have been a catch. It was ruled a catch but over turned. So if it was held up would have been a catch. I call it the catch that wasn’t. Lol

McCarthy asked an official what the rule was and then challenged it. Otherwise he wouldn't have attempted it.
It doesn't matter what fans want it to be.

 

[G2]

They clarified out "football move"

Because it was controversial.

If you think high pointing a football with two hands. Switching it between hands twice and diving for the pylon isn't a "football move" then we disagree.

He didn't maintain possession. According to the call reversal.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

He didn't maintain possession. According to the call reversal.

He had already established himself as a runner for the millionth time.

 

[G2]

He had already established himself as a runner for the millionth time.

By falling to the ground?

 

[DFWJC]

I guess the debate would've been moot if Dez would've just made that catch like he already had--clearly--and then just tucked it and gone to the ground, instead of taking more steps and reaching for the TD.
I don't think anyone on either side of the debate would ever say he could not have easily done that (which is telling in and of itself if we think about it).
But Dez being Dez...he wanted to reach for the goal line.