McCarthy Says Dez Didn’t Catch It?

[DogFace]

I don't see that at all. How was he not going to the ground?

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 (R-E-A-C-H) for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.”— Dean Blandino
FF to the two examples he gives of a catch and not a catch after the proper tackling portion of that video—about half way and that’s his quote.

He was going to the ground as a runner as he was no longer a receiver.

 

[DogFace]

5 years later and I still don’t know of one person who has changed their mind about the call yet despite the horse being beaten to death hundreds of times.

That’s because the few that won’t change their minds ignore or offer explanations of Dean’s tutorial on the rule like “that wasn’t the nfl’s explanation.” Well, sure it wasn’t after they ****ed up that call. But before the call it was explained extremely clearly in these two videos. I’ll continue provide them for anyone that is interested in the facts.
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 (R-E-A-C-H) for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.”



That’s his explanation and Dez very clearly had both feet down prior to the reach.

 

[DogFace]

Why do we keep reliving this??? Even if Dez had caught it and the refs stayed with the call. We still would of lost. Rodgers had plenty of time to move his team down the field and our defense-especially with Rodgers at quarterback- would have folded like a chair again. That's why for me the catch or known catch didn't change the eventual outcome of the game. It just would of paused the agony for us Dallas fans. And made the loss even worse as we watched Rodgers once again win it in the final seconds.

Great!! We did lose. That’s not what’s being discussed. It’s the rule at the time and how it was misapplied. Not whether or not something may have happened.

Getting beat by one of the best QBs all time is better than being beaten by a bad call. IMO.

To each his own

 

[Bullflop]

McCarthy's message was clearly one that wasn't meant to fly in the face of the organization or their fans. He gave all due credit to Dez Bryant for making a fantastically athletic catch. What more could anyone say to reconcile the sensitbilties of the Dallas faithful? Let's get over the butthurt, people! MM just did what he had to do at the time to win the game for his team and it worked. Holding a grudge for a man merely doing his job is absurd.

Green Bay won and the Cowboys lost because of a stupid rule that eventually was modified. I believe it would be realistic if it were changed again. If it's forgivable for the ground to cause a fumble for a RB, it should rightfully be the same for a WR, also. There's something seriously at fault with the NFL's current ruling! What's acceptable for one position should hold true for the other -- just common sense!

 

[DogFace]

It's not an opinion. It's fact. Not a catch. Everyone understands it but a few still sore.

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. Very clearly.

You bailed on the thread back in the day and didn’t attempt to explain this. To his credit out of the 4-5 on the other side of the debate, and after 75 pages of nonstop rebuttals most left the thread when this video tutorial was found by percy. Or it was conveniently and transparently ignored. Only @OmerV attempted to explain why Blandino previously gave perfect examples of why the Dez catch should’ve ultimately been ruled a catch as it was on the field.

 

[OmerV]

Again. And I can’t stress this enough. The time to do the move is what was required. Not the move. Either way he did both while both feet were on the ground.

He caught it while in the air.(obviously) He brought it to his shoulder while the first two feet were on the ground. Then switched to one hand as his third step was planting and preparing for a lunge. The time aspect was met.

Blandino was head of the NFL officiating and was in charge of explaining. He contradicted his earlier explanations that went with the rule perfectly.

As he explained very clearly. Had Calvin gotten both feet down prior to the reach his would’ve been a catch. Dez did everything Calvin did and got two feet down. Then a third which he lunged off of.

1. Control 2. Two feet 3. Time

Blandino says here the refs got the Dez call right.
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...wont-let-me-forget-about-the-dez-bryant-call/

 

[glimmerman]

Blandino says here the refs got the Dez call right.
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...wont-let-me-forget-about-the-dez-bryant-call/

Was a catch. Not a TD but a catch. Now the packers had plenty of time to come back and may have but the refs didn’t just rob The Cowboys and fans but football fans in general. It robbed them of seeing a exciting end of what could have been a epic game.

 

[DogFace]

Blandino says here the refs got the Dez call right.
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...wont-let-me-forget-about-the-dez-bryant-call/

Yeah. He never addressed his video explaining why he was wrong either. (He was asked on Twitter many times) I mean two very very clear examples were given.

Maybe since the catch was somewhat high profile he wasn’t being honest in attempt to save face. It was cowardly. He knows better. Or he’s stupid and doesn’t remember this rehearsed segment explaining what a catch was.

 

[Bullflop]

Here's the problem -- there's a case to be made that it was a catch and a case to be made that it wasn't. The role stating that a WR mustn't lose control of the ball upon hitting the ground is wrong, as long as a RB can do the same thing and get away with it. The current ruling should be changed. No ifs ands or buts about it. It's totally absurd for the current ruling regarding WRs not to be overturned. As it now stands, it's totally contradictory in its own right. C'mon, NFL -- be logical for once and change it! That rule is nothing but a joke. What's good for a RB is good for a WR as well. If the ground can't cause a fumble for one, it shouldn't for the other. Let's get real, here!

 

[OmerV]

Yeah. He never addressed his video explaining why he was wrong either. (He was asked on Twitter many times) I mean two very very clear examples were given.

Maybe since the catch was somewhat high profile he wasn’t being honest in attempt to save face. It was cowardly. He knows better. Or he’s stupid and doesn’t remember this rehearsed segment explaining what a catch was.

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

 

[OmerV]

Here's the problem -- there's a case to be made that it was a catch and a case to be made that it wasn't. The role stating that a WR mustn't lose control of the ball upon hitting the ground is wrong, as long as a RB can do the same thing and get away with it. The current ruling should be changed. No ifs ands or buts about it. It's totally absurd for the current ruling regarding WRs not to be overturned. As it now stands, it's totally contradictory in its own right. C'mon, NFL -- be logical for once and change it! That rule is nothing but a joke. What's good for a RB is good for a WR as well. Let's get real, here!

The catch rule is the same for RB as for WRs

 

[glimmerman]

Here's the problem -- there's a case to be made that it was a catch and a case to be made that it wasn't. The role stating that a WR mustn't lose control of the ball upon hitting the ground is wrong, as long as a RB can do the same thing and get away with it. The current ruling should be changed. No ifs ands or buts about it. It's totally absurd for the current ruling regarding WRs not to be overturned. As it now stands, it's totally contradictory in its own right. C'mon, NFL -- be logical for once and change it! That rule is nothing but a joke. What's good for a RB is good for a WR as well. If the ground can't cause a fumble for one, it shouldn't for the other. Let's get real, here!

The ref standing right there called it correctly.

 

[Bullflop]

The catch rule is the same for RB as for WRs

No, it's not -- if a RB fumbles due to the ground, he's down at that spot. If a WR does it, it's incomplete! It's completely different!

 

[Bullflop]

The ref standing right there called it correctly.

Yes, according to the rule. What I'm saying is that the rule needs to be changed for a WR to be forgiven and not for it to be an incomplete pass.

 

[glimmerman]

No, it's not -- if a RB fumbles due to the ground, he's down at that spot. If a WR does it, it's incomplete! It's completely different!

It maybe because the running back usually has taken several steps making a football move.

 

[glimmerman]

Yes, according to the rule. What I'm saying is that that rule needs to be changed for a WR to be forgiven and not for it to be an incomplete pass.

After that ruling I saw a few teams get screwed horribly. They had to call it because of the Dez catch. I think it was the steelers that got screwed on a end zone catch or maybe another team. He caught it on the goal line and went across the line. Had control and broke the plain but the ball came out when he hit the ground.

 

[OmerV]

No, it's not -- if a RB fumbles due to the ground, he's down at that spot. If a WR does it, it's incomplete! It's completely different!

Not if the receiver is deemed to have established possession before he hits the ground and the ball pops away, or if the RB has not established possession before hits the ground. It’s not a different call, it’s just a matter of whether the catch has been mad and possession established before hitting the ground.

 

[Bullflop]

After that ruling I saw a few teams get screwed horribly. They had to call it because of the Dez catch. I think it was the steelers that got screwed on a end zone catch or maybe another team. He caught it on the goal line and went across the line. Had control and broke the plain but the ball came out when he hit the ground.

True and if that rule stating that a WR loses possession of the ball and it's incomplete, they get screwed. If that rule that the ball can't come out for a WR was overturned, it would have been a TD. Sometimes, things are best to be left as they are, without complicating everything. As it now stands, nobody knows if its a catch or not. Even the officials have trouble with it. The NFL really needs to know enough to leave well enough alone.

 

[glimmerman]

True and if that rule stating that a WR loses possession of the ball and it's incomplete, they get screwed. If that rule that the ball can't come out for a WR was overturned, it would have been a TD. Sometimes, things are best to be left as they are, without complicating everything. As it now stands, nobody knows if its a catch or not. Even the officials have trouble with it. The NFL really needs to know enough to leave well enough alone.

I know they supposedly changed the rule last year or the year before but not sure if they reverted back. They still say that they must control the ball all the way to the ground. I think if they have control and 2 feet in bounds it’s a catch. The ground can’t cause a fumble. If the ball comes out when it hits the ground then they are down there.

 

[Bullflop]

Not if the receiver is deemed to have established possession before he hits the ground and the ball pops away, or if the RB has not established passion before hits the ground. It’s not a different call, it’s just a matter of whether the catch has been mad and possession established before hitting the ground.

There's always a question of whether the WR has actually established possession or not. Half the time, they get it right and half they don't. They should have left it as it was before this became such a cause of confusion. This is exactly why people are getting disenchanted with the game. It's gotten completely out of hand with all the confusion now. Even the officials can't decide correctly many times.