On This Day 10 Years Ago: The Dez Catch That Wasn't

[MarcusRock]

This horse has been beaten to dust. You and I have had a couple previous back and forths on this. I, and others, have explained the reasoning behind our opinion many times. There is no point in doing it again.

I think there are a couple things that are quite telling. One is just how much and how hard you regularly, even ten years down the road, resurrect this horse to be beaten some more, and two, how you seem to flat out ignore the subjective aspect to the rule that leaves the play wide open to interpretation. Your entire argument hinges on a subjective interpretation of the play as applied to a poorly thought out rule. which leaves the outcome wide open to that subjective interpretation.

You see it one way, fine. However, it goes beyond arrogant to imply that the arguments of those that see it differently are completely based on emotion/homerism/conspiracy.

This is the first thread I have ever started on the topic. I've merely posted in ones that others have resurrected over the years, so I don't resurrect anything "regularly." It's a topic I know very well. 10 years is simply a noteworthy milestone so this one I started. And I don't ignore anything when I debate. I've discussed both sides of what could have applied but by the black and white rules it's pretty clear what applied, judgement call or not which most NFL rules are, duh. And when that one applies it overrides the other which is why those who think it's a catch have to argue upright so they can ignore what kills their case. People can believe what they want but it's interesting that people get mad when they ask questions and then get them answered in the way they didn't require. Free country still.

 

[gtb1943]

This is the first thread I have ever started on the topic. I've merely posted in ones that others have resurrected over the years, so I don't resurrect anything "regularly." It's a topic I know very well. 10 years is simply a noteworthy milestone so this one I started. And I don't ignore anything when I debate. I've discussed both sides of what could have applied but by the black and white rules it's pretty clear what applied, judgement call or not which most NFL rules are, duh. And when that one applies it overrides the other which is why those who think it's a catch have to argue upright so they can ignore what kills their case. People can believe what they want but it's interesting that people get mad when they ask questions and then get them answered in the way they didn't require. Free country still.

Well thank you for permission to laugh at your posts

 

[BoysForLife]

It's officially been a decade. And there have been many angles of debate from whether Dez did enough by the rules at the time to whether Romo made the right call in going for broke on a 4th Down. If the Cowboys had scored, would Rodgers had ruined it all anyway because that just what he did on the regular? Did Dan Bailey's blocked field goal (14-7 Dallas at the time) AND/OR Demarco Murray's fumble (14-10 Dallas at the time) keep Dallas from padding their lead that could have put the game out of reach? The no-catch gets all the press but there are questions upon questions that can be examined in that game. Take away the sting of the result and that was a great NFL playoff game. It's a shame that controversy obscures that fact. What say ye all these years later?

You and I will always disagree on whether or not it was a catch. I think the two steps and the attempt to stretch the ball to the goal line as he hit the ground constitutes a football move. But we've all been through all these arguments and it doesn't matter at this point anyways

The rest of your post I agree 100%

Great game. A game we had plenty of chances to put away but kept letting them hang around.

And I'm 100% convinced that even if the catch counted we would have lost that game.

Rodgers took them well into FG range before they kneeled that clock out at the end.

I truly believe if they needed to score there, they would have. AR was in his prime there. He would have daggered us.

PS I love Demarco. But that fumble..... that one continues to haunt me. That was the perfect play call and had huge play (if not TD) written all over it. What's the #1 job for the running back? BALL SECURITY

That loss will always sting

 

[MarcusRock]

Well thank you for permission to laugh at your posts

Anytime you wish, fanboi. But you surely aren't going to step into the ring on this topic or any other, so please continue following me around on these boards for a few more years to maintain that fanboi status. I don't even remember what debate we had that sent you down this path but if I ever hold a digital grudge for years and follow posters around to try to take shots at them I hope a concerned friend disconnects my internet because I'd have truly lost it (the way fanbois lose debates that make them into fanbois in the first place), lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

He probably works for NFL officiating.

Dez clearly made multiple obvious objective football moves: taking two steps, switching the ball to one hand, and lunging for the goal line.

What the refs of the “rigged” NFL subjectively and negatively over-interpreted to overturn the call on the field was his “going to the ground” and maintaining possession of the ball through its process. And still it was not clear on camera that the ground alone caused the ball to pop up and back into his arms in the end zone, or simply the momentum of his arm hitting the ground while the ball was cradled in his forearm when he lunged with the ball.

At least say I'm a relative of a ref like others do.

Did the refs coincidently negatively over-interpret these other famous reviewed overturned catches or do they just have it in for the Cowboys?

Calvin Johnson (2010) - ruled a completed catch, overturned to say GTTG applied instead - no catch​

Dez Bryant (2013) - ruled a completed catch, overturned to say GTTG applied instead - no catch (Why no controversy on this one? Oh yeah, we won that game.)​

Dez Bryant (2015) - ruled a completed catch, overturned to say GTTG applied instead - no catch​

Andre Ellington (2017) - ruled a completed catch, overturned to say GTTG applied instead - no catch​

Jesse James (2017) - ruled a completed catch, overturned to say GTTG applied instead - no catch​

As for the ball on the ground here's a still shot AND video to show you how clear it was "on camera" that the ball hit the ground AND caused it to pop up. The ball hitting the ground is the central part of the going to the ground rule, you know? Do these help?

 

[MarcusRock]

You and I will always disagree on whether or not it was a catch. I think the two steps and the attempt to stretch the ball to the goal line as he hit the ground constitutes a football move. But we've all been through all these arguments and it doesn't matter at this point anyways

The rest of your post I agree 100%

Great game. A game we had plenty of chances to put away but kept letting them hang around.

And I'm 100% convinced that even if the catch counted we would have lost that game.

Rodgers took them well into FG range before they kneeled that clock out at the end.

I truly believe if they needed to score there, they would have. AR was in his prime there. He would have daggered us.

PS I love Demarco. But that fumble..... that one continues to haunt me. That was the perfect play call and had huge play (if not TD) written all over it. What's the #1 job for the running back? BALL SECURITY

That loss will always sting

No worries on disagreeing. I'm totally fine when others do. It's when they start with insults and accusations that I return fire but a straight up debate is always a cool thing.

The wording of your case is the thing though. Dez "attempting to stretch" is the crux of the upright argument. The only thing per the rules to get you out of a going to the ground tag is a lunge (because that proves you're under control and not just falling). But you have to actually "stretch the ball," not just attempt. This is the point the NFL folks made. It's clear to me Dez tried to lunge but his 3rd step was a slip on the turf and he couldn't push off (that's the "gathers himself" wording of the rule to show you're not just falling). Also, Dez didn't stretch the ball all the way out. He cradled it in his inner elbow and only moved that elbow forward. That's different than stretching the ball out in front of you. Below is the video the NFL used to compare lunges. It happens at 0:48 if I didn't cue it up correctly. Very different lunges. There has to be a dividing line and Dez fell on the short end, unfortunately.

 

[big dog cowboy]

As for the ball on the ground here's a still shot AND video to show you how clear it was "on camera" that the ball hit the ground AND caused it to pop up. The ball hitting the ground is the central part of the going to the ground rule, you know?

The fact is Dez caught is, made a football move, fell to the ground with the ball hitting the turf and knocking the ball loose causing a fumble not an incompletion, then recovered the fumble. Exactly what Aikman said on the call that day. Per the rules that year, it was a catch.

 

[gtb1943]

Anytime you wish, fanboi. But you surely aren't going to step into the ring on this topic or any other, so please continue following me around on these boards for a few more years to maintain that fanboi status. I don't even remember what debate we had that sent you down this path but if I ever hold a digital grudge for years and follow posters around to try to take shots at them I hope a concerned friend disconnects my internet because I'd have truly lost it (the way fanbois lose debates that make them into fanbois in the first place), lol.

I live in your head and its so much fun

 

[DallasEast]

This is the first thread I have ever started on the topic. I've merely posted in ones that others have resurrected over the years, so I don't resurrect anything "regularly." It's a topic I know very well. 10 years is simply a noteworthy milestone so this one I started.

This is why I sarcastically posted 'instigator' earlier. As any member (who has ever engaged in the conversation previously) knows, this topic has been broached countless times over the last decade. There is exceptionally little doubt a member would not have created a thread on its anniversary. That particular member was you.

It can be argued that, within the context of numerous discussions made between the 'HE CAUGHT IT!' and 'HE DIDN'T CATCH IT!' observers here, you are the latter's most ardent and unabashed member. I believe you would agree the former group would repeat themselves mentioning just how adamant you have been objecting their stance continually since day one.

For that reason, there is no way you would be caught unawares as to the usual unusually strong disagreement, that would be directed at you, if you posted this topic. That's Deja Vu 101. There is nothing wrong with posting the topic that some other member would have eventually done. Additionally, there is little reason to believe members would have been... shocked... with you posting your viewpoints once more.

So, let's put aside the innocently understated '10 years is simply a noteworthy milestone' rationale hooked to your explanation. No one, not you, not any other member who has read your commentary on the subject in the past, will buy it. Instead, let's allow the fun-and-games to rerun for the umpteenth time without that you know what.

 

[MarcusRock]

The fact is Dez caught is, made a football move, fell to the ground with the ball hitting the turf and knocking the ball loose causing a fumble not an incompletion, then recovered the fumble. Exactly what Aikman said on the call that day. Per the rules that year, it was a catch.

Yeah, don't believe Aikman said anything about a fumble nor did anyone else. If it had been a catch without going to the ground, he was touched by the DB so it couldn't even be a fumble to be recovered and he'd be down by contact. That's why the ref initially marked him down at the 1. But with going to the ground and replay showing the ball hit the ground, that's why the reversal happened.

 

[MarcusRock]

I live in your head and its so much fun

How can you not when you follow me around for years quoting me? You think that's a flex? Lol. Like I told you, I don't even remember what we discussed that made you start doing this years ago. I do know I was right whatever it was because winners of debates don't do this.

 

[Gator88]

This was an obvious missed call considering it was overturned and still discussed 10 years later.

Add onto that the replay officials upholding that Cobb "catch" on the drive before halftime that led to points for GB, and it points an ugly picture for the league.

I've been much more checked out of the NFL since this game, and I'm not alone.

 

[MarcusRock]

This is why I sarcastically posted 'instigator' earlier. As any member (who has ever engaged in the conversation previously) knows, this topic has been broached countless times over the last decade. There is exceptionally little doubt a member would not have created a thread on its anniversary. That particular member was you.

It can be argued that, within the context of numerous discussions made between the 'HE CAUGHT IT!' and 'HE DIDN'T CATCH IT!' observers here, you are the latter's most ardent and unabashed member. I believe you would agree the former group would repeat themselves mentioning just how adamant you have been objecting their stance continually from day one.

For that reason, there is no way you would be caught unawares as to the usual unusually strong disagreement, that would be directed at you, if you posted this topic. That's Deja Vu 101. There is nothing wrong with posting the topic that some other member would have eventually done. Additionally, there is little reason to believe members would have been... shocked... with you posting your viewpoints once more.

So, let's put aside the innocently understated '10 years is simply a noteworthy milestone' rationale hooked to your explanation. No one, not you, not any other member who has read your commentary on the subject in the past, will buy it. Instead, let's allow the fun-and-games to rerun for the umpteenth time without that you know what.

So I should just wait until someone else starts a thread I know is coming instead of creating it myself before I step out in the morning? That's literally what almost everyone else around here does with news concerning the Cowboys: try to be first. As I mentioned to CWR, sure I knew what might unfold. But my question to him was what's the difference if I start it or someone else did? I probably would have commented either way so if I needed to argue all I had to do was wait because I was leaving for an activity right after I did it. Was there anything inflammatory in the OP? Because that would be instigating. But knowing people would have "feelings" about it that they would have when someone else started it because they know my name on one side of the debate? Again what's the difference? As for what people "believe" about what I say, when have they ever? Lol.

 

[DallasEast]

So I should just wait until someone else starts a thread I know is coming instead of creating it myself before I step out in the morning?

Nope. I stated, "There is nothing wrong with posting the topic that some other member would have eventually done. "

In my opinion, what you should not have done was tell fellow members you created the thread because, "...10 years is simply a noteworthy milestone." There is absolutely nothing simple about Dez Bryant's catch being reversed ten years ago. All of the arguments over the reversal clearly point out that fact for the past decade.

 

[JPostSam]

biggest robbery on a football field i've ever seen. broke my heart.

 

[DejectedFan1996]

Well the rules disagree with you and others. Would love to see folks actually use them to show how they weren't properly followed instead of just saying "nah" but I think it's quite telling why that doesn't happen. Where are the article exposes that show the NFL acted improperly? I haven't seen those. On the clip I posted in the OP, Pereira called it incomplete even before it was officially announced.

People have. You just don’t agree.

It is what it is

 

[SultanOfSix]

At least say I'm a relative of a ref like others do.

As for the ball on the ground here's a still shot AND video to show you how clear it was "on camera" that the ball hit the ground AND caused it to pop up. The ball hitting the ground is the central part of the going to the ground rule, you know? Do these help?

Of course the ball is going to touch the ground. Dez’s forearm isn’t as wide as the ball. That was never the point.

The ball hitting the ground doesn’t mean he loses possession. In fact, in the same game, a Packers player cradled the ball and the nose hit the ground and it was called complete. The point that matters is maintaining possession of the football to the ground without making any kind of football move. That is the key point of the rule that was violated by this subjectively terrible interpretation of the rule that contradicted the spirit of the rule and why the “Calvin Johnson” rule was created in the first place. Dez made multiple football moves, including catching it with two hands, changing it to one, and lunging for the goal line. It was a catch all the way through in every sense of the term since football's inception, even according to an interpretation of this one, and therefore should never have been overturned. It’s only because TPTB wanted to ignore the reality of an actual catch and enforce their stupidity on some wildly loose interpretation of the rule that they did so.

 

[gimmesix]

It's officially been a decade. And there have been many angles of debate from whether Dez did enough by the rules at the time to whether Romo made the right call in going for broke on a 4th Down. If the Cowboys had scored, would Rodgers had ruined it all anyway because that just what he did on the regular? Did Dan Bailey's blocked field goal (14-7 Dallas at the time) AND/OR Demarco Murray's fumble (14-10 Dallas at the time) keep Dallas from padding their lead that could have put the game out of reach? The no-catch gets all the press but there are questions upon questions that can be examined in that game. Take away the sting of the result and that was a great NFL playoff game. It's a shame that controversy obscures that fact. What say ye all these years later?

I always look back on this game when criticism of Romo's playoff record is brought up. Not much more he could do there to win that game, but whether you believe the call was wrong or Dez didn't maintain possession, it still goes against Romo's record. That's one of the reason that I don't like QBs getting judged by the team's record when no other player is. If Patrick Crayton had continued his route against the Giants in 2007 and if Dez had secured this catch in 2014, we might be viewing Romo's record in a different light.

But this play also makes me think that there's always something with our team for the past 29 years. Playoff success is a combination of skill and luck. We have been woefully short on luck. About the only lucky break I can think of for us in the playoffs is when they waved off the interference call when we played Detroit. I still think that was the right decision, but I wouldn't have been surprised if it had gone against us.

 

[gtb1943]

How can you not when you follow me around for years quoting me? You think that's a flex? Lol. Like I told you, I don't even remember what we discussed that made you start doing this years ago. I do know I was right whatever it was because winners of debates don't do this.

wow do you flatter yourself. I only poke fun at you when I am bored because it is so easy.

 

[MarcusRock]

The ball hitting the ground doesn’t mean he loses possession.

When the ball pops up after hitting the ground and both hands come off the ball like the video shows, yes it does. That's the entire crux of the ruling. As I showed in the OP, Mike Pereira called it before it was even announced. Did he too "misinterpret" the rule or could it be that regular fans who don't even quote the rules when they argue against them are wrong? What's the simplest explanation here?