Tate's Catch v. Dez's Non-catch Catch

[KJJ]

Dez had the ball under control FAR longer than Tate did. Period.

And yet, there's a stupid rule that makes that not true.

Football blasphemy.

Dez clearly had the ball longer than Tate but Dez was "going to the ground" therefore he must hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Tate wasn't going to the ground what made his catch controversial was he didn't appear to have complete control of the football before he lost it. Although he was in the process of completing his third step it's debatable whether he had total control of the ball.

 

[LandryFan]

I know I am, and so are you when you decide to stop living in the past.

If I want to live in the past, that's my prerogative and is of no concern to you or anyone else. The "catch" rule is a topic of discussion weekly because of the way the NFL has chosen to define what a catch is/isn't. When a controversial ruling comes up regarding a catch (which is now a weekly occurrence), the Dez ruling naturally becomes a part of the discussion. As far as "getting over" the Dez catch, I actually have gotten over it, as I'm sure most have. I am not, however, over the officiating "process" that was a part of the Dez ruling and has become of part of the NFL on a routine basis. This year, I have seen a number of catches that were ruled incomplete that I thought were good catches. Then yesterday I see a play that was ruled an interception and, based on several other previous rulings of a catch/non-catch, that I thought would stand as called, but it gets reversed to be a TD. These rulings have created a lot of controversy and, consequently, created what, to me, is a very real and valid point of discussion. If you ask a hundred fans what a catch is anymore, you'll probably get a hundred different answers. If it isn't a concern to you, so be it...but don't tell me what I should or shouldn't be concerned about. I am concerned about inconsistent officiating and muddled rules. Dean Blandino is the leader of the band on this one and should, IMO, be held accountable for the mess.

 

[cowboys2233]

Bolded wording is all that needs to be said. He's the one common denominator in all of this mess. Once he reversed the ruling on the field of Dez's catch, he placed himself in a very bad spot going forward. It's only going to get worse. Fans, in general, do not know what is/isn't a "catch" any more. For that matter, the players, coaches, and officials don't, either. When will Blandino ever be held accountable for this mess?

Blandino accountable? Why? He didn't create these rules. Anytime you have a rule that is subject to interpreting whether a guy "made a football move" is clearly a recipe for disaster.

 

[Nightman]

Dez clearly had the ball longer than Tate but Dez was "going to the ground" therefore he must hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Tate wasn't going to the ground what made his catch controversial was he didn't appear to have complete control of the football before he lost it. Although he was in the process of completing his third step it's debatable whether he had total control of the ball.

But if they were in the field of play and not the endzone then Tate's play wouldn't be complete until he went to the ground and maintained possession. The same rules should apply on the goal line.

I don't even think Tate had the ball long enough to be a catch and it was correctly ruled an INT.

The Eifert catch is more similar than the Dez catch IMO.

 

[KJJ]

But if they were in the field of play and not the endzone then Tate's play wouldn't be complete until he went to the ground and maintained possession.

Not true because Tate wasn't going to the ground so whether the play happened in the endzone or in the field of play it still would have been ruled the same if the refs deemed he had control of the football. When a receiver is "going to the ground" during a catch they have to complete a process of maintaining possession of the ball through the ground. When a receiver is not going to the ground during a catch it's a completed catch as soon as possession/control is established whether they're in the endzone or in the field of play.

 

[JDSmith]

Not true because Tate wasn't going to the ground so whether the play happened in the endzone or in the field of play it still would have been ruled the same if the refs deemed he had control of the football. When a receiver is "going to the ground" during a catch they have to complete a process of maintaining possession of the ball through the ground. When a receiver is not going to the ground during a catch it's a completed catch as soon as possession/control is established whether they're in the endzone or in the field of play.

And the refs ruled that he did not have possession. That's why it was ruled an interception. Then Blandino stepped in and changed it because he's a liar and a scumbag. Nobody, not even the officiating shill Perreira, thought it was a catch. But it got Blandinoed into being one.

 

[Junglist]

They have to have possession. Control doesn't equal possession.

How is that not the same thing? If he has control of the ball, he's possession it.
Whatever, the rule only applies to the Cowboys anyways.

 

[Junglist]

Not true because Tate wasn't going to the ground so whether the play happened in the endzone or in the field of play it still would have been ruled the same if the refs deemed he had control of the football. When a receiver is "going to the ground" during a catch they have to complete a process of maintaining possession of the ball through the ground. When a receiver is not going to the ground during a catch it's a completed catch as soon as possession/control is established whether they're in the endzone or in the field of play.

This is what I thought.

 

[LandryFan]

Blandino accountable? Why? He didn't create these rules. Anytime you have a rule that is subject to interpreting whether a guy "made a football move" is clearly a recipe for disaster.

Which is kind of my point. While Blandino doesn't create the rules, he does interpret them. Dean Blandino made a conscious decision to reverse a ruling on the field (Dez's catch) that was clearly subject to interpretation by the official on the field of play. The on-field official ruled that Dez caught the ball. Blandino comes in and declares that IN HIS OPINION, it wasn't a catch. Based on the way the rule was written at that time, a "football move" was a part of defining a catch. His reversal was made, in large part, on declaring that Dez didn't make "enough" of a football move. That was, at the very least, subjective and should have left him to let the ruling on the field stand (as he should have done were it initially ruled incomplete). He chose to assert himself where he shouldn't have and that has led him to have to assert himself in numerous other rulings going forward. The players and coaches should be the points of discussion on Monday mornings, not Dean Blandino and his band of Merry Men. And yes, you're right...the Competition Committee should not be absolved of blame in this fiasco, either. They're all complicit.

 

[ThrowuptheXDez88]

It's pretty comical and sad how these nerds contradict themselves with their bs rules. After taking a couple steps, a ball that comes loose when hitting the ground is ruled incomplete, but a runner going to the ground can't hold onto the ball is ruled down by contact.. It's just so hypocritical, but that's the league now..

 

[ConstantReboot]

This is a touchdown:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/10/gol...ption-bears-lions-explanation-nfl-rules-catch

But this is an incomplete pass:

http://thebiglead.com/2015/01/11/de...h-overturned-by-referees-cowboys-get-screwed/

Discuss.

All this started because of the NFL robbed Bryant of a catch and them doing a PR spin by blaming it on the rules - in which case really doesn't have anything to do with the rules.

Now the NFL got itself into a quagmire by opening a can of worms. If they only made the right call on the non catch by Bryant and remove their bias against the Cowboys then - all of this would not be happening.

Bryant caught the ball because he had full possession, took 3 steps and attempted to lung into the endzone. Thus it should have been ruled a catch and therefore, the NFL would not have to bust out their rule book to justify their screw up.

 

[Wayne02]

blandino and crew use the past in their rules for present games. they meet in the summer to hash some things out involving what happened in the past.

fans are just discussing things they laid down in the past based on interpretations. if we didnt have a past we couldnt discuss the present.

What does that have to do with the Dez catch? It's not going to change the outcome. Are we going to continue to reference the Dez catch after every controversial "catch?" It's senseless. Let it go.

 

[LandryFan]

All this started because of the NFL robbed Bryant of a catch and them doing a PR spin by blaming it on the rules - in which case really doesn't have anything to do with the rules.

Now the NFL got itself into a quagmire by opening a can of worms. If they only made the right call on the non catch by Bryant and remove their bias against the Cowboys then - all of this would not be happening.

Bryant caught the ball because he had full possession, took 3 steps and attempted to lung into the endzone. Thus it should have been ruled a catch and therefore, the NFL would not have to bust out their rule book to justify their screw up.

What's ironic in all of this is the Blandino and the Competition Committee were worried about "unintended consequences" of simplifying the rule, so they went the other route and made it more complicated. I'm pretty sure that weekly controversy is an "unintended consequence". The very integrity of the league as a whole is coming into question now.

 

[Wayne02]

If I want to live in the past, that's my prerogative and is of no concern to you or anyone else. The "catch" rule is a topic of discussion weekly because of the way the NFL has chosen to define what a catch is/isn't. When a controversial ruling comes up regarding a catch (which is now a weekly occurrence), the Dez ruling naturally becomes a part of the discussion. As far as "getting over" the Dez catch, I actually have gotten over it, as I'm sure most have. I am not, however, over the officiating "process" that was a part of the Dez ruling and has become of part of the NFL on a routine basis. This year, I have seen a number of catches that were ruled incomplete that I thought were good catches. Then yesterday I see a play that was ruled an interception and, based on several other previous rulings of a catch/non-catch, that I thought would stand as called, but it gets reversed to be a TD. These rulings have created a lot of controversy and, consequently, created what, to me, is a very real and valid point of discussion. If you ask a hundred fans what a catch is anymore, you'll probably get a hundred different answers. If it isn't a concern to you, so be it...but don't tell me what I should or shouldn't be concerned about. I am concerned about inconsistent officiating and muddled rules. Dean Blandino is the leader of the band on this one and should, IMO, be held accountable for the mess.

I agree with that last part, he should be held accountable for this. I would just as much call out a Lions fan if he continued to whine about the Calvin Johnson "catch" from a few years ago. We all understand that it's hard to know what a catch is anymore, but if you want to make sure that you have a catch, just hold on to the ball and you won't have any interpretations. Also, if I want to talk about people who continue to live in the past, then that is my perogative and is of no concern to you or anyone else. You didn't even have to respond to me because I wasn't even talking to you, but if you'd like, we can continue this merry go round.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

All this started because of the NFL robbed Bryant of a catch and them doing a PR spin by blaming it on the rules - in which case really doesn't have anything to do with the rules.

Now the NFL got itself into a quagmire by opening a can of worms. If they only made the right call on the non catch by Bryant and remove their bias against the Cowboys then - all of this would not be happening.

Bryant caught the ball because he had full possession, took 3 steps and attempted to lung into the endzone. Thus it should have been ruled a catch and therefore, the NFL would not have to bust out their rule book to justify their screw up.

If not a TD, it should've been Cowboys ball at the one inch line because one could argue that Dez was down by contact which is what the on field official called.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

I agree with that last part, he should be held accountable for this. I would just as much call out a Lions fan if he continued to whine about the Calvin Johnson "catch" from a few years ago. We all understand that it's hard to know what a catch is anymore, but if you want to make sure that you have a catch, just hold on to the ball and you won't have any interpretations. Also, if I want to talk about people who continue to live in the past, then that is my perogative and is of no concern to you or anyone else. You didn't even have to respond to me because I wasn't even talking to you, but if you'd like, we can continue this merry go round.

Part in bold is not true. The officials call it however they want. It is inconsistent and the league should be ashamed.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

What does that have to do with the Dez catch? It's not going to change the outcome. Are we going to continue to reference the Dez catch after every controversial "catch?" It's senseless. Let it go.

the dez catch caused them to change interpretations for further rules. what don't you get about that?

no one wants them to go back and give us the touchdown because they can't do that. what we want is CONSISTENCY of rules? Do you have issues with objectivity in rulings?

 

[JPostSam]

This is a touchdown:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/10/gol...ption-bears-lions-explanation-nfl-rules-catch

But this is an incomplete pass:

http://thebiglead.com/2015/01/11/de...h-overturned-by-referees-cowboys-get-screwed/

Discuss.

how the hell is that a catch?!

 

[Wayne02]

the dez catch caused them to change interpretations for further rules. what don't you get about that?

no one wants them to go back and give us the touchdown because they can't do that. what we want is CONSISTENCY of rules? Do you have issues with objectivity in rulings?

Some rules aren't going to be objective. Holding calls are not objective, pass interference calls are not objective, but false starts and face masks are objective. Do I think a catch should be an objective call, sure I do, but I'm not qualified to know how to interpret what a catch is and isn't and I don't think anyone else on here is either.

 

[ThrowuptheXDez88]

Like I said, it's hilarious that the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incomplete pass