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

[sideon]

Devonte Freeman had possession while breaking the plane and they ruled it incomplete

 

[mattjames2010]

As angry as we all were about it last year, it is time to move on...

Terrible way to look at this.

It's good to debate about this because there are catches/no-catches like this EVERY WEEK.

 

[Craig]

The only explanation needed was that he was a runner when the ball crossed the plane. Once said, controversy over.

I dont know what dez's play has to do with this since bryant's play had nothing to do with scoring.

 

[Nightman]

I misspoke had the play happened in the field of play it would've been an INT because Tate wasn't tackled. In the endzone a play is over and ruled a TD as soon as a catch is confirmed.

That is what I am saying. It wouldn't be a fumble because he didn't have control before the ball was ripped loose. It would be an INT because it never hit the ground.

So in the end zone it can't be a TD just because he crossed the goal line. He still never had the ball long enough. AND if you want to stay consistent with how they explain the rule, he WAS going to the ground because the CHI player started tackling him before he had complete control like Dez. Dez doesn't go down if he isn't contacted by the GB player.

I do know that Butch Johnson TD catch in SB XII would be overturned even though he broke the plane and was down when his elbow hit.

 

[bevo11]

The only difference is that Blandino was a bit more intoxicated this weekend when he made the call. Did you guys see this guy?? They cut to him with a big smile on his face and he had the top part of his shirt unbuttoned like he was at the club. This guy is a joke.

 

[Kevinicus]

The CHI player started the tackle before Tate established possession, that means( by every call they have made so so far) he was going to the ground and had to maintain control.

If they were at midfield it would be ruled an INT and not a fumble. If the CHI defenders dropped the ball I seriously doubt they would call that a fumble.

The CHI player didn't tackle him. Tate never went to the ground from that contact. He remained upright, then lost the ball, then went to reach for it and tripped.

 

[CowboyStar88]

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.

owned!

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

We gotta let the Dez catch/non catch go. Time to move on.

Can't do it. Might have been our best shot at a SB.

 

[KJJ]

That is what I am saying. It wouldn't be a fumble because he didn't have control before the ball was ripped loose. It would be an INT because it never hit the ground.

So in the end zone it can't be a TD just because he crossed the goal line. He still never had the ball long enough. AND if you want to stay consistent with how they explain the rule, he WAS going to the ground because the CHI player started tackling him before he had complete control like Dez. Dez doesn't go down if he isn't contacted by the GB player.

I do know that Butch Johnson TD catch in SB XII would be overturned even though he broke the plane and was down when his elbow hit.

It would have been a fumble according to the refs and Blandino had it occurred in the field of play because they ruled Tate became a runner and had control of the ball which is why they called it a TD. A play is instantly over in the endzone once a receiver has possession of the ball and breaks the plane of the goal line. Tate started going to the ground "after" he caught the ball and was being tackled. He wasn't going to the ground during the process of trying to make the catch. Why some of you can't see the difference is beyond me.

As for the Butch Johnson SB catch that would have been an incomplete catch under todays rule because he was "going to the ground" during the catch and didn't hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. When a receiver is "going to the ground" not even an elbow or a knee being down will trump it they still must hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

 

[Nightman]

The CHI player didn't tackle him. Tate never went to the ground from that contact. He remained upright, then lost the ball, then went to reach for it and tripped.

you don't know that for sure. it is all part of the play if that is the way they wrote the rule.

that is the problem, no one knows what the rule really means or says.

it can be whatever you need it to be.

 

[Nightman]

It would have been a fumble according to the refs and Blandino had it occurred in the field of play because they ruled Tate became a runner and had control of the ball which is why they called it a TD. A play is instantly over in the endzone once a receiver has possession of the ball and breaks the plane of the goal line. Tate started going to the ground "after" he caught the ball and was being tackled. He wasn't going to the ground during the process of trying to make the catch. Why some of you can't see the difference is beyond me. As for the Butch Johnson SB catch that would have been an incomplete catch under todays rule because he was "going to the ground" during the catch and didn't hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

Just like Dez wasn't going to ground until he has tripped to the ground after 'making' the catch.

Dez jumped straight up and ended up fully laid out because he was stretching for the endzone because the catch part was over.
He became a runner if Tate did.

But why didn't Freeman or Eifert. It cannot be defended. They have ruled it 5 different ways already.

 

[ringmaster]

Blandino explained it's not the same as the Dez Bryant play because the receiver wasn't going to the ground.

I find the distinction questionable, as the receiver did end up going to the ground in the same manner Bryant was going to the ground - a defender prompted them both going to the ground. Neither would have fallen if not contacted by a defender.

If Tate is an established runner here, simply because he wouldn't have fallen if not contacted by a defender, the same logic should have applied to Bryant.

Maybe that goof Blandino is atoning for the infamous PI call in the playoff game with the Tate TD in which was clearly a fumble sticking it to Dallas even more straight bull.

 

[KJJ]

Just like Dez wasn't going to ground until he has tripped to the ground after 'making' the catch.

Dez jumped straight up and ended up fully laid out because he was stretching for the endzone because the catch part was over.
He became a runner if Tate did.

But why didn't Freeman or Eifert. It cannot be defended. They have ruled it 5 different ways already.

Dez's momentum was taking him to the ground as he was coming down it's indisputable....let it go!

 

[Nightman]

Dez's momentum was taking him to the ground as he was coming down it's indisputable....let it go!

Just because you decided it was ruled correctly the rest of us with eyes don't have to let anything go.

The past 5 weeks have just given us more proof how messed up the rule is.

 

[Lodeus]

Did that nerdy ex-official guy come on and tells us why the play was called the way it was?

 

[Nightman]

Dez's momentum was taking him to the ground as he was coming down it's indisputable....let it go!

If you think Dez goes to the ground on is own without being tripped you are just lying to yourself to prove your point.

 

[KJJ]

Just because you decided it was ruled correctly the rest of us with eyes don't have to let anything go.

The past 5 weeks have just given us more proof how messed up the rule is.

You and the rest have biased eyes. Dez's play was scrutinized as heavily as the Zapruder film and the league confirmed the final ruling was the correct call under the RULE. The Tate play is different from the Dez play and if some of you can't see that it's on you. The question with the Tate play was if he had control of the football and many including several experts don't believe he did.

 

[Kevinicus]

you don't know that for sure. it is all part of the play if that is the way they wrote the rule.

that is the problem, no one knows what the rule really means or says.

it can be whatever you need it to be.

I think you can say he wasn't tackled. He was upright and not leaning and had come pretty close to a stop. The Chi defender was on the ground next to him. It would be nearly impossible to say he went to the ground from that contact.

This whole thing comes down to the interpretation of becoming a runner.

 

[KJJ]

If you think Dez goes to the ground on is own without being tripped you are just lying to yourself to prove your point.

His momentum was taking him to the ground before he was ever tripped it's indisputable! The only ones lying to themselves are you and other Cowboy FANS who can't let the play go.

 

[Nightman]

You and the rest have biased eyes. Dez's play was scrutinized as heavily as the Zapruder film and the league confirmed the final ruling was the correct call under the RULE. The Tate play is different from the Dez play and if some of you can't see that it's on you. The question with the Tate play was if he had control of the football and many including several experts don't believe he did.

I think you can say he wasn't tackled. He was upright and not leaning and had come pretty close to a stop. The Chi defender was on the ground next to him. It would be nearly impossible to say he went to the ground from that contact.

This whole thing comes down to the interpretation of becoming a runner.

Like I said. just make it up as you go. It changes every time it is called.