That still was a catch! **merge**

[Tommy]

Sorry but I totally disagree. Bryant already had two to three steps when he caught the ball and then landed. If he had trapped it and dropped it then the refs have a point. That was a catch pure and simple. Bryant already had position, got tackled and the ground caused the ball to pop out after when he had already took 2-3 steps.

I don't think it has anything to do with how many steps you take. The rule says you have to complete the process of making the catch. I think that would mean maintaining possession throughout his fall or making some other "football move" after the catch.

I don't like it but I think the refs got it right.

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

I mean...at this point....does a player have to get up and hand the ball back to ref to "complete" the catch? That was a catch all night and all day at ANY level of football!

At the very lease it should have been reviewed and overturned. What is the point of instant replay if you are not going to reveiw that play? I can guarantee you that had it NOT been inside of 2 mins...Garrett would have thrown the challenge flag! I have seen FAR LESS reveiwed! Still fuming about that play!

 

[Doc50]

Must have control THROUGH hitting the ground.

Must have control through the end of the play -- his knee hit, he was down at that point, he had control of the ball, and then hit the ground. (catch)
And he took 2 steps with the ball before going down.

Several varying interpretations of legal vs illegal hits.

Then there's the penalty on on the punt muff, with no penalty yards.

I don't think anybody (including the officials) understand the detail of the new rules.

Sure makes watching a game slow, disjointed, and frustrating.

 

[newlander]

Must have control through the end of the play -- his knee hit, he was down at that point, he had control of the ball, and then hit the ground. (catch)
And he took 2 steps with the ball before going down.

Several varying interpretations of legal vs illegal hits.

Then there's the penalty on on the punt muff, with no penalty yards.

I don't think anybody (including the officials) understand the detail of the new rules.

Sure makes watching a game slow, disjointed, and frustrating.

yeah...it does. For the FIRST time in my life yesterday I tried a new approach. I taped it on DVR and re-watched it after it was over. I have gotten SO frustrated with this team, the refs, the injuries the last few seasons I just played with my kids and relaxed. Followed it a little on ESPN with my smart phone from time to time....worked out well.

 

[Doc50]

yeah...it does. For the FIRST time in my life yesterday I tried a new approach. I taped it on DVR and re-watched it after it was over. I have gotten SO frustrated with this team, the refs, the injuries the last few seasons I just played with my kids and relaxed. Followed it a little on ESPN with my smart phone from time to time....worked out well.

Right. I usually start watching on DVR about 1-2 hours after kickoff, so that I can fast-forward through commercials, and be live by the end.

Live radio feed is also ALWAYS better than even Troy; I agree that he has crossed the line and become the opposite of a homer. He's kind of annoying at times.

Cowboys always submit questionable calls and decisions to the league office for review after each game -- you know "the non catch" will be one of them.

 

[BotchedLobotomy]

I don't think it has anything to do with how many steps you take. The rule says you have to complete the process of making the catch. I think that would mean maintaining possession throughout his fall or making some other "football move" after the catch.

I don't like it but I think the refs got it right.

So you are saying that if a WR catches a ball on the ten yard line, runs 75 yards, gets tackled and then when he hits the ground the ball pops out that it is not a catch? I think that's what you are saying and you are incorrect. What is the difference between 3 steps and 50 steps?

 

[joseephuss]

So you are saying that if a WR catches a ball on the ten yard line, runs 75 yards, gets tackled and then when he hits the ground the ball pops out that it is not a catch? I think that's what you are saying and you are incorrect. What is the difference between 3 steps and 50 steps?

Of course the number of steps matter, but it is the manner in which those steps occur that really matter. Dez wasn't in full control when he was taking those steps. He was going to the ground at the same time. It wasn't a case of three clear steps and then the defender tackling him. The steps coincided with both the defender hitting him and him going toward the ground. And it would be different if he was carrying the defender for 3 steps and then going to ground. He went to the ground simultaneously as he was being tackled and taking steps. Very convoluted, but it is the rule.

 

[Don Corleone]

Of course the number of steps matter, but it is the manner in which those steps occur that really matter. Dez wasn't in full control when he was taking those steps. He was going to the ground at the same time. It wasn't a case of three clear steps and then the defender tackling him. The steps coincided with both the defender hitting him and him going toward the ground. And it would be different if he was carrying the defender for 3 steps and then going to ground. He went to the ground simultaneously as he was being tackled and taking steps. Very convoluted, but it is the rule.

So how are these old geezer refs supposed to follow all of that? And how was this so definitive that it didn't warrant a review by the booth?

 

[Tommy]

So you are saying that if a WR catches a ball on the ten yard line, runs 75 yards, gets tackled and then when he hits the ground the ball pops out that it is not a catch? I think that's what you are saying and you are incorrect. What is the difference between 3 steps and 50 steps?

No, that's not what I'm saying. It's hard to be specific on Dez's play without seeing the replay again. But if a player makes a lunge for a catch that throws him off balance the "process" is not complete until he gains composure to make a "football move." So if he caught the ball off balance and stumbles for 10 steps, falls and drops it, that is an incomplete pass.
That's what I mean when I say it doesn't matter how many steps you take. You have to make a "football move" after the catch for the "process" to be complete. In your scenario above him running for 75 yards after the catch was the "football move."

I'm not saying I like it or agree I just think that's the way it's interpreted.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It was a catch IMO. I saw nothing at all to even question if it was a legal catch. I think they blew that. We are very lucky it did not cost us.

 

[bsheeern]

The refs were all standing around after the play like a bunch of clowns, one pointing left, one pointing right, one spotting the mark with his foot while another comes running in making a different spot.

It looked like the scarecrow off the wizard of oz pointing 50 different ways and the at the end you come to find out the fool doesnt even have a brain.

Every week this league becomes more and more of a joke and the refs are smack dab in the front while that idiot head of officiciating sounds like some moron from the tobacco industry telling Congress the cigarettes aren't dangerous.

And it's not even a funny joke. It doesn't make you want to laugh makes you want to throw up.

But like they say money is the root of all evil and the NFL is on top of the sports world here bringing in the most money so there's probably more corruption than most of us can even fathom.

 

[Nova]

I think they probably got the call right.

But on the opposite end of the spectrum, makes you wonder why Cruz pretty much did the same thing in the first game and it was considered a TD?

To refresh your memory and infuriate:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000240906/Cruz-18-yard-TD-catch

 

[Shake_Tiller]

The infuriating thing is the refs might have gotten it right. Or maybe not. I do not get the sense that anyone really knows how to interpret the rule because the rule itself is so flawed. One, what is a "football move" Straight-arm? Spin? Lunge? How could anyone interpret that? They can't so each of them finds a different interpretation. Thus you get the Victor Cruz scenario. I suppose they interpreted him reaching with the ball as a "football move". But how is that different from Bryant merely cradling the ball? Isn't that a "football move"? In this case, Bryant was down with the ball under control before it came out. It wasn't like he was juggling it. These officials called it as they did. Based on watching other games, I suspect other officials would have interpreted it differently. So who can say which interpretation is correct? I've seen both interpretations defended as being correct.

Beyond that, the rule was supposedly designed to make it easier for officials to determine a legal catch. It's pretty clear that their job has become more difficult. And the NFL has created a rule that fans find completely baffling. Did you see the replay credit a receiver with a catch on the sideline -- I believe in the Carolina game -- when the receiver clearly juggled the ball after going out of bounds? It went to replay as an incomplete pass and was ruled by replay to be complete. And it was far less apparently obvious a play than the Bryant play.

The rule is a mess.

 

[ConstantReboot]

I don't think it has anything to do with how many steps you take. The rule says you have to complete the process of making the catch. I think that would mean maintaining possession throughout his fall or making some other "football move" after the catch.

I don't like it but I think the refs got it right.

The refs did not get it right. If they did there should be no argument on these forums on whether or not that was the right call. 3 steps is more than enough to say its a catch. I've seen Bryant catch it and take two steps got hit, drop the ball and its ruled a fumble. The refs were onesided in calling everything against us. That was a catch.

 

[ConstantReboot]

The infuriating thing is the refs might have gotten it right. Or maybe not. I do not get the sense that anyone really knows how to interpret the rule because the rule itself is so flawed. One, what is a "football move" Straight-arm? Spin? Lunge? How could anyone interpret that? They can't so each of them finds a different interpretation. Thus you get the Victor Cruz scenario. I suppose they interpreted him reaching with the ball as a "football move". But how is that different from Bryant merely cradling the ball? Isn't that a "football move"? In this case, Bryant was down with the ball under control before it came out. It wasn't like he was juggling it. These officials called it as they did. Based on watching other games, I suspect other officials would have interpreted it differently. So who can say which interpretation is correct? I've seen both interpretations defended as being correct.

Beyond that, the rule was supposedly designed to make it easier for officials to determine a legal catch. It's pretty clear that their job has become more difficult. And the NFL has created a rule that fans find completely baffling. Did you see the replay credit a receiver with a catch on the sideline -- I believe in the Carolina game -- when the receiver clearly juggled the ball after going out of bounds? It went to replay as an incomplete pass and was ruled by replay to be complete. And it was far less apparently obvious a play than the Bryant play.

The rule is a mess.

The rules isn't the problem. The entire nation saw that was a catch. Even some of the Giants believed it was a catch. Why can't the refs? They could have reviewed it as well. I believe that they just incompetent or had money on the like to call the game against the Cowboys. NBA refs did it so why can't the NFL refs as well? In the NBA, at least a few miss calls doesn't usually affect the entire game. But with pro football, one play can determine the outcome. Does the tuck rule come into play here?

 

[BlueStar22]

elite players dont drop the ball and leave it open to interpretation by the Refs.........


Love Dez but he could not hold on to the ball today.....

It was like 17 degrees today. It was tough for everyone.

So how are these old geezer refs supposed to follow all of that? And how was this so definitive that it didn't warrant a review by the booth?

Exactly, mind you it was initially called a completion! That should have warranted a 2nd look.

 

[DeaconMoss]

That was a catch. Period. Blatant Cowboy hate on the no play review.

 

[hairic]

It didn't make a football move. He was contacted by the defender immediately and was going to the ground. He squeezed in a few steps, but they weren't controlled steps. It is a convoluted rule, but it did apply in this instance.

This isn't a football move?

 

[Don Corleone]

This isn't a football move?

He took 3 steps with a STEADY ball. Then went down on his knee, and slid. Ball then pops out. The overruling ref in favor of the incompletion was nowhere near the play and in no position to see it clearly.

 

[joseephuss]

This isn't a football move?

No, it isn't a football move.