The NFL's Official Change to What Is A Catch: Dez Bryant play rule rewritten *merge*

[Joefrl]

I still say one of the most overlooked things about that play is did the ball ever touch the ground. I watched that play over and over and never saw any indisputable evidence that when the ball popped up and Dez regained that it ever touched the ground. But all the announcers and seemingly the officals were worried about was the Calvin Johnson rule.

Good point. There is only one angle that showed the ball did hit the ground, but it was inconclusive if he lost control. Another angle showed that he clearly lost control. They do have the capability to look at two video angles at the same time. This is the only way it could have been done.

 

[Joefrl]

Youve already conceded the lunge and warding off the defender, both of which were specific examples of a football move during the rules in place while the Dez CATCH happened. Why even debate the third football move? You know Dez caught the football, BY RULE.

I said maybe, if he was not tripped and was not yet going to the ground when he lunged/avoided Sheilds. The lunge/avoid is one move and the only legit argument you have, but like I said it is very weak, and the NFL will err towards incomplete every time.

 

[Joefrl]

Nice list, but...it was the VP of Officiating who actually made the call. You either have to ignore his explanation, or answer these questions:

What would have made a two-handed reach more of a football move than a one-handed reach? and

How would extending his arm have moved the ball any closer to the goal line?

Now we know a reach is not a football move.

 

[nathanlt]

Good point. There is only one angle that showed the ball did hit the ground, but it was inconclusive if he lost control. Another angle showed that he clearly lost control. They do have the capability to look at two video angles at the same time. This is the only way it could have been done.

They specifically ruled that a Cowboys fumble recovery against the Lions didnt count because the two views could not be used together. Of course, who knows anymore, because the NFL isn't consistent. Dez caught the ball on TEN separate counts in the rule book. Your defense of what the NFL did when they TAMPERED with a playoff game, only relies on your speculation and paraphrasing, and extrapolation, not on the written words in the book. Your defense is not just weak, it is baseless. Stop.

 

[Joefrl]

This is completely untrue, at least as it relates to the Dez play.

The video simply communicates the new rule, stating that "reaching the ball out before you become a runner will not trump the requirement to hold onto the ball when you land." Note the use of the future tense because it's a new rule. That's why it's in the Rule Changes Video. There is, of course, no mention of the terms "football move" or "act common to the game," because those terms have been removed. See this thread's OP.

No one disputes that, when the 2015 season begins, there will no longer be such a thing as a football move. No one except you disputes that, through the 2014 season, a reach is a football move that establishes a player as a runner.

You can't apply 2015 rules to 2014 plays. This is about the NFL's explanation of the overturn, at the time, under the rules that existed at that time. Although you try really hard to make it about something else.

And we all know why they changed the rule, don't we?

It's in the video because of the wording change. The rule is the same as in 2014.
There is still such a thing as a football move, and there still has to be time to do it, "stay upright long enough" before the receiver starts "going to the ground". Nothing has changed but the wording.

 

[percyhoward]

I still say one of the most overlooked things about that play is did the ball ever touch the ground. I watched that play over and over and never saw any indisputable evidence that when the ball popped up and Dez regained that it ever touched the ground. But all the announcers and seemingly the officals were worried about was the Calvin Johnson rule.

The ball touched the ground, but Dez was a runner down by contact. It was incorrectly ruled that Dez hadn't established himself as a runner, so he had to maintain possession of the ball through contacting the ground -- incomplete.

If Dez had been ruled to have established himself as a runner, then it's Dallas ball at the 1. The ground can't cause a fumble.

What anybody who supports the overturn has to prove (whether they realize it or not) is that Dez didn't establish himself as a runner. That involves proving he didn't reach for the goal line. The official explanation is that there was a reach, but that it wasn't obvious enough. Reasons being, Dez didn't use two hands, or didn't extend the ball for the goal line. Even though there's no rule about using two hands, and extending the arm wouldn't have put the ball any nearer the goal line.

You'll hear a lot of noise unrelated to the actual play, but that's what the guy who made the call says it came down to. If his opinion means anything.

 

[nathanlt]

I said maybe, if he was not tripped and was not yet going to the ground when he lunged/avoided Sheilds. The lunge/avoid is one move and the only legit argument you have, but like I said it is very weak, and the NFL will err towards incomplete every time.

very weak, hmmm... Is that what you call following the NFL's written example exactly?? It's definite, and you've already conceded that. Now you've backtracked to "maybe", which by definition isn't conclusive enough to overturn the ruling on the field. It's a CATCH on that count as well. The more you try to defend it, the more obvious the CATCH becomes.

Sometimes, I wonder if you're paid off to defend the indefensible by the league.

 

[nathanlt]

It's in the video because of the wording change. The rule is the same as in 2014.
There is still such a thing as a football move, and there still has to be time to do it, "stay upright long enough" before the receiver starts "going to the ground". Nothing has changed but the wording.

The wording??!! Now you're going to try to build an argument on the wording, and not your paraphrasing?? Again, STOP. Certainly do not use this seasons wording for last seasons CATCH.

 

[percyhoward]

It's in the video because of the wording change. The rule is the same as in 2014.
There is still such a thing as a football move, and there still has to be time to do it, "stay upright long enough" before the receiver starts "going to the ground". Nothing has changed but the wording.

We're all aware of the company line that there is "nothing to see here." That's the whole point. They goofed, and they're trying to fix it retroactively.

 

[percyhoward]

Now we know a reach is not a football move.

We also know Blandino couldn't say that in 2014, or else he would have.

The "wording" change fixes it so that this won't be a problem for him in the future. So that he won't make another mistake like the Dez overturn.

That's what the thread is really about, for crying out loud.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/the-...le-rewritten-merge.326133/page-9#post-6190702

 

[Joefrl]

He pulled out a verbal defense over a decade old. Even NFL.com rarely retains video that old with the exception of historical league highlights. There are written accounts that date back to that particular game, including this Chicago Tribune excerpt:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-12-28/sports/0412280361_1_bears-replay-field-judge

Good find. When I looked at the Gresham play, it reminded me of this play. They are almost identical except Gresham juggled the ball a little bit an Berrian did not. Both were driven down immediately after control, Item 1 applied in both, and the cameramen in both pulled away from the play before the receivers hit the ground so instant replay was of no use. We could not tell if they continued to control the ball all the way down to the ground, so the calls on the field in both had to stand.
A few days after that article that you found, the NFL did say the ref was right that item 1 did appply. And so did Jerry Markbreit, a former ref, who had a newspaper column at the time and he also said Item 1 did apply on that play.

 

[blindzebra]

Good find. When I looked at the Gresham play, it reminded me of this play. They are almost identical except Gresham juggled the ball a little bit an Berrian did not. Both were driven down immediately after control, Item 1 applied in both, and the cameramen in both pulled away from the play before the receivers hit the ground so instant replay was of no use. We could not tell if they continued to control the ball all the way down to the ground, so the calls on the field in both had to stand.
A few days after that article that you found, the NFL did say the ref was right that item 1 did appply. And so did Jerry Markbreit, a former ref, who had a newspaper column at the time and he also said Item 1 did apply on that play.

It mattered because it was in the end zone, Dez's play wasn't so parts A-C were in play...God I wish you would get that concept that all plays are not equal.

 

[DallasEast]

Good find. When I looked at the Gresham play, it reminded me of this play. They are almost identical except Gresham juggled the ball a little bit an Berrian did not. Both were driven down immediately after control, Item 1 applied in both, and the cameramen in both pulled away from the play before the receivers hit the ground so instant replay was of no use. We could not tell if they continued to control the ball all the way down to the ground, so the calls on the field in both had to stand.
A few days after that article that you found, the NFL did say the ref was right that item 1 did appply. And so did Jerry Markbreit, a former ref, who had a newspaper column at the time and he also said Item 1 did apply on that play.

Please. Do not drag me into your nonsense.

 

[DogFace]

I would love to see a video two, but I was never able to find one. I told you exactly what happened, you shouldn't need anymore than that.
Just got through the 2015 NFL rule changes and points of emphasis video. They said in there a "Reach" by the receiver is NOT considered a football move!
The way they describe a catch, and they way they described no catch, supports my case, but they never said specificly that A,B,&C has to be done before he begins to fall.

Anyway we can forget about whether he reached or not.

I shouldn't? Well I do. You've clearly demonstrated that your description of what happened in a play is not accurate.

 

[DogFace]

I would love to see a video two, but I was never able to find one. I told you exactly what happened, you shouldn't need anymore than that.
Just got through the 2015 NFL rule changes and points of emphasis video. They said in there a "Reach" by the receiver is NOT considered a football move!
The way they describe a catch, and they way they described no catch, supports my case, but they never said specificly that A,B,&C has to be done before he begins to fall.

Anyway we can forget about whether he reached or not.

At the time of the Dez catch 2015 did not exist yet.

 

[Joefrl]

At the time of the Dez catch 2015 did not exist yet.

Rules are the same for 2014 and 2015, only the wording is different.

 

[Joefrl]

I shouldn't? Well I do. You've clearly demonstrated that your description of what happened in a play is not accurate.

My description of the play is 100% accurate. I remember it well, because I am a Bear fan. What I told you is all you need.

 

[Joefrl]

It mattered because it was in the end zone, Dez's play wasn't so parts A-C were in play...God I wish you would get that concept that all plays are not equal.

Item 1 has a phrase written in there, "...,,,,,,,,whether in the field of play or in the end zone........". So, yes, same rules apply. The only time the same rules don't apply is when there is an EXCEPTION written under the rule. There are no exceptions written under this rule.

 

[DFWJC]

25 pages later....and it still was clearly a catch

 

[Joefrl]

very weak, hmmm... Is that what you call following the NFL's written example exactly?? It's definite, and you've already conceded that. Now you've backtracked to "maybe", which by definition isn't conclusive enough to overturn the ruling on the field. It's a CATCH on that count as well. The more you try to defend it, the more obvious the CATCH becomes.

Sometimes, I wonder if you're paid off to defend the indefensible by the league.

I have always said "Maybe" with regards to the lunge, only if he was not tripped. I never changed fron that. "Maybe" is not goid enough. "Maybe" is not definite.

There is no written rule that supports your case. You keep trying to add in a brace that never happened.
Either item 1 applies, or "Maybe", Note 1 applies, because there is nothing definite here. Either way, it is incomplete.