Today in Dallas Cowboys History - Dez Caught It!

cguy610 said:
Refs incorrectly interpreted the rules on the Dez play. After 3 steps, Dez is now a runner and the going to the ground making a catch rules aren't applicable.
Click to expand...
3 steps were not part of the rule back in 2014, hence he was not a runner. The rule was adjusted to add 3 steps later.
 
Robbieac said:
It was a catch then and it’s a catch now.

Possession, three steps, a lunge to the goal line, a right forearm down, and then the ball pops up in the opposite hand.
Just based on that, it’s a catch.

But what’s even more incredible is it was called a catch on the field, and to overturn it you need clear evidence to rule otherwise. And there definitely isn’t any clear irrefutable evidence to overturn it. It absolutely should’ve remained a catch and not have been overturned.
Click to expand...
That has always been my one argument. They ruled it a catch on the field, so they needed irrefutable evidence to overturn it. I don't believe the evidence was irrefutable. He shifted the ball to one hand and tried to brace himself with the other so he could reach (lunge) at the goal line (otherwise he would have tucked the ball in to secure it).
 
Last edited:
Clove said:
If Dak had thrown that, everyone would call it a bad pass since it was under thrown. That pass would've meant nothing in the grand scheme of things. I'll say it again, AR would've taken that ball, and moved right down the field, and scored with little to no time left on the clock.
Click to expand...

Clove said:
If Dak had thrown that, everyone would call it a bad pass since it was under thrown. That pass would've meant nothing in the grand scheme of things. I'll say it again, AR would've taken that ball, and moved right down the field, and scored with little to no time left on the clock.
Click to expand...
Clove, what's up, friend. Long time.

I would hope no one would choose to disregard the ball placement and trust from a QB for a WR no matter who threw the pass.

But, to your point, I don't think the Cowboys defense stops Rodgers even with the lead at that point. However, I would appreciate an opportunity to find out. Rodgers has failed a ton in his career as evidenced by him only making one SB. Let him prove it is all I can ask for in that moment.
 
MarcusRock said:
3 steps were not part of the rule back in 2014, hence he was not a runner. The rule was adjusted to add 3 steps later.
Click to expand...
Thats incorrect. See the end of this quoted statement, "taking additional steps". Dez's 3rd step establishes him as a runner under the original rules.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/2/4/16923408/nfl-catch-rule-explained-examples


"A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps."
 
^ I mistakenly had the newer rule in that quote.

The older rule was maintain control long enough to perform any act common to the game. A 3rd step is any act common to the game. Reaching the ball out to the goalline is any act common to the game.

"It was the rule about time. It was Article 3, Item 1 in the 2014 NFL Rulebook, which establishes that "a forward pass is complete" when a player "secures control of the ball in his hands or arms...touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands "..and then "maintains control of the ball long enough...to enable him to perform any act common to the game...."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34997228/how-dez-bryant-no-catch-changed-nfl-forever
 
cguy610 said:
^ I mistakenly had the newer rule in that quote.

The older rule was maintain control long enough to perform any act common to the game. A 3rd step is any act common to the game. Reaching the ball out to the goalline is any act common to the game.

"It was the rule about time. It was Article 3, Item 1 in the 2014 NFL Rulebook, which establishes that "a forward pass is complete" when a player "secures control of the ball in his hands or arms...touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands "..and then "maintains control of the ball long enough...to enable him to perform any act common to the game...."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34997228/how-dez-bryant-no-catch-changed-nfl-forever
Click to expand...
That's right, you posted the wrong rule. Then you tried to add words and interpretation into the correct rule. If a 3rd step is any act common to the game, why did the rule change add the words "a 3rd step?" There'd be no need to if a 3rd step was already wrapped up in the wording of the existing rule. This is what I mean when I say that people can't rail against a rule they don't completely understand or fill in things that aren't there.

Again, Dez was going to the ground. The thread starter here even says so and says it's idiotic that anyone could say he didn't (and he's right). When you're going to the ground, there's a rule for that and that rule takes precedence over part (c) of the catch rule you quoted above. So once you have that GTTG designation slapped on you, you CAN'T perform an act common to the game as listed in the upright rule ("pitch it, pass it," etc.) because you have to meet the standard of maintaining the ball through contacting the ground instead. He didn't, obviously, hence the overturn.
 
big dog cowboy said:
January 11, 2015. Dez caught it! Lots of debate about if the Cowboys would have won and we will never know. But one thing we do know. Dez caught it. Hard to believe it's been 11 years already.

Click to expand...

He didn't catch it, the refs said it wasn't a catch, so it wasn't a catch. How dare you go against a highly skilled professional??? I just don't understand you sometimes I really don't! :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
 
MarcusRock said:
Lol. So you compiled nothing then. Okay.
Click to expand...
LOL. I "compiled" nothing? :huh::huh:

What exactly have you "compiled"?? You are just repeating the league's explanation at the time of the play.

I'm repeating what they said when they admitted the wording was confusing & attempted to clarify.

Seems you just want to claim your beliefs are 100% correct and anything else is of no consequence even if its from the same source.
 
McKDaddy said:
LOL. I "compiled" nothing? :huh::huh:

What exactly have you "compiled"?? You are just repeating the league's explanation at the time of the play.

I'm repeating what they said when they admitted the wording was confusing & attempted to clarify.

Seems you just want to claim your beliefs are 100% correct and anything else is of no consequence even if its from the same source.
Click to expand...
I'm quoting what the actual rules were and the mechanics of how they worked which catch theorists here either don't understand or just try to ignore so they can hold fast to the result they wanted. I don't need others to co-sign what I perfectly understand.

But if you're going to look for sources, find one from a major media outlet that says the NFL didn't follow its own rules in 2014. You can't find it because it doesn't exist. Do people ever stop to think that if they've come to their we wuz robbed conclusion that some other independent outlet would have investigated and discovered the same thing? Kinda interesting, don't you think?
 
McKDaddy said:
LOL. I "compiled" nothing? :huh::huh:

What exactly have you "compiled"?? You are just repeating the league's explanation at the time of the play.

I'm repeating what they said when they admitted the wording was confusing & attempted to clarify.

Seems you just want to claim your beliefs are 100% correct and anything else is of no consequence even if its from the same source.
Click to expand...
You've already won the debate, but that guy truly believes that if he just continues to repeat talking points until you give up responding he wins regardless of facts, merit, logic, etc. You might as well argue with a chat bot.
 
Cowboys5217 said:
You've already won the debate, but that guy truly believes that if he just continues to repeat talking points until you give up responding he wins regardless of facts, merit, logic, etc. You might as well argue with a chat bot.
Click to expand...
You can address me directly, bro. No need to chatter with the other toy dogs on the porch. You're free to give your CONSPIRACY! spiel and then leave the thread without actually discussing the rules at hand like you'll never do with me. You know the deal. Lol.
 
MarcusRock said:
That's right, you posted the wrong rule. Then you tried to add words and interpretation into the correct rule. If a 3rd step is any act common to the game, why did the rule change add the words "a 3rd step?" There'd be no need to if a 3rd step was already wrapped up in the wording of the existing rule. This is what I mean when I say that people can't rail against a rule they don't completely understand or fill in things that aren't there.

Again, Dez was going to the ground. The thread starter here even says so and says it's idiotic that anyone could say he didn't (and he's right). When you're going to the ground, there's a rule for that and that rule takes precedence over part (c) of the catch rule you quoted above. So once you have that GTTG designation slapped on you, you CAN'T perform an act common to the game as listed in the upright rule ("pitch it, pass it," etc.) because you have to meet the standard of maintaining the ball through contacting the ground instead. He didn't, obviously, hence the overturn.
Click to expand...
The reason that they added 3rd step language to the new rule is irrelevant. An "act common to the game" should be common sense. However, it clearly wasn't because refs(and Dean Blandino that said the number of steps doesn't matter) believed that a player could take 10 steps, fall to the ground, and the "going to the ground" rules would apply. Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

Where we have to agree to disagree is on whether the going to the ground rules applied. I believe after the 3rd step, he was a runner.
 
Let it go!! It’s over. Even if we score there was over 4 minutes left The fumble by Murray and the missed field goals were the bigger issue. I’m more pissed at Crayton in 2007
 
cguy610 said:
The reason that they added 3rd step language to the new rule is irrelevant. An "act common to the game" should be common sense. However, it clearly wasn't because refs(and Dean Blandino that said the number of steps doesn't matter) believed that a player could take 10 steps, fall to the ground, and the "going to the ground" rules would apply. Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

Where we have to agree to disagree is on whether the going to the ground rules applied. I believe after the 3rd step, he was a runner.
Click to expand...
It's the truth though. Steps didn't matter when you're going to the ground back then if that's where you momentum was going to take you the entire time. Again if Dez was upright, he'd have run into the end zone on his feet. If you're not upright, you're going to the ground according to those rules at the time. Either/or. One or the other. There's no hybrid or conflating. It's not about what sounds good to you, it's what was on the books before they changed it.

If the 3rd step made Dez a runner in 2014, why did the league emphasize that with the rule change the Dez play would be a catch under the new rules at the point of his 3rd step. If it was part of the old rules, why did they announce it as a new thing when they introduced the new rule in 2018? These are facts, not beliefs. What is your reply to this?

 
Vtwin said:
You ever hear of a guy named Hiroo Onado?
Click to expand...
Only if you're here to apply it to the folks who won't let go of a call that didn't go their way 11 years ago with zero to show that it actually shouldn't have been called that way even though they claim so. But if you're here to apply it to the person lighting them up with the truth then that would be a misapplication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 9,645 (members: 71, guests: 9,574)
Robots: 1,919

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
475,026
Messages
14,577,132
Members
24,214
Latest member
whoami2066
Back
Top