Video: Tony Romo Said That Was a Catch; I Agree

[Kevinicus]

yes it is. The head of officiating explained it just like this; people here chose not to listen. This was a rule only changed after the Dez catch. He explains at the 30 second mark:

The head of officiating lied. This has been gone over thoroughly.

The evidence is there of how they ruled that play similarly (same season and WR in one example).

Going to the ground "during the process" = contacting the ground before the requirements of a catch are complete. It doesn't supersede anything. It's a rule for when there isn't a chance for the typical requirements to apply (sideline/endzone catches, player on the ground unable to advance).

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

The head of officiating lied. This has been gone over thoroughly.

The evidence is there of how they ruled that play similarly (same season and WR in one example).

Which one?

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

The head of officiating lied. This has been gone over thoroughly.

The evidence is there of how they ruled that play similarly (same season and WR in one example).

Going to the ground "during the process" = contacting the ground before the requirements of a catch are complete. It doesn't supersede anything. It's a rule for when there isn't a chance for the typical requirements to apply (sideline/endzone catches, player on the ground unable to advance).

This is the rulebook for 2014:

https://operations.nfl.com/images/content/rules/2014rulebook.pdf

Section 8:


Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.



it’s not a lie, it was in the rulebook just as stated.

 

[Kevinicus]

Which one?

 

[Kevinicus]

This is the rulebook for 2014:

https://operations.nfl.com/images/content/rules/2014rulebook.pdf

Section 8:


Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.



it’s not a lie, it was in the rulebook just as stated.

"In the act" = the process is not complete by the time he hits the ground.
We all know what the rule says. Some just don't understand what it meant.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Dez is not falling when he makes that catch. This is a difference between leaning over and falling to the ground.

In the GB game he is clearly stumbling out of the catch, he never had balance (or chose not the regain balance). In the Giants game he is in full control of his motion and would have stayed upright the entire time had the defender not hit him

 

[CowboyFrog]

There is an additional rule you’re missing there:

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

This supersedes the 2 step rule, the football move rule, and anything after that. Dez was attempting his lunge and no longer upright before he had 2 feet down and made a football move. That means this is now what determines if he caught it or not and not the 2 step + football move, even though he took many steps.

The problem with this rule is it doesn’t differentiate whether it’s involuntarily falling over or whether it’s the runner intentionally bending over to push for the end zone, which Dez was. So they changed it to make sure that doesn’t happen again in the future. The ref wasn’t at fault, the rule was. It was a good call on a bad rule.

The problem with saying this supersedes those is what time frame...why put the football move in there if its not what happenes on the field first? Not saying your wrong but if a WR catches a cross and then trips out of bounds and fumbles its still a catch because he made a football move in bounds then fumbled out of bounds...so to me it does not supersede anything its stil a judgment call.
the rule your citing is for a non football move but 2 feet touch in bounds AND you need to control the ball the whole way through the catch...thats not the same play we are talking about.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

"In the act" = the process is not complete by the time he hits the ground.
We all know what the rule says. Some just don't understand what it meant.

He is falling to the ground before the 2 feet are down. If that wasn’t the case, all falling to the ground rulings wouldn’t matter unless the guy was flipped over, it’s always been a rule where you needed to maintain through the ground even with 2 feet touching while you fell

 

[GMO415]

How much longer are we going to flog this dead horse. Damn horse must be dust by now.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

The problem with saying this supersedes those is what time frame...why put the football move in there if its not what happenes on the field first? Not saying your wrong but if a WR catches a cross and then trips out of bounds and fumbles its still a catch because he made a football move in bounds then fumbled out of bounds...so to me it does not supersede anything its stil a judgment call.

When he caught it on the cross though, was he falling at the moment? The falling addendum is for players who are not in balanced control of their body. This is not saying Dez got 2 feet down, did football move, then the going to the ground kicks in. This is saying Dez is going to the ground even before anything about 2 feet or a football move

 

[CowboyFrog]

When he caught it on the cross though, was he falling at the moment? The falling addendum is for players who are not in balanced control of their body. This is not saying Dez got 2 feet down, did football move, then the going to the ground kicks in. This is saying Dez is going to the ground even before anything about 2 feet or a football move

Again though would that not be a judgment call on a football move in bounds? Thats what I'm saying, to me the rule has to read if there was a football move then it nulifies whether what happens next is a drop because its a fumble at that point. Now if we are arguing wether it was a football move thats a diferent conversation.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Again though would that not be a judgment call on a football move in bounds? Thats what I'm saying, to me the rule has to read if there was a football move then it nulifies whether what happens next is a drop because its a fumble at that point. Now if we are arguing wether it was a football move thats a diferent conversation.

It is a football move, he definitely took his stumble and consciously pushed to the end zone from it. I don’t believe it reads as the football move should apply during a falling-to-the-ground act, which was occurring before he made that decision.

 

[McKDaddy]

The reason it wasn’t called catch is the original rule stated that if you’re falling down during the act of securing a catch, you then must maintain possession through hitting the ground.

But there was no reasonable basis for saying he went down as part of making the catch. He caught the ball in the air above his head, brought it down & shifted the ball and clearly turned his attention to not just going down in the tangle with the defender but to plant his leg & lunge toward the goal. All of which negate any basis for the requirement to maintain control. The catch, control & football move were all in place.

A few days after the game, I was discussing with some guys who thought the ruling was correct. So, I asked them if everything had happened the same except as Dez extended the ball the defender swiped the ball loose would they not have ruled it a catch & fumble? After considering, they all agreed it would have been ruled a catch & fumble.

It was a horrible injustice. Simple as that. The whole period where the league couldn't define & consistently what constituted a catch was a embarrassment.

 

[CowboyFrog]

It is a football move, he definitely took his stumble and consciously pushed to the end zone from it. I don’t believe it reads as the football move should apply during a falling-to-the-ground act, which was occurring before he made that decision.

So if it was a football move in bounds then it would have to be a fumble once its loose...I believe that is why they wanted clearer language in the rule.

 

[CowboyFrog]

But there was no reasonable basis for saying he went down as part of making the catch. He caught the ball in the air above his head, brought it down & shifted the ball and clearly turned his attention to not just going down in the tangle with the defender but to plant his leg & lunge toward the goal. All of which negate any basis for the requirement to maintain control. The catch, control & football move were all in place.

A few days after the game, I was discussing with some guys who thought the ruling was correct. So, I asked them if everything had happened the same except as Dez extended the ball the defender swiped the ball loose would they not have ruled it a catch & fumble? After considering, they all agreed it would have been ruled a catch & fumble.

It was a horrible injustice. Simple as that. The whole period where the league couldn't define & consistently what constituted a catch was a embarrassment.

this is the only logic that works, its either a catch per in bounds and a football move with control, or it wasn't a football move and he never had control.

 

[McKDaddy]

Catch or no catch? What I rarely if ever see is the fact that Aaron Rodgers still had 5 minutes to work with. I think we know how that story ends.

Perhaps, but we should have seen how the game played out based on play on the field not crappy rules & interpretations.

 

[Canadian BoyzFan]

I will never get over that play.

 

[Pass2Run]

agree if Dez didnt try to score it would be simple catch. But the problem I had with the interpretation of rule in the replay opinion was he didnt make a foot ball move , but he did. He shifted the ball from right to left and extended left arm to score . In that case it should be good as initially ruled, the ball hits the ground before EZ as ground cant cause fumble. But the crooked replay decision , it was not a catch was so bad it still doesn’t sit well with lot of Fans .

Exactly.

This is a catch 99% of the time.

The only reason it wasn't a catch . . . is because we're the Cowboys.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

So if it was a football move in bounds then it would have to be a fumble once its loose...I believe that is why they wanted clearer language in the rule.

Right, if it wasn’t a going-to-the-ground

 

[mattjames2010]

The rules at the time say it wasn't a catch - this is a flaw with the NFL, Dez Bryant's was not even close to the first controversy over that rule. The issue is, the NFL stayed stubborn about it and, as always, this stuff has to happen on the biggest stage in the biggest moments before the NFL cares about the egg on their face.

The NFL robbed Romo and Dez of a great throw and catch, whether we won or lost the game after that is besides the point - throws and catches like that deserve to be recognized and rewarded, it should have never gotten to the point it did. NFL embarrassing itself is about the only thing it's good at at this point.