A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a)secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b)touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c)maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.). <<<
A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a)secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b)touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c)maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.). <<<
EXACTLY! He completed all of the above. >>
After watching the clip again for the first time since Sunday and I have to agree. Bryant chose to lunge after catching the pass and made a football move after taking a few strides. The catch would not of given them the win but at least the lead. The Cowboys had another opportunity to stop the Packers after that 4th down stop but failed so its hard to pin the loss on that one play.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
Somewhere in the continuum between completion and incompletion is a borderline call that is subject to individual interpretation. Interpretation that is consistent with the rules.
This play was close, very close to being both a catch and a non completion. Is says a lot about the vitality and energy of this forum that we could spend 200 posts debating which call was correct. Disagreement does not mean that one is ignorant, blind, jaded, or a doofus (sorry grote!)
Inspiring is the fact that in this difficult world, we can spend valuable time engaging in a debate about something that is really nothing more (and nothing less) than the good entertainment of professional football.
Ironic that the players on the field are most likely off to a well earned golf holiday or a groupie filled Caribbean week or three. Meanwhile the rest of us stand waist deep is wet snow and limited daylight casting aspersions at each other over an important but no life altering play.
I agree that was a horrible call. It was a catch, even per the rule the NFL has in place. The rule of a "football move" makes it a catch, and they botched it....even the head guys.
1.He caught the ball around the 7 yard line(not the ten).
2. At the time he caught the ball his body was sideways. Look at that closely because this is important. He had control of the ball with his uniform numbers facing the sidelines (east/west). He landed initially facing sideways, east/west
3. After his foot came down with total control of the ball, he then began to turn his uniform numbers TOWARD the goal line. By his second step his body was fully turned toward the goal line, uniform numbers now facing North/South. THAT is a football move right there. He had the wherewithal to turn toward the goalline afer the catch, and take two steps toward the goal line. A man merely falling after a catch would NOT be concerned with taking two steps and turning his direction toward the goal line....so that is a football move right there.
A man merely falling, who was sideways, would not turn his body so that he could land on his stomach. A falling man would continue to fall on his side, or try and curl on his back. Him making the effort to take two steps, and turn his body toward the goal line is a football move. At that point, he should have been ruled a 'running back', and the play should have been ruled a fumble at the one, recovered by Dallas.
4. He also slightly lunged toward the goal line, driving his helmet like an arrow toward the goal line. That is also a football move. A man merely falling to the ground after the catch would not be doing that.
5. In that same process, he also put the ball in his left hand(he is left handed), so he had the wherewithal to put the ball in his carrying hand...another football move.
6. Finally, he reached his arm toward the goal line. It did not go far toward the goal line, but it was reach toward it. Another football move. A man merely falling after a catch would not attempt to reach further down the field, unless it was a "football move"
7. In total, he made FOUR football moves in that catch.
8. Official ruling should have been; Reception by Dallas, fumble at the one, and recovered by Dallas.
9. It would have gone done as one of the most amazing catches ever...only to soon be overshadowed by Aaron Rodgers leading the pack down the field for the game winning score.
“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.”
No catch.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Dimeman, you keep mentioning that Bryant took 2-3 steps. Thing is, those steps were not exactly intentional or under control. He was on his way to the ground the entire time. Whether he delayed that fall slightly by pushing off and trying to dive doesn't matter. Those "2-3 steps" don't count as a football move because he was going to the ground while taking them. The fact that he rotated his trunk or stretched out his arm - none of that matters since he was going to the ground the entire time. Since he was going to the ground, he had to hold onto the ball the whole time. He didn't. No catch.
And since everybody is quoting the rule, let's get to the ACTUAL relevant part of it, since the "pro catch" folks are leaving it off. In the rulebook, a lot of rules have definitions and then have explanations to help flesh out particular situations. Here's the key part of the rule:
<< <i>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. >>
He was very clearly going to the ground in the act of making the catch. Thus, he had to hang on to the ball. He didn't. No catch.
Know whose opinion I'd absolutely love to take in, but never will? The official who ruled it a catch. Dude was within feet of the play and never hesitated. I'd pay money to hear/read his interpretation of what transpired.
Dimeman, you keep mentioning that Bryant took 2-3 steps. Thing is, those steps were not exactly intentional or under control. He was on his way to the ground the entire time. Whether he delayed that fall slightly by pushing off and trying to dive doesn't matter. Those "2-3 steps" don't count as a football move because he was going to the ground while taking them. The fact that he rotated his trunk or stretched out his arm - none of that matters since he was going to the ground the entire time. Since he was going to the ground, he had to hold onto the ball the whole time. He didn't. No catch.
And since everybody is quoting the rule, let's get to the ACTUAL relevant part of it, since the "pro catch" folks are leaving it off. In the rulebook, a lot of rules have definitions and then have explanations to help flesh out particular situations. Here's the key part of the rule:
<< <i>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. >>
He was very clearly going to the ground in the act of making the catch. Thus, he had to hang on to the ball. He didn't. No catch.
bumping only to see some replies. CU Forum issues as per usual.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>“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.”
MJ >>
Player did NOT go to the ground in the act of catching a pass. He made a football move by turning his body AFTER controlling the ball while taking two steps. That is a football move, one of FOUR football moves he made.
So if he did the exact same thing, but took four steps before he turned toward the goal line and lunged, then fell and fumbled...it wouldn't be a catch? Hardly.
How many steps does he need to take, ten?
THe rule says he needs to make a football move after controlling the ball, and he made FOUR.
The refs and league officials messed up. They missed FOUR football moves after control of the ball was made.
Sorry Grote, I'll stick to common sense...and this is common sense. When you catch a ball, turn toward the goal line, take two steps, and then lunge toward the goal line while extending the arm out...those are four football moves and plenty enough control to constitute a catch.
If the league's intention was to not make that a catch, then their rules don't convey what their intentions were.
<< <i>He never really made a football move. 2 steps that are simply momentum from leaping in the air don't count. Ball then hit the ground and came loose. Easy call to get right on replay and that's exactly what they did. >>
It's amazing to me that Tabe and I appear to be the only 2 people on the planet who see it this way (and I just watched it again 15 times to be sure). And lest you think it's Detroit people calling "karma", I don't think the Calvin Johnson example was a catch either.
Rule should be written as follows:
If receiver hands ball to referee prior to any part of ball touching ground then pass is complete. Otherwise, if same play would have been ruled an "out" by umpire had it been made by MLB outfielder, then pass is complete. Otherwise, pass is incomplete. The end.
He didn't go to the ground in the act of making the catch...he went to the ground AFTER turning toward the goal line, taking two steps toward said goal line, then lunging and reaching his arm out toward that same goal line...all while he maintained control of the ball.
Dimeman, you keep mentioning that Bryant took 2-3 steps. Thing is, those steps were not exactly intentional or under control. He was on his way to the ground the entire time. Whether he delayed that fall slightly by pushing off and trying to dive doesn't matter. Those "2-3 steps" don't count as a football move because he was going to the ground while taking them. The fact that he rotated his trunk or stretched out his arm - none of that matters since he was going to the ground the entire time. Since he was going to the ground, he had to hold onto the ball the whole time. He didn't. No catch.
And since everybody is quoting the rule, let's get to the ACTUAL relevant part of it, since the "pro catch" folks are leaving it off. In the rulebook, a lot of rules have definitions and then have explanations to help flesh out particular situations. Here's the key part of the rule:
<< <i>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. >>
He was very clearly going to the ground in the act of making the catch. Thus, he had to hang on to the ball. He didn't. No catch. >>
Exactly. The rest of the diatribe doesn't matter. It ends here.
No catch.
Interesting take from Troy Aikmen
So how do you view the Dez Bryant play now that a couple of days have passed?
"When it happened I did not think for a minute it was not a catch. When it happened, I’m thinking it is an unbelievable catch. Then when we went to break, [Fox rules analyst] Mike Pereira said he thought the call was going to be overruled. I said, “Really? It looks to me like if anything is changed to the call it will be ruled a touchdown.” They ruled it the way Mike saw it. I’m not going to argue with Mike. After the game you hear from all sorts of people about the call and 99 percent of my friends who texted me are just fans and most don’t know the rules. But I did hear from some coaches and that got my attention. And they felt it was a poor call.
The question becomes about the whole football act and that’s why it ultimately was not a catch. If you said Dez made a football move, then it would have been down by contact. Since it was through the process of the catch when the ball was bobbled, then it was incomplete. I trust Mike Pereira and I trust the New York office had the ability to communicate with [referee Gene] Steratore. But I think in general there are way too many discrepancies in our rule book. I have felt for years they should blow the whole thing up and start over and make it simpler. What is a football act? There are just all kind of different exceptions and not just on catches but the rules in general."
Key phrase----Since it was through the process of the catch when the ball was bobbled,then it was incomplete. Thus no catch.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Know whose opinion I'd absolutely love to take in, but never will? The official who ruled it a catch. Dude was within feet of the play and never hesitated. I'd pay money to hear/read his interpretation of what transpired. >>
You can save your money, Galaxy. His opinion was, it was a catch.
He was correct and as noted, only a few feet away from the play. Why trust a seasoned professional in the middle of the action, when a New York hack can make the call?
It's rather remarkable how many people mistake their belief of what should constitute a catch vs the rulebook for what constitutes a reception or even what constitutes a football move and when such a move bears any significance to a reception by rule. Four football moves after securing the reception which means after Bryant came down with the ball and it didn't touch the turf? LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I do agree the rule needs to be changed. But right now that IS the rule, like it or not. The call had to be reversed. Otherwise, why even play by the rules. Just go by the eye test then and let the official rule based on their opinion.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Know whose opinion I'd absolutely love to take in, but never will? The official who ruled it a catch. Dude was within feet of the play and never hesitated. I'd pay money to hear/read his interpretation of what transpired. >>
You can save your money, Galaxy. His opinion was, it was a catch.
He was correct and as noted, only a few feet away from the play. Why trust a seasoned professional in the middle of the action, when a New York hack can make the call? >>
Yes, as Detroit fans know all to well, seasoned officials never make mistakes or miss calls, LOL!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I do agree the rule needs to be changed. But right now that IS the rule, like it or not. The call had to be reversed. Otherwise, why even play by the rules. Just go by the eye test then and let the official rule based on their opinion. >>
No PEDS are allowed in the NFL either. Enforce that on Super Bowl Sunday and you will be watching 7 on 7 football!
<< <i>Know whose opinion I'd absolutely love to take in, but never will? The official who ruled it a catch. Dude was within feet of the play and never hesitated. I'd pay money to hear/read his interpretation of what transpired. >>
You can save your money, Galaxy. His opinion was, it was a catch.
He was correct and as noted, only a few feet away from the play. Why trust a seasoned professional in the middle of the action, when a New York hack can make the call? >>
Actually he was wrong and that is why the call was reversed.
No catch
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
He didn't go to the ground in the act of making the catch...he went to the ground AFTER turning toward the goal line, taking two steps toward said goal line, then lunging and reaching his arm out toward that same goal line...all while he maintained control of the ball.
That is FOUR football moves after securing catch.
Count them. One, two, three. four >>
You simply don't understand the rule. Squeezing the ball into your hands isn't "a catch". There is literally no time from the moment the ball hit his hands that he is not falling to the ground. Whether he was turning, lunging, or whatever doesn't matter - because his downward momentum never stopped. Since it never stopped, he had to hold on. He didn't. No catch.
If receiver hands ball to referee prior to any part of ball touching ground then pass is complete. Otherwise, if same play would have been ruled an "out" by umpire had it been made by MLB outfielder, then pass is complete. Otherwise, pass is incomplete. The end. >>
<< <i>If receiver hands ball to referee prior to any part of ball touching ground then pass is complete. >>
So if a receiver grabs a thrown ball, holds it securely and subsequently has it popped out by an opposing player, it is not a fumble, but an incompletion as the receiver never handed the ball to the ref?
If receiver hands ball to referee prior to any part of ball touching ground then pass is complete. Otherwise, if same play would have been ruled an "out" by umpire had it been made by MLB outfielder, then pass is complete. Otherwise, pass is incomplete. The end. >>
I like that idea. >>
So on his way to handing the ball to the ref he drops it, it then becomes an incomplete pass?
Bryant made four football moves...and he was athletic enough to do that in such a short time.
Catching it sideways, and then turning toward the goal line to take two steps with it now makes him a runner.
Also as you see when he is landing, and his right arm is braced on the ground, he is actually lifting his left arm up with the ball to get it over the goal line. That is control of the ball, and he is down by contact already at that point.
In addition to what I've written...2 things to add.
1. The retired head ref (name?) espn uses just said that the number of steps if he's tumbling or falling down are not "true steps" in the sense of "did he get two feet down?". So he's saying a guy could stumble with 4-5 steps while catching a ball and that doesn't really count towards possession. Not saying in this case but just as a general rule.
2. Something everyone has missed, including myself..in regards to reaching forward...someone brought up the point as he's reaching forward (or not) he's pushing forward with his left foot taking a huge chunk of sod out. So it does look as if he's reaching forward but also pushing forward with his leg toward the goal line. Opinions? I think this is a legit addition.
Interested in higher grade vintage cards. Aren't we all.
let's forget about the part where the ball hit the turf. That should be discounted at all costs
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>The same refs who giftwrapped you guys a win the previous week vs Detroit now are Cowboy haters for correctly following the rule? >>
This. >>
One of the biggest defense on here, in defense of ruling it incomplete, is that it must be the correct call since the replay officials know more, and they confirmed it.
If that is one of your points, then you can't continue to point to how Dallas got a gift the previous week, because in your own words, the replay officials know more than we do, therefore that would be a correct call.
Also, the officials both high and low don't have any consistency, because in the Colts/Bronco game on that muffed punt, they did the opposite of what they did in the Dez Bryant call. No way both those calls are correct....therefore the officials DO MAKE MISTAKES interpreting their own rules. So that can no longer be your defense in the Bryant case.
Can't have it both ways.
None of that really matters. What matters is that the officials were looking at the wrong things and failed to recognize FOUR football moves made by Bryant AFTER he had secured the ball in his hands...the final one being him being tackled while having the ball in control of his hand, and him lifting his arm up with the ball in his hand trying to get it over the goal line.
Anyone who claims otherwise either doesn't understand the rule or wgat constitutes football moves or lack thereof when making a reception or is just another dusgruntled Cowboy fan. No catch.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Dez Bryant is sounding more and more like Inspector Gadget in this thread.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>If receiver hands ball to referee prior to any part of ball touching ground then pass is complete. >>
So if a receiver grabs a thrown ball, holds it securely and subsequently has it popped out by an opposing player, it is not a fumble, but an incompletion as the receiver never handed the ball to the ref?
>>
You conveniently left out the "Otherwise, if same play would have been ruled an "out" by umpire had it been made by MLB outfielder, then pass is complete. " part.
If receiver hands ball to referee prior to any part of ball touching ground then pass is complete. Otherwise, if same play would have been ruled an "out" by umpire had it been made by MLB outfielder, then pass is complete. Otherwise, pass is incomplete. The end. >>
I like that idea. >>
So on his way to handing the ball to the ref he drops it, it then becomes an incomplete pass? >>
Nope, it can still be a catch under section 23 article 2B line 7: "if same play would have been ruled an "out" by umpire had it been made by MLB outfielder, then pass is complete."
Obviously (to most) I'm being tongue in cheek with the MLB outfielder clause, but only partially so. I'm not sure how we ever got to the point where the act of catching a ball needs "rules" and things like "process" and "football moves". When you watch a baseball game, 99.999% of the time you need no rule to tell you if a fly ball is caught. To me, the same applies to football.
If Dez Bryant was Mike Trout and the football was a baseball, the batter would not be out. Same with the Calvin Johnson play. I honestly don't see why there's much difference.
<< <i>Anyone who claims otherwise either doesn't understand the rule or wgat constitutes football moves or lack thereof when making a reception or is just another dusgruntled Cowboy fan. No catch. >>
If catching and turning your body toward the goal line isn't a football move, what is it? Would a man playing catch, while making a leaping catch, do that?
Is lunging for the goal line after making a catch, and raising your arm up to try and get it over the goal line...used in any other catching movement, other than a football game? Football move.
Grote, the refs and officials don't understand the rules. If they got the dez bryant call correct, then they botched the muffed punt in the Colts/Broncos game. If they got that one right, then the Bryant one was wrong.
So why you are putting so much stock into their review capabilities, is puzzling...because they can't even decipher it.
Nope, I can't claim to know all the football rules.
I can know the difference between a man making a catch in an isolated moment, as opposed to one making a catch in a football game, having control of the ball, and making subsequent movements(while still in control) that would ONLY occur during a football game. That is a football move. That is common sense.
<< <i>Anyone who claims otherwise either doesn't understand the rule or wgat constitutes football moves or lack thereof when making a reception or is just another dusgruntled Cowboy fan. No catch. >>
If catching and turning your body toward the goal line isn't a football move, what is it? Would a man playing catch, while making a leaping catch, do that?
Is lunging for the goal line after making a catch, and raising your arm up to try and get it over the goal line...used in any other catching movement, other than a football game? Football move.
Grote, the refs and officials don't understand the rules. If they got the dez bryant call correct, then they botched the muffed punt in the Colts/Broncos game. If they got that one right, then the Bryant one was wrong.
So why you are putting so much stock into their review capabilities, is puzzling...because they can't even decipher it.
Nope, I can't claim to know all the football rules.
I can know the difference between a man making a catch in an isolated moment, as opposed to one making a catch in a football game, having control of the ball, and making subsequent movements(while still in control) that would ONLY occur during a football game. That is a football move. That is common sense. >>
Skin, I know you are my astute than this~there is no part during the process of Bryant coming down with the ball that would constitute a football move. The "steps" he took were all part of him coming down with the ball and making the reception. Had the ball NOT touched the turf at the conclusion of this process, it would have been a reception. It did so it isn't. Simple as that. I knew the play would be reversed before they reversed it. I've been watching football for 40 years~not all the rules make sense, but the official has no choice when making a call or a determination of a call on the field on review, but to follow the rule as it is written. Should the rule be revised or changed? I would say, yes, definitely. Perhaps that will be addressed in the offseason. We'll see. As I said earlier, the correct call was made according to the rule. The Packers won. Time to move on.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>One of the biggest defense on here, in defense of ruling it incomplete, is that it must be the correct call since the replay officials know more, and they confirmed it. >>
The play the previous week was a pass interference penalty and not reviewable.
<< <i>Skin, I know you are my astute than this~there is no part during the process of Bryant coming down with the ball that would constitute a football move. The "steps" he took were all part of him coming down with the ball and making the reception. Had the ball NOT touched the turf at the conclusion of this process, it would have been a reception. It did so it isn't. Simple as that. I knew the play would be reversed before they reversed it. I've been watching football for 40 years~not all the rules make sense, but the official has no choice when making a call or a determination of a call on the field on review, but to follow the rule as it is written. Should the rule be revised or changed? I would say, yes, definitely. Perhaps that will be addressed in the offseason. We'll see. As I said earlier, the correct call was made according to the rule. The Packers won. Time to move on. >>
Yeah, I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand. None of the stuff you do while going to the ground constitutes a "football move". I'm with you - soon as saw a replay and saw the ball moving, I knew it would (should) be overturned. Easy call.
As for the Colts/Broncos put play - yep, the refs botched that one. There's no way that dude had possession. He got killed as soon as he touched the ball, was actually knocked out, and the ball came out. The refs blew that one.
I have been watching football for over 40 years, I don't understand "football move" at all. Isn't catching and having possession of the football a "football move"? Just what does a receiver have to do now to be credited with a catch? Certainly appeared to me he was attempting to advance towards the end zone wit the ball. I guess the old rule "the ground can't cause a fumble" no longer exists? If it can't cause a fumble it certainly shouldn't cause this to be an incompletion in my eyes.
Perhaps by the strictest interpretation of the currant rules it was not a catch. If so the rule needs to be changes ASAP!
ANY rule that deprives the fans of such a wonderful CATCH as that is moronic.
By the way, as a Vikings fan, I don't care for either of these teams, what I do enjoy is football and that was a beautiful catch!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>If Dez Bryant was Mike Trout and the football was a baseball, the batter would not be out. >>
Don't recall Mike Trout ever having a reason to advance a ball an additional two or three feet as Bryant did. >>
He should have caught it first. He never completed the entire process to justify it as a catch as per the rules.
No catch.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Odd that many who claim it is not a catch believe that the rule should be changed.
So then it would be a catch with the new rule?
Perhaps a bit of discretion on the part of the onfield ref should have been respected. >>
Yeah, why bother with a rule book when subjective discretion can be used instead?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>If Dez Bryant was Mike Trout and the football was a baseball, the batter would not be out. >>
Don't recall Mike Trout ever having a reason to advance a ball an additional two or three feet as Bryant did. >>
He should have caught it first. He never completed the entire process to justify it as a catch as per the rules.
No catch.
MJ >>
That is where the gray area comes in. He did catch the ball and make four football moves attempting to score after the catch, and it is only after all of that where the ball hit the ground. The football rules do not clearly exempt this from being a catch(as per making football moves). The rule definition of a football move can certainly be seen in this catch. As I pointed out, he made four clear football moves. He actually took three steps. You say they weren't steps, but the process of landing. That is debatable, because they were strides, rather long strides to boot.
Then the turning toward the goal line, the lunge, divot, and arm raising to go over the goal line.
The replay officials missed focusing on this aspect of the rule, and instead focused on the ball hitting the ground aspect.
Also, the on field ref ruled it a catch, so it should be indisputable evidence that it wasn't. There was no indisputable evidence to say it wasn't a football move that he made(of which he made four). The call should have nothing to even do with the ground.
In my honest opinion, Bryant's body / arms did exactly what they would have done had he caught the ball on the 40 yard line instead of near the goal line: follow the natural progression of the momentum generated by jumping 4 feet in the air while running a 4.4 40 yard dash. I can't fathom that his body could have "stopped" any shorter than it did, so I don't see how he's "trying to advance the ball". Heck, his right arm, right shoulder, and helmet all come down further down field than his left hand (which had the ball in it), so how he can be considered to be extending the ball, I just don't get it.
Like I said, I watched it many times, and I'm convinced that Bryant has no clue where he is in relation to the pylon. That's not me whining or hating. That's what my eyes tell me. Others feel the complete opposite. I'd love to have a frame-by-frame so those that feel the opposite can tell me at what point Bryant "sees" the goal line and decides to reach for it. For the record, as a Lions fan, I dislike Green Bay with a passion and dearly wanted Dallas to win that game.
Comments
<< <i>Forget it, you're right, it was a catch. Dallas got jobbed.
Glad to see you come around.
A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a)secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b)touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c)maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.). <<<
EXACTLY! He completed all of the above.
<< <i>>>>Rule 8.1.3:
A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a)secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b)touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c)maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.). <<<
EXACTLY! He completed all of the above. >>
After watching the clip again for the first time since Sunday and I have to agree. Bryant chose to lunge after catching the pass and made a football move after taking a few strides. The catch would not of given them the win but at least the lead. The Cowboys had another opportunity to stop the Packers after that 4th down stop but failed so its hard to pin the loss on that one play.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
This play was close, very close to being both a catch and a non completion. Is says a lot about the vitality and energy of this forum that we could spend 200 posts debating which call was correct. Disagreement does not mean that one is ignorant, blind, jaded, or a doofus (sorry grote!)
Inspiring is the fact that in this difficult world, we can spend valuable time engaging in a debate about something that is really nothing more (and nothing less) than the good entertainment of professional football.
Ironic that the players on the field are most likely off to a well earned golf holiday or a groupie filled Caribbean week or three. Meanwhile the rest of us stand waist deep is wet snow and limited daylight casting aspersions at each other over an important but no life altering play.
Glad to see Dimeman back!
1.He caught the ball around the 7 yard line(not the ten).
2. At the time he caught the ball his body was sideways. Look at that closely because this is important. He had control of the ball with his uniform numbers facing the sidelines (east/west). He landed initially facing sideways, east/west
3. After his foot came down with total control of the ball, he then began to turn his uniform numbers TOWARD the goal line. By his second step his body was fully turned toward the goal line, uniform numbers now facing North/South. THAT is a football move right there. He had the wherewithal to turn toward the goalline afer the catch, and take two steps toward the goal line. A man merely falling after a catch would NOT be concerned with taking two steps and turning his direction toward the goal line....so that is a football move right there.
A man merely falling, who was sideways, would not turn his body so that he could land on his stomach. A falling man would continue to fall on his side, or try and curl on his back. Him making the effort to take two steps, and turn his body toward the goal line is a football move. At that point, he should have been ruled a 'running back', and the play should have been ruled a fumble at the one, recovered by Dallas.
4. He also slightly lunged toward the goal line, driving his helmet like an arrow toward the goal line. That is also a football move. A man merely falling to the ground after the catch would not be doing that.
5. In that same process, he also put the ball in his left hand(he is left handed), so he had the wherewithal to put the ball in his carrying hand...another football move.
6. Finally, he reached his arm toward the goal line. It did not go far toward the goal line, but it was reach toward it. Another football move. A man merely falling after a catch would not attempt to reach further down the field, unless it was a "football move"
7. In total, he made FOUR football moves in that catch.
8. Official ruling should have been; Reception by Dallas, fumble at the one, and recovered by Dallas.
9. It would have gone done as one of the most amazing catches ever...only to soon be overshadowed by Aaron Rodgers leading the pack down the field for the game winning score.
No catch.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Dimeman, you keep mentioning that Bryant took 2-3 steps. Thing is, those steps were not exactly intentional or under control. He was on his way to the ground the entire time. Whether he delayed that fall slightly by pushing off and trying to dive doesn't matter. Those "2-3 steps" don't count as a football move because he was going to the ground while taking them. The fact that he rotated his trunk or stretched out his arm - none of that matters since he was going to the ground the entire time. Since he was going to the ground, he had to hold onto the ball the whole time. He didn't. No catch.
And since everybody is quoting the rule, let's get to the ACTUAL relevant part of it, since the "pro catch" folks are leaving it off. In the rulebook, a lot of rules have definitions and then have explanations to help flesh out particular situations. Here's the key part of the rule:
<< <i>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. >>
He was very clearly going to the ground in the act of making the catch. Thus, he had to hang on to the ball. He didn't. No catch.
<< <i>If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass >>
Bryant was not in the act of catching the ball when he hit the ground.....he had caught the ball.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Dimeman, you keep mentioning that Bryant took 2-3 steps. Thing is, those steps were not exactly intentional or under control. He was on his way to the ground the entire time. Whether he delayed that fall slightly by pushing off and trying to dive doesn't matter. Those "2-3 steps" don't count as a football move because he was going to the ground while taking them. The fact that he rotated his trunk or stretched out his arm - none of that matters since he was going to the ground the entire time. Since he was going to the ground, he had to hold onto the ball the whole time. He didn't. No catch.
And since everybody is quoting the rule, let's get to the ACTUAL relevant part of it, since the "pro catch" folks are leaving it off. In the rulebook, a lot of rules have definitions and then have explanations to help flesh out particular situations. Here's the key part of the rule:
<< <i>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. >>
He was very clearly going to the ground in the act of making the catch. Thus, he had to hang on to the ball. He didn't. No catch.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>“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.”
MJ >>
Player did NOT go to the ground in the act of catching a pass. He made a football move by turning his body AFTER controlling the ball while taking two steps. That is a football move, one of FOUR football moves he made.
So if he did the exact same thing, but took four steps before he turned toward the goal line and lunged, then fell and fumbled...it wouldn't be a catch? Hardly.
How many steps does he need to take, ten?
THe rule says he needs to make a football move after controlling the ball, and he made FOUR.
The refs and league officials messed up. They missed FOUR football moves after control of the ball was made.
Sorry Grote, I'll stick to common sense...and this is common sense. When you catch a ball, turn toward the goal line, take two steps, and then lunge toward the goal line while extending the arm out...those are four football moves and plenty enough control to constitute a catch.
If the league's intention was to not make that a catch, then their rules don't convey what their intentions were.
<< <i>He never really made a football move. 2 steps that are simply momentum from leaping in the air don't count. Ball then hit the ground and came loose. Easy call to get right on replay and that's exactly what they did. >>
It's amazing to me that Tabe and I appear to be the only 2 people on the planet who see it this way (and I just watched it again 15 times to be sure). And lest you think it's Detroit people calling "karma", I don't think the Calvin Johnson example was a catch either.
Rule should be written as follows:
If receiver hands ball to referee prior to any part of ball touching ground then pass is complete. Otherwise, if same play would have been ruled an "out" by umpire had it been made by MLB outfielder, then pass is complete. Otherwise, pass is incomplete. The end.
He didn't go to the ground in the act of making the catch...he went to the ground AFTER turning toward the goal line, taking two steps toward said goal line, then lunging and reaching his arm out toward that same goal line...all while he maintained control of the ball.
That is FOUR football moves after securing catch.
Count them. One, two, three. four
<< <i>I'll try wading in here:
Dimeman, you keep mentioning that Bryant took 2-3 steps. Thing is, those steps were not exactly intentional or under control. He was on his way to the ground the entire time. Whether he delayed that fall slightly by pushing off and trying to dive doesn't matter. Those "2-3 steps" don't count as a football move because he was going to the ground while taking them. The fact that he rotated his trunk or stretched out his arm - none of that matters since he was going to the ground the entire time. Since he was going to the ground, he had to hold onto the ball the whole time. He didn't. No catch.
And since everybody is quoting the rule, let's get to the ACTUAL relevant part of it, since the "pro catch" folks are leaving it off. In the rulebook, a lot of rules have definitions and then have explanations to help flesh out particular situations. Here's the key part of the rule:
<< <i>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. >>
He was very clearly going to the ground in the act of making the catch. Thus, he had to hang on to the ball. He didn't. No catch. >>
Exactly. The rest of the diatribe doesn't matter. It ends here.
No catch.
Interesting take from Troy Aikmen
So how do you view the Dez Bryant play now that a couple of days have passed?
"When it happened I did not think for a minute it was not a catch. When it happened, I’m thinking it is an unbelievable catch. Then when we went to break, [Fox rules analyst] Mike Pereira said he thought the call was going to be overruled. I said, “Really? It looks to me like if anything is changed to the call it will be ruled a touchdown.” They ruled it the way Mike saw it. I’m not going to argue with Mike. After the game you hear from all sorts of people about the call and 99 percent of my friends who texted me are just fans and most don’t know the rules. But I did hear from some coaches and that got my attention. And they felt it was a poor call.
The question becomes about the whole football act and that’s why it ultimately was not a catch. If you said Dez made a football move, then it would have been down by contact. Since it was through the process of the catch when the ball was bobbled, then it was incomplete. I trust Mike Pereira and I trust the New York office had the ability to communicate with [referee Gene] Steratore. But I think in general there are way too many discrepancies in our rule book. I have felt for years they should blow the whole thing up and start over and make it simpler. What is a football act? There are just all kind of different exceptions and not just on catches but the rules in general."
Key phrase----Since it was through the process of the catch when the ball was bobbled,then it was incomplete. Thus no catch.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Know whose opinion I'd absolutely love to take in, but never will? The official who ruled it a catch. Dude was within feet of the play and never hesitated. I'd pay money to hear/read his interpretation of what transpired. >>
You can save your money, Galaxy. His opinion was, it was a catch.
He was correct and as noted, only a few feet away from the play. Why trust a seasoned professional in the middle of the action, when a New York hack can make the call?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>Know whose opinion I'd absolutely love to take in, but never will? The official who ruled it a catch. Dude was within feet of the play and never hesitated. I'd pay money to hear/read his interpretation of what transpired. >>
You can save your money, Galaxy. His opinion was, it was a catch.
He was correct and as noted, only a few feet away from the play. Why trust a seasoned professional in the middle of the action, when a New York hack can make the call? >>
Yes, as Detroit fans know all to well, seasoned officials never make mistakes or miss calls, LOL!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I do agree the rule needs to be changed. But right now that IS the rule, like it or not. The call had to be reversed. Otherwise, why even play by the rules. Just go by the eye test then and let the official rule based on their opinion. >>
No PEDS are allowed in the NFL either. Enforce that on Super Bowl Sunday and you will be watching 7 on 7 football!
<< <i>
<< <i>Know whose opinion I'd absolutely love to take in, but never will? The official who ruled it a catch. Dude was within feet of the play and never hesitated. I'd pay money to hear/read his interpretation of what transpired. >>
You can save your money, Galaxy. His opinion was, it was a catch.
He was correct and as noted, only a few feet away from the play. Why trust a seasoned professional in the middle of the action, when a New York hack can make the call? >>
Actually he was wrong and that is why the call was reversed.
No catch
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>PS.
He didn't go to the ground in the act of making the catch...he went to the ground AFTER turning toward the goal line, taking two steps toward said goal line, then lunging and reaching his arm out toward that same goal line...all while he maintained control of the ball.
That is FOUR football moves after securing catch.
Count them. One, two, three. four
You simply don't understand the rule. Squeezing the ball into your hands isn't "a catch". There is literally no time from the moment the ball hit his hands that he is not falling to the ground. Whether he was turning, lunging, or whatever doesn't matter - because his downward momentum never stopped. Since it never stopped, he had to hold on. He didn't. No catch.
<< <i>
Rule should be written as follows:
If receiver hands ball to referee prior to any part of ball touching ground then pass is complete. Otherwise, if same play would have been ruled an "out" by umpire had it been made by MLB outfielder, then pass is complete. Otherwise, pass is incomplete. The end. >>
I like that idea.
<< <i>If receiver hands ball to referee prior to any part of ball touching ground then pass is complete. >>
So if a receiver grabs a thrown ball, holds it securely and subsequently has it popped out by an opposing player, it is not a fumble, but an incompletion as the receiver never handed the ball to the ref?
<< <i>The same refs who giftwrapped you guys a win the previous week vs Detroit now are Cowboy haters for correctly following the rule? >>
This.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
<< <i>
Rule should be written as follows:
If receiver hands ball to referee prior to any part of ball touching ground then pass is complete. Otherwise, if same play would have been ruled an "out" by umpire had it been made by MLB outfielder, then pass is complete. Otherwise, pass is incomplete. The end. >>
I like that idea. >>
So on his way to handing the ball to the ref he drops it, it then becomes an incomplete pass?
Bryant made four football moves...and he was athletic enough to do that in such a short time.
Catching it sideways, and then turning toward the goal line to take two steps with it now makes him a runner.
Also as you see when he is landing, and his right arm is braced on the ground, he is actually lifting his left arm up with the ball to get it over the goal line. That is control of the ball, and he is down by contact already at that point.
Catch. Fumble. Recovered by Dallas.
<< <i>Catch. Fumble. Recovered by Dallas. >>
But was it even a fumble as the ground cannot cause one?
1. The retired head ref (name?) espn uses just said that the number of steps if he's tumbling or falling down are not "true steps" in the sense of "did he get two feet down?". So he's saying a guy could stumble with 4-5 steps while catching a ball and that doesn't really count towards possession. Not saying in this case but just as a general rule.
2. Something everyone has missed, including myself..in regards to reaching forward...someone brought up the point as he's reaching forward (or not) he's pushing forward with his left foot taking a huge chunk of sod out. So it does look as if he's reaching forward but also pushing forward with his leg toward the goal line. Opinions? I think this is a legit addition.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>The same refs who giftwrapped you guys a win the previous week vs Detroit now are Cowboy haters for correctly following the rule? >>
This.
One of the biggest defense on here, in defense of ruling it incomplete, is that it must be the correct call since the replay officials know more, and they confirmed it.
If that is one of your points, then you can't continue to point to how Dallas got a gift the previous week, because in your own words, the replay officials know more than we do, therefore that would be a correct call.
Also, the officials both high and low don't have any consistency, because in the Colts/Bronco game on that muffed punt, they did the opposite of what they did in the Dez Bryant call. No way both those calls are correct....therefore the officials DO MAKE MISTAKES interpreting their own rules. So that can no longer be your defense in the Bryant case.
Can't have it both ways.
None of that really matters. What matters is that the officials were looking at the wrong things and failed to recognize FOUR football moves made by Bryant AFTER he had secured the ball in his hands...the final one being him being tackled while having the ball in control of his hand, and him lifting his arm up with the ball in his hand trying to get it over the goal line.
That is control.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>If receiver hands ball to referee prior to any part of ball touching ground then pass is complete. >>
So if a receiver grabs a thrown ball, holds it securely and subsequently has it popped out by an opposing player, it is not a fumble, but an incompletion as the receiver never handed the ball to the ref?
You conveniently left out the "Otherwise, if same play would have been ruled an "out" by umpire had it been made by MLB outfielder, then pass is complete. " part.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Rule should be written as follows:
If receiver hands ball to referee prior to any part of ball touching ground then pass is complete. Otherwise, if same play would have been ruled an "out" by umpire had it been made by MLB outfielder, then pass is complete. Otherwise, pass is incomplete. The end. >>
I like that idea. >>
So on his way to handing the ball to the ref he drops it, it then becomes an incomplete pass? >>
Nope, it can still be a catch under section 23 article 2B line 7: "if same play would have been ruled an "out" by umpire had it been made by MLB outfielder, then pass is complete."
Obviously (to most) I'm being tongue in cheek with the MLB outfielder clause, but only partially so. I'm not sure how we ever got to the point where the act of catching a ball needs "rules" and things like "process" and "football moves". When you watch a baseball game, 99.999% of the time you need no rule to tell you if a fly ball is caught. To me, the same applies to football.
If Dez Bryant was Mike Trout and the football was a baseball, the batter would not be out. Same with the Calvin Johnson play. I honestly don't see why there's much difference.
<< <i>Anyone who claims otherwise either doesn't understand the rule or wgat constitutes football moves or lack thereof when making a reception or is just another dusgruntled Cowboy fan.
If catching and turning your body toward the goal line isn't a football move, what is it? Would a man playing catch, while making a leaping catch, do that?
Is lunging for the goal line after making a catch, and raising your arm up to try and get it over the goal line...used in any other catching movement, other than a football game? Football move.
Grote, the refs and officials don't understand the rules. If they got the dez bryant call correct, then they botched the muffed punt in the Colts/Broncos game. If they got that one right, then the Bryant one was wrong.
So why you are putting so much stock into their review capabilities, is puzzling...because they can't even decipher it.
Nope, I can't claim to know all the football rules.
I can know the difference between a man making a catch in an isolated moment, as opposed to one making a catch in a football game, having control of the ball, and making subsequent movements(while still in control) that would ONLY occur during a football game. That is a football move. That is common sense.
<< <i>
<< <i>Anyone who claims otherwise either doesn't understand the rule or wgat constitutes football moves or lack thereof when making a reception or is just another dusgruntled Cowboy fan.
If catching and turning your body toward the goal line isn't a football move, what is it? Would a man playing catch, while making a leaping catch, do that?
Is lunging for the goal line after making a catch, and raising your arm up to try and get it over the goal line...used in any other catching movement, other than a football game? Football move.
Grote, the refs and officials don't understand the rules. If they got the dez bryant call correct, then they botched the muffed punt in the Colts/Broncos game. If they got that one right, then the Bryant one was wrong.
So why you are putting so much stock into their review capabilities, is puzzling...because they can't even decipher it.
Nope, I can't claim to know all the football rules.
I can know the difference between a man making a catch in an isolated moment, as opposed to one making a catch in a football game, having control of the ball, and making subsequent movements(while still in control) that would ONLY occur during a football game. That is a football move. That is common sense. >>
Skin, I know you are my astute than this~there is no part during the process of Bryant coming down with the ball that would constitute a football move. The "steps" he took were all part of him coming down with the ball and making the reception. Had the ball NOT touched the turf at the conclusion of this process, it would have been a reception. It did so it isn't. Simple as that. I knew the play would be reversed before they reversed it. I've been watching football for 40 years~not all the rules make sense, but the official has no choice when making a call or a determination of a call on the field on review, but to follow the rule as it is written. Should the rule be revised or changed? I would say, yes, definitely. Perhaps that will be addressed in the offseason. We'll see. As I said earlier, the correct call was made according to the rule. The Packers won. Time to move on.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>One of the biggest defense on here, in defense of ruling it incomplete, is that it must be the correct call since the replay officials know more, and they confirmed it. >>
The play the previous week was a pass interference penalty and not reviewable.
<< <i>Skin, I know you are my astute than this~there is no part during the process of Bryant coming down with the ball that would constitute a football move. The "steps" he took were all part of him coming down with the ball and making the reception. Had the ball NOT touched the turf at the conclusion of this process, it would have been a reception. It did so it isn't. Simple as that. I knew the play would be reversed before they reversed it. I've been watching football for 40 years~not all the rules make sense, but the official has no choice when making a call or a determination of a call on the field on review, but to follow the rule as it is written. Should the rule be revised or changed? I would say, yes, definitely. Perhaps that will be addressed in the offseason. We'll see. As I said earlier, the correct call was made according to the rule. The Packers won. Time to move on. >>
Yeah, I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand. None of the stuff you do while going to the ground constitutes a "football move". I'm with you - soon as saw a replay and saw the ball moving, I knew it would (should) be overturned. Easy call.
As for the Colts/Broncos put play - yep, the refs botched that one. There's no way that dude had possession. He got killed as soon as he touched the ball, was actually knocked out, and the ball came out. The refs blew that one.
Perhaps by the strictest interpretation of the currant rules it was not a catch. If so the rule needs to be changes ASAP!
ANY rule that deprives the fans of such a wonderful CATCH as that is moronic.
By the way, as a Vikings fan, I don't care for either of these teams, what I do enjoy is football and that was a beautiful catch!
<< <i>If Dez Bryant was Mike Trout and the football was a baseball, the batter would not be out. >>
Don't recall Mike Trout ever having a reason to advance a ball an additional two or three feet as Bryant did.
<< <i>
<< <i>If Dez Bryant was Mike Trout and the football was a baseball, the batter would not be out. >>
Don't recall Mike Trout ever having a reason to advance a ball an additional two or three feet as Bryant did. >>
He should have caught it first. He never completed the entire process to justify it as a catch as per the rules.
No catch.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
So then it would be a catch with the new rule?
Perhaps a bit of discretion on the part of the onfield ref should have been respected.
<< <i>Odd that many who claim it is not a catch believe that the rule should be changed.
So then it would be a catch with the new rule?
Perhaps a bit of discretion on the part of the onfield ref should have been respected. >>
Yeah, why bother with a rule book when subjective discretion can be used instead?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Yeah, why bother with a rule book when subjective discretion can be used instead? >>
Good point. May as well erase about 90% of Jordan's soaring dunks. Each was a travel.
And of course require the second baseman to hit the bag on a double play.
.....and performance enhancing drugs. Oh wait, the NFL has cleaned all of that up.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If Dez Bryant was Mike Trout and the football was a baseball, the batter would not be out. >>
Don't recall Mike Trout ever having a reason to advance a ball an additional two or three feet as Bryant did. >>
He should have caught it first. He never completed the entire process to justify it as a catch as per the rules.
No catch.
MJ >>
That is where the gray area comes in. He did catch the ball and make four football moves attempting to score after the catch, and it is only after all of that where the ball hit the ground. The football rules do not clearly exempt this from being a catch(as per making football moves). The rule definition of a football move can certainly be seen in this catch. As I pointed out, he made four clear football moves. He actually took three steps. You say they weren't steps, but the process of landing. That is debatable, because they were strides, rather long strides to boot.
Then the turning toward the goal line, the lunge, divot, and arm raising to go over the goal line.
The replay officials missed focusing on this aspect of the rule, and instead focused on the ball hitting the ground aspect.
Also, the on field ref ruled it a catch, so it should be indisputable evidence that it wasn't. There was no indisputable evidence to say it wasn't a football move that he made(of which he made four). The call should have nothing to even do with the ground.
Like I said, I watched it many times, and I'm convinced that Bryant has no clue where he is in relation to the pylon. That's not me whining or hating. That's what my eyes tell me. Others feel the complete opposite. I'd love to have a frame-by-frame so those that feel the opposite can tell me at what point Bryant "sees" the goal line and decides to reach for it. For the record, as a Lions fan, I dislike Green Bay with a passion and dearly wanted Dallas to win that game.