Opinions on the Dez Non-Catch?

[monkey]

How does that work monkey?? It's wrong, even though there is a ton of history to back the call, because you saw it differently?? Sorry, as much as sometimes this rule sucks, it is at the very least consistent, regardless of how a fan may be pulling, they consistently get the ruling of it correct, which IMHO is a good thing, not a bad one. If for no other reason than that, I hope they keep it the same. How many times have people bemoaned "interpetation" of a rule, or been upset because a rule is left up to it? Far to often, this rule is black and white, and simply expects a player to complete the catch, which no matter what anyone has to say about it, Dez did NOT do.

This is really no different than the RGIII lost TD. It's black and white, RGIII lost control of the ball ( as did Dez) prior to COMPLETING the requirements for the play to stand. Hence, the play didn't go the way some wanted, but the ONLY person responsible for NOT completing the play, is the player themselves. Dez got greedy, and it cost him, will he do it next time, or will he secure the ball, and make the catch? Something tells me he'll secure it, get up and hand it to the officials, as he should have done this time. Thats on him, and him alone.

Wow, take it down a notch there bud, I was just telling you how I saw it.
You like the rule because it's consistent, I hate the rule. You have no problem with it being called the way it was, I think they got it right, but the rule itself is wrong.
It's not a big deal, the only thing I care about is that, we now get to face the team that I think matches up more poorly with us (that's good for us), and with a gimpy QB to boot.

I can't stand the Cowboys, so I have no dog in the fight, I just think the rule too often punishes receivers for making extraordinary plays, which is about as nonsensical as you can get. I think the rule as it is currently interpreted is every bit as stupid as the Tuck Rule.

But all I really care about right now is, we get to play the Packers.

I will say this one more thing though, while it's true that this one play didn't completely ruin the Cowboys chances, (it did GREATLY affect them though) the fact that this call was couple with approximately 30 seconds that were burned off the clock and never replaced...if I were a Cowboys fan, I would be RED HOT! In fact, in my opinion, that 30 seconds that never got put back on the clock is every bit as big a deal. That's bad clockwork.

[monkey]

Wow, when you miss something, at least you miss it 100%.

SMH people still have trouble grasping the rule, which has been around for decades, has been implemented numerous times, and done so consistently the same way. How is that possible? No wonder refs and the NFL don't give a rats arse about what the fans think, even when they get the call correct, fans insist it is the wrong call, or implemented wrong.

Correct call was made. Period.

What difference does it make? No one is having trouble grasping the rules dude.
Well that's not entirely true, even the freaking REFS can't figure out how to properly implement these stupid arbitrary rules!
I just don't agree with them, I think there are better ways to determine what a catch is. Not even 20 years ago, that would have been a catch.

[HumanCockroach]

First of all I don't need to take it "down a notch" as the call in that game ( and that call numerous times over and over again) doesn't bother me. I'm simply not twisted one way or another about a rule that has been consistently called, over a long period of time, that happens fairly often, in numerous games every year, being called the way it is written up.

As for "grasping" or not grasping the rule, you don't have to look real hard to see people not doing so ( in this thread alone), in fact if you look to the post right before my post ( the one you responded to) you'll see someone arguing not only that they don't like the rule, but that the rule was implemented incorrectly ( if there is a better example of NOT grasping the rule I'm not sure how you could find one, and in fact YOU argued it was the incorrect interpetation, which it 100% wasn't) you don't "like" the rule, that's fine, but your OWN argument, was used consistently, to refute the conclusion of the Golden Hail Mary, and I really don't remember you admitting it was the wrong call ( as it wasn't) people don't get to change the rules when they "feel" it doesn't "look" right simply because they prefer a different outcome, the rules SHOULD be the same in every game, and for every team, no matter the logo on the side of a helmet, or the name on the jersey, and in this case, the rule, cost the Boys and Bryant.

Maybe the rule is changed ( unlikely) or maybe it is forgotten again ( as it seems it was this time) but ultimately, it was the right call, and was put in place for a real reason. I also had no dog in that fight ( and was actually pulling for the Boys to head on back to Seattle) but the truth is, I applaud the refs for making the right call, and sticking too it, NOT playing favorites, and adhering for once to the actual rule book. Considering the amount of anger that was sure to follow this call, one way or the other, at least they chose the call that was correct and accurate.

[jshawaii22]

I personally would like to add that the majority of the fans see it the same way. Good Catch, Bad Rule... We'd be complaining to anyone who would listen if that was the Seahawks on the same play.

But, my 2 cents say that Dez Bryant did everything correct on the play. He was trying to SCORE a touchdown by stretching out the best he could. Those that complain or comment that he should of caught it with 2 hands and held on and not tried to stretch and it would of been a good catch... well, you're are plain crazy. He did exactly what he should of done, be it an important first down, touchdown or otherwise. '

And didn't Kearse do the same thing on his catch? i guess he had already made a football move "running"... and that's why the rule needs to be changed. Catch, Control, Two Feet Down + one step, lunge, as long as it's 'in control' should be considered a 'football move'

js

[Hawktawk]

He made a football move. Dez is one of the few men inn the league who could have done it but he did it and it got jacked away from him. You are all missing the point. Maybe in the pocket protector perfect world of the *rules* it was not a catch.But in the real world it was an obvious catch by an explosive player that would have made for an extremely exciting finish to the game. And I just dont want to hear about the failure of the Dallas defense to get Green Bay off the field. A call like that changes the complete complexion of the game.

[burrrton]

Here's a hypothetical for those who think there's no argument for this rule staying in place:

Say a receiver goes up, catches the ball against his chest (maybe even shifts it to his arm), comes down with two feet fighting with the DB (who may or may not actually get a hand on the ball), then loses it against the ground as they both go down.

Do you believe that should be ruled a completion from now on, and if so, how does that differ from Dez (outside of calling his left arm breaking his fall a clear "football move", which I agree would have resulted in this being a completion)?

[edit]

Or let's say the receiver goes up and catches the ball secured with both hands, then he and the DB come down and stumbling backward (say two feet down, then multiple steps being tackled) the DB knocks the ball away.

Is that a completion?

I don't know- I guess I think it's tough enough playing DB these days. At least make the receiver keep the ball secured all the way down, right?

[burrrton]

He made a football move.

If you're referring to the left arm, that's a *very* tough sell. It looked like he was doing nothing more than breaking his fall to me unless you think he was even more desperate to reach the goal line with his right (non ball-carrying) arm, which he extended far more.

[monkey]

First of all I don't need to take it "down a notch" as the call in that game ( and that call numerous times over and over again) doesn't bother me. I'm simply not twisted one way or another about a rule that has been consistently called, over a long period of time, that happens fairly often, in numerous games every year, being called the way it is written up.

As for "grasping" or not grasping the rule, you don't have to look real hard to see people not doing so ( in this thread alone), in fact if you look to the post right before my post ( the one you responded to) you'll see someone arguing not only that they don't like the rule, but that the rule was implemented incorrectly ( if there is a better example of NOT grasping the rule I'm not sure how you could find one, and in fact YOU argued it was the incorrect interpetation, which it 100% wasn't) you don't "like" the rule, that's fine, but your OWN argument, was used consistently, to refute the conclusion of the Golden Hail Mary, and I really don't remember you admitting it was the wrong call ( as it wasn't) people don't get to change the rules when they "feel" it doesn't "look" right simply because they prefer a different outcome, the rules SHOULD be the same in every game, and for every team, no matter the logo on the side of a helmet, or the name on the jersey, and in this case, the rule, cost the Boys and Bryant.

Maybe the rule is changed ( unlikely) or maybe it is forgotten again ( as it seems it was this time) but ultimately, it was the right call, and was put in place for a real reason. I also had no dog in that fight ( and was actually pulling for the Boys to head on back to Seattle) but the truth is, I applaud the refs for making the right call, and sticking too it, NOT playing favorites, and adhering for once to the actual rule book. Considering the amount of anger that was sure to follow this call, one way or the other, at least they chose the call that was correct and accurate.

Not sure how to respond, so I'll give you three different responses I wanted to do all at once.
Response 1. you sure SEEM to be bothered by it...just saying.
Response 2. LOL! OK! Dude, you win the internets! Happy now?
Response 3. I still think the call is wrong. 20 years ago, that gets called a catch PERIOD. But now, we've gone and made something that 99 out of 100 people in a bar look at and say, "that's a catch" into some subjective ref call. I hate the rule it's flippin dumb.

[RiverDog]

He made a football move. Dez is one of the few men inn the league who could have done it but he did it and it got jacked away from him. You are all missing the point. Maybe in the pocket protector perfect world of the *rules* it was not a catch.But in the real world it was an obvious catch by an explosive player that would have made for an extremely exciting finish to the game. And I just dont want to hear about the failure of the Dallas defense to get Green Bay off the field. A call like that changes the complete complexion of the game.

He made a football move in catching the pass, but that's not good enough. He has to either make a football move after he makes the catch or maintain possession all the way to the ground.

Basically what 'a football move' means, at least in this situation, is making a controlled run. Dez was clearly not making a controlled run, and the instant the ball hit the ground, it popped up out of his grasp.

And as far as Monkey's observation about 99% of observers saying "that's a catch!", I strongly disagree. I did think it was a catch when I saw it in real time, but I did not see the reverse angle that showed the ball hitting the ground and Dez losing control of it. The moment I saw that angle, I thought it was definitely not a catch.

This call is being compared to the Calvin Johnson TD that was overturned a few years back. Johnson's catch was much less obvious. To me, this one was a no brainer when going by Hoyle.

[monkey]

Just to throw fuel on the fire.
http://thebiglead.com/2015/01/12/nfl-catch-rules-are-bad-and-dont-let-anyone-tell-you-dez-bryants-was-clearly-not-a-catch/
Again, I don't really care past the fact that I love football and wish the rules were less subjective. What looks like a football move to me, looks like something else to someone else, and I think that's understandable considering the fact that when police interview witnesses to basically anything, car accidents, robberies, you name it, they can find ten people who saw exactly the same thing, in different ways.

[burrrton]

What looks like a football move to me, looks like something else to someone else

Yep, and this is why I can't get too worked up about this one.

If someone thinks the forward movement of his left arm was him reaching for the goal and not simply breaking his fall, I disagree but I think that's defensible, and that would be the "football move" required to make this a completion.

Again, it sure doesn't look that way to me, but if someone disagrees, it's not clear enough to be worth arguing about.

[edit]

This is the "addendum" (per Peter King) that clearly came into play here, and that seems something that would be tough to get rid of:

"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."

[kalibane]

He made a football move. Dez is one of the few men inn the league who could have done it but he did it and it got jacked away from him. You are all missing the point. Maybe in the pocket protector perfect world of the *rules* it was not a catch.But in the real world it was an obvious catch by an explosive player that would have made for an extremely exciting finish to the game. And I just dont want to hear about the failure of the Dallas defense to get Green Bay off the field. A call like that changes the complete complexion of the game.

Not to s*** on your point but if Dez Bryant is only one of a few people that could make that particular "football move" then by definition it's not a move "common to the game". Okay never mind it was to s*** on your point.

You're letting your right fighting get in the way of the facts. The refs made the correct call... period. It's a poorly written rule and it was even dumber years ago when Calvin Johnson had a game winning TD catch invalidated on a play where it was even more conclusive that he had full control of the ball. You're trying to spin and rationalize and figure out a way for the ref's to be wrong but they weren't. Your problem is with the rule, just like the Raider's fans problem was with the Tuck Rule.

The rule needs to be changed but it's not the official's place to decide mid game which rules are written poorly and which ones are written well.

[Hawktown]

If Pettigrew was in a position to catch that ball the previous week (though he didn't), because these are NFL PRO'S that are supposed to be able to make those kind of catches, than Dez should have been able to hold onto that ball throughout. I like the call and wouldn't change a thing. Again these guys are pro's.

[HumanCockroach]

Not sure how to respond, so I'll give you three different responses I wanted to do all at once. Response 1. you sure SEEM to be bothered by it...just saying. Response 2. LOL! OK! Dude, you win the internets! Happy now? Response 3. I still think the call is wrong. 20 years ago, that gets called a catch PERIOD. But now, we've gone and made something that 99 out of 100 people in a bar look at and say, "that's a catch" into some subjective ref call. I hate the rule it's flippin dumb.

Here's your reply:

1) nowhere have I become "upset" with the call, as I agree with the call, and would have had it been called on Baldwin, Largent, Rice, or any other great receiver to ever play the game. The truth is, at no point have I "seemed" to be upset, that is for those pissed off about a call, that continues to be called the same way for the last several decades. Just like I don't get upset with a call for hitting a receiver in the head at this point, because those are the rules, I know them, and I understand them.

2) I don't need to "win the internets" and could care less what people that get their panties in a bunch about an obvious call, that was implemented correctly, feel. "Winning the internets" is for those hell bent on whining about an obviously correct call, do to the "look" of it, instead of accepting that the "look" of it has little to do with a black and white rule.

3) you keep using the word "subjective", I don't believe that word means what you think it means, as this rule is NOT subjective, and was not handled in any way shape or form in a subjective manner. 99 out of a 100 drunks ALSO saw Jennings intercept the Tate hail mary, and insisted the man "possessed the ball "first" in the air" Doesn't in the least make that a correct call, and I don't flip flop based on MY desired outcome. I believe in level playing fields, strongly, and as such, if that call goes against the Hawks at a later date, you will NOT hear me b*tching and moaning about it, because it IS the rule, and the rule is NOT subjective OR a judgement call. It is black and white, and has been called consistently correct since it was implemented.

I don't care for the rule, BUT I also can accept that it IS the rule, and so, I have no problem accepting the rule being used correctly, that is for others to do.

[RiverDog]

I don't get why everyone is so upset with the rule. I do not see a viable alternative that is going to give referees a clear, objective means by which to make a decision as to what is a catch and what is not. They have to draw a line somewhere. If you don't like the rule, then let's hear an alternative that is going to result in less controversy.

The rule seems to me to be similar to how Winston Churchill once described democracy. It's the world's worst system except for everything else.

[kalibane]

Let me put it this way Riv. I don't think it's going to be easy to fix the rule whatsoever, and won't be surprised if it isn't "fixed" for a few years. And you are right, that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

That being said... we now have two examples, one game deciding and one potentially game deciding, of plays where the average guy in a bar sees the highlight and says "that's a catch" and yet because of the way this rule is written they are instead ruled incomplete. That's a pretty strong indication of a poorly written rule.

With that in mind the league should be obligated to look into whether the rule can be modified without opening up more problems than already exist. Maybe it can, maybe it can't. But it should be looked into.

[HumanCockroach]

Haven't they already said they have looked at this rule numerous times? Pretty sure I read that and heard it immediately following this weekends game. The truth is for all the complaints about this particular play and this particular game, 90% of the time this rules is getting the desired result, even for those 99 out of a 100 drunks that are upset with this instance. I can't count the amount of times this rule has helped one team or another with a "it wasn't a fumble" or it "wasn't a catch" suring the course of a game.

This rule removes the "interpetation" and "judgement" calls that Refs butcher more often than not, and if they can tweek it to make it better, great, if not, I just don't see the benefit of removing this rule from the books.

I do find it funny how stringently, people are arguing to ADD more "judgement" calls to officials that can't seem to call the most basic of said judgement calls consistently from week to week, even when it is the SAME ref, much less differing crews. Always been one to want less left up to judgement in these cases, not more.

[RiverDog]

Agreed. For once, I agree with both of you simultaneously.

And like I said earlier in the thread, this whole thing is getting blown out of proportion. It was a critical call at a critical time, no doubt about it. But it did not lose the game for the Cowboys or win it for the Packers. There was 4.5 minutes left in the game and Dallas had two timeouts plus the 2 minute warning, plenty of time to get the ball back and mount another drive, but they failed to stop the Packers on a huge 3rd and 8 play. And had Dez's catch been ruled a completion and they subsequently scored, they still would have had to make a 2 point conversion just to get the game to a 3 point lead and would have given the Packers the ball back with plenty of time to at least tie the game with a FG.

Plus IMO it was a horrible call in the first place, to throw a long, low percentage timing route on 4th and 1.

IMO those stories are being overlooked, particularly by the Cowpuke fans that can't see past the Dez call and who's memories are so short that they can't recall being huge beneficiaries of poor officiating vs. the Lions the week before. IMO they shouldn't have been in that game in the first place.

[monkey]

3) you keep using the word "subjective", I don't believe that word means what you think it means, as this rule is NOT subjective,

We wouldn't be having this conversation if parts of the rule weren't inherently subjective.

[HumanCockroach]

No, we wouldn't be having this conversation if you could acknowledge that the call was correct, and was indeed called per the letter of the law. It was called correctly, no matter your, or anyone elses take on the matter, which has been my point this entire thread. You are administering your opinion, into a non subjective call. Which is when a player is falling to the ground he must complete the process of the catch, which Bryant no matter your opinion on the matter, did not do. This isn't a "choice" the officials have in this instance, this is black and white, whether fans like it or not, it is the call that has to be made.

This is the same as a receiver not getting two feet in bounds, or a player that doesn't break the plane of the endzone. There is NO leeway, which removes the "subjective" or "interpative" portion of this rule from the equation and leaves only the actual completion of the play.

[monkey]

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2015/1/11/7529511/dez-bryant-controversial-catch-cowboys-packers-was-that-a-catch
It was a catch, the rule is stupid.

[HumanCockroach]

Well there you have it, field gulls agrees with you, so you have to be right. LMAO.

What ever, it was the right call. Period. Bryant is falling to the ground. Period. The ball hits the ground. Period. He does not complete the process. Period.

How you "feel" about the rule doesn't change it in the least. Period.

Go Hawks!

[monkey]

Well there you have it, field gulls agrees with you, so you have to be right. LMAO.

What ever, it was the right call. Period. Bryant is falling to the ground. Period. The ball hits the ground. Period. He does not complete the process. Period.

How you "feel" about the rule doesn't change it in the least. Period.

Go Hawks!

You're right, clearly you're not bothered at all by my disagreeing with you. It's easy to tell just how not bothered you are.

[HumanCockroach]

Your not disagreeing with me. So why in the world would you saying a rule, in your opinion is "stupid" bother me? Why in the world, would you insisting that 99 drunks would agree with you, bother me? I could care less about your feelings on the matter, because ultimately, all you are saying is you "don't like" something. I'm simply explaining WHY it was called correctly, the way it was called. At no point, have I been "upset" with anything, it doesn't bother me that they called the play correctly, nor does it bother me that some feel the need to emphatically express why in their opinion the rule is stupid, or incorrectly insist it was the wrong call. Your welcome to carry on the banner of injustice all you want.

I was simply discussing the call, in a thread talking about the call, and attempting to explain the call to others ( some of whom, can't seem to accept it because of their emotions about it). Whether that helps, hurts, or creates indifference doesn't faze me in the least. It isn't about to change the outcome, or the correctness of the outcome of the play. It was called the way it was, and that was correct, whether some "like" it or not, doesn't matter.

[NorthHawk]

I would guess that this rule will be a topic of conversation when the Competition Committee meets in the Off Season.
The reason?
The NFL wants Offense and scoring, so another advantage will go to that way.
I think they tighten the language a little to make it easier for everyone to understand the rule and make the correct call.
Something like gain posssession and control of the ball with one or two hands and both feet in bounds and take one stride in the middle of the field or step out of bounds while maintaining control. The play is over when the receiver is touched down in the field of play, or is in the end zone and takes a stride or touches down with any part of his body other than his hand (like it is today with the knee, elbow, shin, etc.).

By removing the "Football Move" criteria, it simplifies the rule and judgement.

[RiverDog]

I would guess that this rule will be a topic of conversation when the Competition Committee meets in the Off Season.
The reason?
The NFL wants Offense and scoring, so another advantage will go to that way.
I think they tighten the language a little to make it easier for everyone to understand the rule and make the correct call.
Something like gain posssession and control of the ball with one or two hands and both feet in bounds and take one stride in the middle of the field or step out of bounds while maintaining control. The play is over when the receiver is touched down in the field of play, or is in the end zone and takes a stride or touches down with any part of his body other than his hand (like it is today with the knee, elbow, shin, etc.).

By removing the "Football Move" criteria, it simplifies the rule and judgment.

Oh, it'll be a topic of conversation, that's for sure. But the reason is that it affected Jerry Jones and the vaunted Cowboys.

I agree, perhaps if they are a little more definitive about this "football move" term that they are using that perhaps it would help a few Neanderthals understand that it does not include being off balance and falling to the ground.

[NorthHawk]

I think it's important to remember that play might have meant the difference in who won a playoff game.
That's a lot of money on the line and if they want to eventually expand to Europe, they have to have clear rules for new fans to learn easily.

It's bad enough we have questionable Refereeing, but vague rules can turn off prospective new fans in new markets.

[Hawktown]

no offense but i see no vagueness in the call, at all. It looks pretty cut and dry how it is written. Hold the ball trough out is the key, I see no disputing the call at all. I don't even see much, if anything, that it is changeable to make both parties happy though most seem to not like how it is written. Maybe like said above the only thing you could change is how you define a football move and i think you will enter yet another grey area in that one. I say get obvious balance to yourself and/or hold the ball trough out works great for me.

[NorthHawk]

no offense but i see no vagueness in the call, at all. It looks pretty cut and dry how it is written. Hold the ball trough out is the key, I see no disputing the call at all. I don't even see much, if anything, that it is changeable to make both parties happy though most seem to not like how it is written. Maybe like said above the only thing you could change is how you define a football move and i think you will enter yet another grey area in that one. I say get obvious balance to yourself and/or hold the ball trough out works great for me.

It's vague to the casual viewer and a discussion point for those who understand it, so it will be confusing to new fans being introduced to the game.
I think the rule is overly complex in its description and doesn't spell out what exactly a football move is.

Like I said earlier, possession, two feet down, one step regardless of falling or not would make it an efficient rule change and bring more Offense.

[Hawktown]

I hear ya north but "control" has nothing to do with falling to the ground. That word "falling" is the key word hear. Falling has nothing to do with control, in fact it is the opposite definition. You would not be falling if you had control. it happens so fast that it almost has to be ruled this way, IMO. Can they differentiate between going to the ground on purpose and "falling" to the ground. I think that is too big of a judgment call for the refs and rules to consider. However if he had held the ball, he would have a complete pass. These guys are pro's and should be able to hold onto that ball just as Calvin Johnson should have held onto that ball instead of leaving it open to interpretation.

[kalibane]

Have to agree Hawk. I see nothing vague about the rule. In fact quite the opposite. It's very clear cut. I think the problem is that they have too specifically described what constitutes a catch. When it comes to laws and rules highly specific language can be just as problematic of language that is too vague.

That's why it's going to be so hard to fix, adding more language will just make it even worse. Making it more vague though will likely leave a lot up to the judgment of the ref which is what they've been wanting to avoid with most of these rule changes.

I'm still not going to act like it's Dez or Calvin's fault because they both clearly made catches. Most coaches aren't completely aware of every nuance in the NFL rule book expecting players to know it backwards and forwards is not reasonable. Now if they end up in a similar situation down the road then I can see blaming them. Kind of a fool me once, shame on you scenario. Learn the hard lesson and adapt but neither of them did anything wrong.

[NorthHawk]

If the rule is so clear cut and a good rule, why is there any discussion about it throughout the media and fans?

[burrrton]

If the rule is so clear cut and a good rule, why is there any discussion about it throughout the media and fans?

Reading the arguments, it's because a lot of people think falling down constitutes an intentional ("football") move, or that a "football move" shouldn't be required at all.

[RiverDog]

I hear ya north but "control" has nothing to do with falling to the ground. That word "falling" is the key word hear. Falling has nothing to do with control, in fact it is the opposite definition. You would not be falling if you had control. it happens so fast that it almost has to be ruled this way, IMO. Can they differentiate between going to the ground on purpose and "falling" to the ground. I think that is too big of a judgment call for the refs and rules to consider. However if he had held the ball, he would have a complete pass. These guys are pro's and should be able to hold onto that ball just as Calvin Johnson should have held onto that ball instead of leaving it open to interpretation.

Good post, Hawktown.

I honestly don't see where the rule is that hard to understand, even for a novice. There's lots of other rules that are more difficult to comprehend than that one.

[HumanCockroach]

If the rule is so clear cut and a good rule, why is there any discussion about it throughout the media and fans?

Because of where, when and to whom it happened to affect. This rule has been used hundreds of times prior to this instance, and there was little if any blowback. People let their emotions and sense of "fair play" rule their responses, and so, you have situations like this, where the rule is implemented correctly, the same way it has been hundreds of times, with emotional outcry, when those same people previously, never cared much one way or another.

Add in a media that is LOOKING for controversy, and when not readily available, manufactures it, along with fans that believe those same media folks, are straight shooters with nothing but the integrity of the game in mind, and voila blowback, controversy, angst over something that was handled correctly, called correctly, and implemented correctly.

As always $$$ rules.

[Futureite]

I am still confused on this entire thing, for several reasons.

So apparently the rule is that the ground can touch the ground, but it cannot move once it does. This of course is the "Bert Emanuel" rule where Emanuel actually caught the ball in the NFC Title game but the nose of it touched the ground.

So, as I was listening to ESPN radio on the way home, someone called up and stated that Dez' arm hit the ground but the ball never did. The ball bounced up into the air and he then caught it in the end zone. I am not sure if the ref ever addressed whether the ball hit the ground. Going completely from recollection, it seems as though the ref stated "the receiver did not maintain possession as he hit the ground"

So question (1): So what if he didn't maintain possession, so long as the ball did not touch the ground and he ultimately retained possession while laying on his back in the end zone? Why shouldn't this be a catch and a TD?

Question (2): How is 3 steps and a lunge toward the end zone anything but a "football move"? How does the NFL define a football move?

There is way too much ambiguity in this rule. What the hell is a football move, and who decides? Obviously, there is no definition. It's all up to the discretion of the person making the call. Some people see Dez' play as a football move, other's see it an an incomplete pass. In trying to simplify the rule, it seems as though they've made it far more complicated.

[Futureite]

If the rule is so clear cut and a good rule, why is there any discussion about it throughout the media and fans?

It's not clear cut at all. In fact, it's far more ambiguous than before. This stupid rule opened the door for that absurd Palomalu play in 2005 V the Colts where he rolled over and took a step and fumbled, and it was called an incompletion http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/news/story?id=2294309.

Obviously, there is a wide degree of variation between one person's perception of a "football move" and another's. The rule should simply be 2 feet down and possession of the ball. Period.

As usual, the NFL overreacted to the Emanuel play V the Rams and created a rule that has become more of a headache than a tool to promote fair play.

[RiverDog]

So, as I was listening to ESPN radio on the way home, someone called up and stated that Dez' arm hit the ground but the ball never did. The ball bounced up into the air and he then caught it in the end zone. I am not sure if the ref ever addressed whether the ball hit the ground. Going completely from recollection, it seems as though the ref stated "the receiver did not maintain possession as he hit the ground"

So question (1): So what if he didn't maintain possession, so long as the ball did not touch the ground and he ultimately retained possession while laying on his back in the end zone? Why shouldn't this be a catch and a TD?

Question (2): How is 3 steps and a lunge toward the end zone anything but a "football move"? How does the NFL define a football move?

There is way too much ambiguity in this rule. What the hell is a football move, and who decides? Obviously, there is no definition. It's all up to the discretion of the person making the call. Some people see Dez' play as a football move, other's see it an an incomplete pass. In trying to simplify the rule, it seems as though they've made it far more complicated.

Wrong. The ball clearly did touch the ground. It was not obvious from the first angle we had in real time, but the reverse angle clearly showed that it was the ground that caused the ball to pop up out of Dez's grasp.

[Futureite]

River;

OK, I did not see that. Just going by what one person claimed on the radio, to which the host did not argue. Maybe he was wrong.

[RiverDog]

River;

OK, I did not see that. Just going by what one person claimed on the radio, to which the host did not argue. Maybe he was wrong.

I have it recorded, and watched it several times. It would not have been ruled incomplete had the replay officials not seen the same thing I saw. You can bobble the ball as long as it doesn't touch the ground.