Opinions on the Dez Non-Catch?

[burrrton]

FieldGulls guy says it was definitely a catch:

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2015/1/11/752 ... at-a-catch

But I'm not sure I can agree. I think it *should* be a catch, but according to the rules, however stupid, it wasn't.

I think the author gets it wrong on the (c) part of the rule. Bryant was going to the ground tangled up with the defender- he wasn't going to be able to run and he was not making a "football move" putting his arms out to break his fall. When you're going to the ground, you simply have to keep control of the ball.

Agree or disagree?

[Anthony]

It was not a catch by rule.

[monkey]

The problem is that, the rule itself is stupid beyond words, so whenever something like this happens, everyone with eyes gets angry at the obvious stupidity of the rule.

IMO he should have been rules down at the one, he caught it with two hands, then switched the ball to his left, showing he had control at that point, and with his left reached out towards the goal line, which is a "football move". When he hits the ground, he clearly has control, and is being touched by a defender, and is therefore, down by contact at the one.
He shouldn't have to go on to keep control of a ball he CLEARLY had control of, while trying to reach for the goal line...that's an absolutely craptacular rule, if that's really what it is saying...

Oh well, Detroit felt hosed on a call and now Dallas does, what comes around goes around I guess?

Bottom line is this is good for the Seahawks as the Packers, with no threatening run game to speak of and a gimpy Aaron Rodgers is a much easier match up than Dallas would have been IMO.

[HumanCockroach]

Craptastic as the rule happens to be, it was the correct implementation of the rule, and something most people that watch a lot of football knew IMMEDIATELY, never a second of doubt in my mind that it "wasn't a catch" because I know the rule, and have seen it implemented numerous times. I fit had remained a catch, it would have proven a bias. I'm glad they maintained some consistency ( this is actually one of the few rules that ref to ref and crew to crew is consistently called correctly for some reason), regardless of how I feel about the rule Itself....

Plenty of teams have been affected by this rule and call over the years, and you can't start changing the calls because it's Dallas, it's in the playoffs, and Jerrah paid for Deans lap dance....

[Zorn76]

I dunno.

IMO, this whole thing would not be NEARLY as big a deal if the Cowboys weren't involved.

If they want to change the rule in the future, that's one thing. As it exists now, I think they called it correctly.

[RiverDog]

Watching it live, I thought there was no doubt it was a catch. But when I saw it from the reverse angle, the ball clearly touched the ground before it was secured. I don't know what all the controversy is about. I thought the replay was as conclusive as any replay I've seen, certainly as conclusive as Earl's near interception yesterday.

I think Zorny is right. There would not be any questions asked had it not involved the Cowboys. Frigging Cowpukes were benefiting from calls/missed calls all game.

[NorthHawk]

Correct call, but dumb rule.
Catching the ball with 2 hands, switching it to his left arm, and taking 3 strides before reaching towards the goal line albeit falling at the same time.

[Tepet]

Just like the Fail Mary was a legit catch.

[Zorn76]

Watching it live, I thought there was no doubt it was a catch. But when I saw it from the reverse angle, the ball clearly touched the ground before it was secured. I don't know what all the controversy is about. I thought the replay was as conclusive as any replay I've seen, certainly as conclusive as Earl's near interception yesterday.

I think Zorny is right. There would not be any questions asked had it not involved the Cowboys. Frigging Cowpukes were benefiting from calls/missed calls all game.

Well, there would be some discussion no matter who was involved - just like the Lions last week, and they are hardly a media darling.

But with Dallas, it's just treated like a complete tragedy.

Oh, the humanity of the Cowboys not advancing. What in the world are the 4 letter networks going to do now?

LOL, that's the joke about it.

I woulda Loved for those chumps to come here. The Seahawks would've beat 'em.

We're gonna win next week regardless, then beat the winner of Indy/N.E. in the SB.

I know - one game at a time - but I'm feeling Really Good about our chances now:)

[Hawktawk]

Refs are like politicians. If they aren't meddling they don't think they are doing their jobs.
Stripping the call down to its bare essence I just hate the call. What used to be spectacular catches are now reduced to incompletions by some pocket protector plus ref under a hood. Or Blandino in the mother ship saying reverse it so I don't have to answer any more party bus questions. If 3 steps while changing hands with the ball including reaching out for the goal line isn't a football move I don't know what is. Its a stupid rule that was still improperly interpreted by an overreaching officiating crew. While not as egregious as the reversal in the Detroit game it was still bad on a worldwide stage. And yes I wanted the Cowboys to come to the Klink but most of all I want to see good football, not some self aggrandizing ass in zebra stripes mucking up the game which is happening way too often.

[burrrton]

Catching the ball with 2 hands, switching it to his left arm, and taking 3 strides before reaching towards the goal line albeit falling at the same time.

As I understand it, the bolded part there is the key.

He was going to the ground more or less tangled with the defender, which means he had to control the ball throughout the process.

I think if his last move with his left arm had looked more like reaching for the goalline than simply putting his arm out to break his fall, that might have gotten him the benefit of the doubt.

[Hawktown]

By rule incomplete. If it was called a catch, people would be throwing a fit saying it was incomplete, lol.

Can someone explain why that should not have been incomplete? i kind of like the rule to control the ball trough out the process to the ground but would like to hear a reasonable explanation why this is a catch (though not by rule). Then, where do you draw the line from catch to non catch???

[Hawktawk]

Those who feel it was a catch focus on the football move aspect. Here's the way I saw it.

First the call on the field was catch down at the half yard line. The ref was directly on top of the play. It is clear from replay that Dez possesses the ball firmly in both hands at the apex of his leap. He immediately turns to runner, taking 3 discernible steps while switching hands to his left hand with the ball and extending it towards the goal line. At no point prior to him being down by contact does the ball move, and even then it is not clear whether the ground caused the movement hitting the ball or hitting Dez Bryant's arm and hand which was under the ball. IMO "football move" is as much a judgment call as any other aspect of the play. If the receiver is running upright and takes three steps after the catch before being hit and losing the ball its a fumble. If the same receiver is tackled after 3 steps and the ball is dislodged upon contact with the ground it is down by contact. I think it was a bad call of a bad rule that should be changed and it has nothing to do with my dislike for the Cowboys. I hate the refs worse.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

By rule incomplete. If it was called a catch, people would be throwing a fit saying it was incomplete, lol.

Can someone explain why that should not have been incomplete? i kind of like the rule to control the ball trough out the process to the ground but would like to hear a reasonable explanation why this is a catch (though not by rule). Then, where do you draw the line from catch to non catch???

This has been a hot topic at work this morning. The explanation I'm getting from the "it's a catch" camp is that he caught it, came down, and took 3 steps while controlling it. However, they acknowledge that, by letter of the rule, it was an incomplete pass. I'm with the previous statement burrton referenced; Bryant was falling while taking those steps. Had he been completely upright and in control of the ball, then stretched out and dove and lost the ball at the ground, then it is a catch and he's down at the one. A fine line, I suppose, but the falling is what makes it incomplete.

As for drawing a line, HC already answered that. You can disagree with the rule, but, to their credit, officials have called this one consistently because of the rule.

[NorthHawk]

Unfortunately some great plays are being "Lawyered" out of the game.

Regarding the going to the ground, what happens if a player is in the same position as that play and stumbles for 15 yards before hitting the ground?
Would that still be a fumble? He would have possessed the ball for probably 5 or 6 strides before hitting the turf so nobody could say he did not control the ball.
By letter of the rule, it would be incomplete as he is still 'going to the ground', but nobody in their right mind would think it wasn't a catch.

[burrrton]

Regarding the going to the ground, what happens if a player is in the same position as that play and stumbles for 15 yards before hitting the ground?
Would that still be a fumble? He would have possessed the ball for probably 5 or 6 strides before hitting the turf so nobody could say he did not control the ball.
By letter of the rule, it would be incomplete as he is still 'going to the ground', but nobody in their right mind would think it wasn't a catch.

In short, it's an incompletion if he's truly trying to catch his balance for 15 yards then loses the ball without doing so successfully (I think).

And yeah, I think Dez did catch the ball- it just doesn't count as a completion because he couldn't fully control himself and the ball without losing it against the ground.

I think chances are they modify this rule, but I seem to recall, at the time Calvin Johnson was bit by it, that there is reasonable rationale behind it, and that modifying it opens up a pandora's box of "what about this, then?", so I won't be dumbstruck if they leave it as-is.

[NorthHawk]

Perhaps what they have to do is simplify it and describe a "Football move".
Something like catch it, have 2 feet on the ground and put the ball into one hand or arm without losing control amongst other examples.
I think that shows the player has full control prior to the ball moving when hitting the ground.
And of course, if the ball hits the ground and bounces into the air, it should be a fumble unless a knee or forearm, etc. has hit first.

[kalibane]

The rule goes back to the playoff game between the Rams and the Buccaneers and the controversial non-catch by Bert Emanuel. The old rule was that if the ball touched the ground then it was an automatic incompletion. And so technically even though Emanuel clearly had his hands underneath the ball and clearly controlled the ball, by rule the pass was incomplete because part of the ball touched the ground.

They added extra language to the rule so that if the officials could clearly see that the ground did not assist in making the catch (in other words the ground did not alter the control or positioning of the ball). To take the ambiguity out of it they had to include that the receiver has to control the ball all the way through the "process" when going to the ground.

The result is this Dez Bryant play or worse, the Calvin Johnson TD that was overruled after he caught the ball rolled over and then purposely placed the ball on the ground to push himself to his feet.

It's a case of the NFL doing too much to try and remove judgment calls from the game. The irony is of course the rule that was implemented to stop obvious catches from being called incompletions has in fact caused obvious catches to be called incompletions.

The Refs got it right by the letter of the rule. Everyone who's ever played football knows that it was a catch. And yet I couldn't care less because karma is a b****.

[c_hawkbob]

Personally I don't care, I hate the Cowboys.

[Hawktawk]

In an amazing irony it was Gene Seratore who overturned both Mega-tron and Bryant's catch.
I hate the rule, I hate the call.
I can separate my dislike for the Cowboys from my dislike for NFL officials F ing up games so bad we have to have these discussions on Mondays instead of talking abut plays MADE.
NFL officials have become personalities, stars in their own right. It should never be that way. The game is getting ridiculous with flags mucking up the flow of the game. But then they allow obvious fouls if they feel like it, even to the point of picking up the flag on an obvious foul.

Its just bad all the way around. I hope it doesn't cost Seattle in the next 3 weeks.But the NFL needs to do some housecleaning with its officials. I'm not holding my breath though.

[mykc14]

Maybe part of the problem is some people haven't defined, in their mind, what is a catch and what isn't a catch according to the NFL. As soon as ET's INT happened on Sat I told my buddies that it was going to be overturned, before the replay or anything because I saw the ball hit the ground and it looked like it moved. The same thing happened in the Bryant catch I said that isn't going to count. Am I some football savant? No, but I do know if an NFL player 'catches' the ball and goes to the ground during the process of that 'catch' (stumbling counts as going to the ground during that process) and the ball touches the ground and moves it is going to be incomplete. Because of that I am not really that upset about it. It was the right call by the NFL's definition of a catch. Some people hate the rule but it doesn't really bother me, you have to define what is a catch and what isn't a catch somehow and that is the NFL's definition.

[kalibane]

I don't think that's the problem really mykc. People just don't like the rule. They see the Dez catch (or the Calvin Johnson catch) and there is no part of their body that feels it's not a catch (removing the rule from consideration). Therefore they just don't understand how they can have a rule that ends up ruling that it isn't a catch.

It is pretty telling that I have yet to see a single person argue that it wasn't a catch in the abstract sense. Remove the teams (and fan bias) involved. Also remove any rule book definition of what a "catch" is. Everyone sees that play if it was left up to their discretion would call it a catch. The only defense to the call, while valid, includes the words "by rule" or "by the letter of the rule".

That's the problem.

[mykc14]

I don't think that's the problem really mykc. People just don't like the rule. They see the Dez catch (or the Calvin Johnson catch) and there is no part of their body that feels it's not a catch (removing the rule from consideration). Therefore they just don't understand how they can have a rule that ends up ruling that it isn't a catch.

It is pretty telling that I have yet to see a single person argue that it wasn't a catch in the abstract sense. Remove the teams (and fan bias) involved. Also remove any rule book definition of what a "catch" is. Everyone sees that play if it was left up to their discretion would call it a catch. The only defense to the call, while valid, includes the words "by rule" or "by the letter of the rule".

That's the problem.

Good points, can't really argue with anything there.

[RiverDog]

The problem, of course, is the rule. It is too demanding, but it is the direct result of the replay technology. Because of the ability to watch a play frame by frame and from multiple angles the rule has to be very precise so that the replay officials can be consistent.

Maybe we will see the rule lightened up a little next season.

I disagree. The rule as it is written is easy to interpret. Even what would seem to be ambigious language in a "football move" is easy for everyone to understand. You can't be making a football move when your body is out of control and falling to the ground. A football move means running under control. As Kal stated, the old rule was very ambiguous. It's the rules that are ambiguous and subject to the interpretation of the referee....such as a non participant coming onto the field to argue the call/no call that Dez himself benefited from a liberal interpretation of last week...are the 'problem' rules as they lead to uneven application by individual referees and crews.

This catch would have been ruled incomplete by every ref in the league once they saw the replay. So long as every ref and player understand the rule and the refs call it consistently, I don't have a problem with it. Only if they can replace it with language that is as clear and easy for a ref to call as this one is would I support a change in the rule.

[NorthHawk]

So you're telling me that a player that catches a ball, switches it to a single arm then stumbles for 15 yards (maybe even using his hand to stay up) and dives into the end zone only to have the ball bounce a little isn't a catch?
According to the rule it isn't if this last call was any indication.

[kalibane]

According to the rule it isn't a catch. The refs got it 100% "right". Where I disagree with Riv is that it's a good rule as long as it's consistent. The rule needs to be changed.

How exactly I don't know, but they need to be able to write the rule in a way in which both the Bert Emanuel and the Dez Bryant plays are catches because pretty much anyone looking at either one would say they are a catch and yet at the time they happened both of them weren't "by rule".

[burrrton]

So you're telling me that a player that catches a ball, switches it to a single arm then stumbles for 15 yards (maybe even using his hand to stay up) and dives into the end zone only to have the ball bounce a little isn't a catch?

Correct.

[NorthHawk]

I understand according to the rules it isn't.
But, really is it not a catch? Two feet on the ground, steps taken, full control of the ball for 15 yards and probably 2 or 3 full seconds...

The rule is a bad one how it's currently written unless they can define what is a catch, not what isn't.

[burrrton]

Well, two things:

1. They *do* define what is a catch- it just seems to exclude something that looks pretty obviously to be a catch to us.
2. Modifying the rule to include what we saw yesterday is probably going to bring up a lot of "Well then why is *this* not a catch?" in the next few years.

I'm not necessarily against that, but in listening to many of the discussions Sunday night (I had had a few so the details are foggy), I think this rule has a fairly solid basis for its existence.

What is the proposed change you guys would make?

[RiverDog]

So you're telling me that a player that catches a ball, switches it to a single arm then stumbles for 15 yards (maybe even using his hand to stay up) and dives into the end zone only to have the ball bounce a little isn't a catch?
According to the rule it isn't if this last call was any indication.

Yes. But that's a gross exaggeration. I don't think I've seen anyone stumble for 15 yards without regaining their balance at some point. Maybe Steve Young 20 years or so ago. Most of the time, you're talking about 3 or 4 steps that a player is not under control.

As an old wise man once told me, you don't manage (or in this case, create rules) to address the exceptional situations that happens once in a blue moon, and the scenario you just described fits into that exceptional category.

That sounds similar to Scott Linehan coming up with crazy scenarios when we beat the Rams a few years back when a penalty that could have required a 10 second runoff wasn't interpreted the way he thought it should have been.

[Hawktawk]

Its a bad rule and even then it was incorrectly interpreted in the game IMO. That was a catch. Earl Thomas picked the ball and landed flat on his back where the ball came out. No catch. Theres a world of difference between the two plays

[HumanCockroach]

The rule was implemented correctly ( something that is fairly rare in todays game) you can argue the validity of the rules, but not how it was implemented in this circumstance. It was indeed the correct call based on the rule in place. If Bryant took 80 steps while stumbling to the ground, or none is irrelevant, and one reason why it was easy to understand that it wasn't a catch with no added information at the time.

It was the correct call, for all the angst over it, they got it right. Sorry folks. You can yell, scream moan or argue until you are blue in the face, it simply doesn't change it any more than the "tuck" rule changed depending on the name of the QB, it didn't and doesn't in this case either. Once Braynt started to fall, it was up to him to "complete the process" of the catch. One can argue he shouldn't have reached out ( and he shouldn't of) but other than that, there really is zero recourse for the officials to move on that particular call ( at least until such time that they change it).

100% correct call

[HumanCockroach]

I understand according to the rules it isn't.
But, really is it not a catch? Two feet on the ground, steps taken, full control of the ball for 15 yards and probably 2 or 3 full seconds...

The rule is a bad one how it's currently written unless they can define what is a catch, not what isn't.

Bryant did not have control of that football for fifteen yards North, that is an enormous exageration on your part, hell until the ball went into his left arm, he had little control at all. People are pretending he snatched that ball clean out of the air withh both hands ( he didn't) and had the ball tucked cleanly ( he didn't) I invite you to watch the play again if that is what you saw, because it isn't what happened.

[NorthHawk]

I'm exaggerating to make a point, HC, and I know the rule was interpreted correctly by the Officials.
I'm talking about this being a bad rule as written and as in my above example it would still be ruled incomplete as the player would still be completing the catch despite carrying it for the better part of 15 yards.

[depaashaas]

Maybe next time dez should just keep both hands on the ball and go down with full control of the ball and have a 1st down on the packers 1 yard line and have their running back run it in, dez stumbled and wanted to get to fancy and lost control before making a football move. Nothing wrong with the rule and nothing wrong with how they called it

[monkey]

I think chances are they modify this rule, but I seem to recall, at the time Calvin Johnson was bit by it, that there is reasonable rationale behind it, and that modifying it opens up a pandora's box of "what about this, then?", so I won't be dumbstruck if they leave it as-is.

It's not really all that reasonable. The rule stems from a Tampa Bay player in the Super Bowl IIRC having the ground cause an incompletion. At least that's how my memory has it, and then it has evolved from there through a couple other (at the time) infamous catches, including Calvin Johnson's, (which really was egregious) and now Dez Bryant's.

My opinion, Dez had control BEFORE he reached out, he had established control when he switch to his left (dominant) hand, the reaching out was the football move, and at that point, he should be thought of as a runner, (remember he took three steps in the process, not that that really matters), so the ground cannot cause the fumble. He should have been downed at the one, ro else touchdown IMO.
The rule is retarded, and even after they clarify their interpretation of the play according to the rule I STILL think they got it wrong because the way they saw it was wrong. The replay offical, Blandino...they're flat out wrong in what they say Bryant was doing IMO.

The worst part though, is that what he's really being punished for, is for making an extremely difficult and athletic move. The very kind of thing we watch football to see.
What i mean by that is, if he had JUST made the catch and not tried to extend the ball across the goal line, he'd have been downed at the one, and no one would be talking about it today, BUT he tried to do something that took AMAZING body control and incredible athleticism. In my opinion, he's getting punished for being TOO good. For trying TOO hard. I think that's just incredibly stupid.

[RiverDog]

One thing that I think is being lost on all this is the impact that it had on the outcome of the game. The Cowpuke fans are acting as if this was the singular play that decided their fate. It was not. It occurred at around the 5 minute mark. Had the call gone their way and they subsequently scored, it was in no way, shape, or form a guaranteed win for them. They would have had to convert a 2 pt conversion just to get it to a 3 point lead. In addition, Green Bay had to convert on two big 3rd down plays, the first coming north of the 2 minute warning with the Cowpokes having two timeouts left.

It was a crucial call, but by no means did it close out the game.

[HumanCockroach]

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.

[Hawktawk]

It a stupid rule and even at that i think they blew it. It was a football move. I listened to that oily used car salesman Blandino explain it thusly. He said you have to watch it in real time speed to see it is not a football move. But then it is painstakingly analyzed freeze frame by freeze frame to see if it was posessed.Makes sense to me.NOT. Its Fd up and its a red herring to even get into the impact on the game it occurred in. It was a terrible call by the same ref who screwed Johnson a few years ago. The rule needs to be changed but it still was misinterpreted in that situation. I just want to see good football. I want to see guys get credit for the plays they make, not listen to some entrenched self aggrandizing ref play god.

[HumanCockroach]

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.