Dez Bryant Catch

[prosec34]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

He's going to the ground as he's making the catch. Unless he regains control/balance it is not possible for him to make a move "common to the game". If he was able to get his feet under him and then obviously dive to the end zone, then you have a different situation. That's not what happened here. He reached out as he was continuing going to the ground so the only thing that applies is he must survive contact with the ground. Unfortunately the ball hit the ground with his arm stretched.

Was he going to the ground as part of making the catch? Yes
Did the ball hit the ground as part of the process? Yes
Did the contact cause the ball to move? Yes

If the answer to these three questions is yes, then incomplete is the correct answer. If you are going to argue it was a catch, you need to make one of these a No. The only possible one is the first one. I think it would be hard to argue he's got his feet under control at any point during the catch.

That's as good an explanation as I've seen.

I've had fellow high school officials argue this to death with me. Cowboys fans, they are. They seem to not see the ball touch the ground; they see 2-3 steps that Bryant takes; they see him reach for the goalline; but they don't see how this rule easily is applied to this play.

That said, I think the rule should be revised. Bryant made an incredibly athletic play, and I think the rule should reward him with a catch.

[HLin NC]

In HS with a 5 man crew, that same play is probably going to be ruled a catch.
The BJ would be blocked out and I doubt a wing is going to see the ball touch the ground.

Originally Posted by HLin NC

In HS with a 5 man crew, that same play is probably going to be ruled a catch.
The BJ would be blocked out and I doubt a wing is going to see the ball touch the ground.

The deep wing ruled it a catch on the field in the NFL game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

In HS with a 5 man crew, that same play is probably going to be ruled a catch.
The BJ would be blocked out and I doubt a wing is going to see the ball touch the ground.

That depends on the crew, but in my situation I would have ruled that incomplete. You cannot survive the ground and hand me the ball, shame on you. And this play would not have been impossible to see for a BJ either IMO. The BJ might have been the closest one to the play in a 5 man.

Peace

[HLin NC]

So standing on the goal line, between the hashes, you are going to see through the receiver to see the ball touch the ground. The friggin FJ missed it right in front of him.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

So standing on the goal line, between the hashes, you are going to see through the receiver to see the ball touch the ground. The friggin FJ missed it right in front of him.

I would have no better look than an official several yards behind trying to see the football.

And if the ball popped out when he hit the ground, easy call. We do not have 50 angles and slow-motion replay.

Peace

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I would have no better look than an official several yards behind trying to see the football.

And if the ball popped out when he hit the ground, easy call. We do not have 50 angles and slow-motion replay.

Peace

Well you'd have to have seen that the ball hit the ground, otherwise he'd still have an opportunity to finish the catch.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Well you'd have to have seen that the ball hit the ground, otherwise he'd still have an opportunity to finish the catch.

Well if a ball pops up in that manner, it likely hit the ground. You make some rather confident deductions in 5 man.

Peace

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That depends on the crew, but in my situation I would have ruled that incomplete.

Horse hockey.

The only thing you (or any other 5-man BJ) would have seen is that the ball popped up into the air and Bryant was able to re-possess it. You'd call it a TD and congratulate yourself on your excellent timing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

Horse hockey.

The only thing you (or any other 5-man BJ) would have seen is that the ball popped up into the air and Bryant was able to re-possess it. You'd call it a TD and congratulate yourself on your excellent timing.

If you say so.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That depends on the crew, but in my situation I would have ruled that incomplete. You cannot survive the ground and hand me the ball, shame on you. And this play would not have been impossible to see for a BJ either IMO. The BJ might have been the closest one to the play in a 5 man. Peace

I uinderstand both NFL and NCAA have adopted "survive the ground" type interpretations, but under the NFHS code, has there been any such official instruction? Reading 2-4-1 "A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession....."

If possession is maintained while "first contacting the ground", why would losing possession while subsequently rolling along the ground matter, at least as far as the "catch" being completed?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I uinderstand both NFL and NCAA have adopted "survive the ground" type interpretations, but under the NFHS code, has there been any such official instruction? Reading 2-4-1 "A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession....."

If possession is maintained while "first contacting the ground", why would losing possession while subsequently rolling along the ground matter, at least as far as the "catch" being completed?

The NF has not said anything honestly about this and I do not care what they say about this. I do not officiate for the NF. What I do is a philosophy to be consistent in situations. It makes the rulings simple and easy to make a call in high speed. I do not call holding based on the NF wording alone either. Never seen anything about POA or advantage/disadvantage, but that is what is widely applied where I live.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The NF has not said anything honestly about this and I do not care what they say about this. I do not officiate for the NF. What I do is a philosophy to be consistent in situations. It makes the rulings simple and easy to make a call in high speed. I do not call holding based on the NF wording alone either. Never seen anything about POA or advantage/disadvantage, but that is what is widely applied where I live.

Peace

I understand completely, and it's much the same situation where I live. Actually, I was hoping that maybe someone has seen some sort of instruction/guidance to help clarify this situation, and I just missed it.

The list of things that would benefit from a little NFHS clarification, never seems to change or get any shorter.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I understand completely, and it's much the same situation where I live. Actually, I was hoping that maybe someone has seen some sort of instruction/guidance to help clarify this situation, and I just missed it.

The list of things that would benefit from a little NFHS clarification, never seems to change or get any shorter.

If the NF wants things to be done there way, they need to produce videos, trainings with videos like that is used at the NCAA or NFL levels all the time that make their philosophies clear. The NF just thinks a PowerPoint and a couple of videos of targeting is sufficient. But they never address illegal blocks, holding, catches, fumbles or even dead ball fouls. Those would help in bringing consistency. All those things are left to local areas to decide what is acceptable. And for me I use what is taught by the guys at the higher levels.

Peace