Dez Bryant Catch
 

Can't believe this isn't already here. We're slipping.

Trying to keep the discussion off what the rule SHOULD be (like the media is now obsessed with), but rather what the rule IS...

A) How is this not a catch - what exactly is "football move" supposed to mean if it doesn't include a receiver transferring the ball from two hands to one and stretching the ball toward the end zone...

B) What happened to indisputable evidence needed to overturn? Does anyone have a single still image of the ball actually hitting the ground? One angle is clearly blocked, and the other seems to show the wrist lower than the ball when the ball changes direction.

That must not be a football move since it doesn't look like the Heisman trophy.

He never gains complete control of the ball and if he cannot survive the ground, shame on him.

Peace

Just curious... which of my 2 questions were you failing to answer with this?

Steratore said there were numerous angles that showed the ball hitting the ground and did not agree with Garrett's assertion that Bryant made a move common to the game. After consultation with the New York offices, Steratore decided to change the call.

"Although the receiver is possessing the football, he must maintain possession of that football throughout the entire process of the catch," Steratore said in a pool report. "In our judgment he maintained possession but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game. We deemed that by our judgment to be the full process of the catch and at the time he lands and the ball hits the ground it comes loose as it hits the ground, which would make that incomplete. Although he re-possesses it, it does contact the ground when he reaches so the repossession is irrelevant because it was ruled an incomplete pass when he had the ball hit the ground."


http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/...s-not-due-refs

The explanations of several NFL (Former Officials) regarding application of the current rule (AS WRITTEN) seemed to explain the judgment that produced the final determination. Whether some will agree with or accept those determinations is another matter.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of dispute that the wording of the rule may contribute to the confusion and disagreement. Sometimes it seems the more words that used to clarify a rule, only serve to inject added confusion.

ESPECIALLY at the NFL level, where unique skills are often applied to specific situations to create unique circumstances, efforts to define all encompassing requirements produce more controversy than clarification.

To the Cowboys credit, despite vehement disagreement and considerable consequence, they accepted the decision of those empowered to make such determinations.

As soon as I saw the first replay from the sideline POV, I thought it was incomplete and would be reversed. The "football move" - such that it was, he didn't reach much - wasn't a separate move but at best was done while falling during the initial catch. So he still has to maintain control through that fall. And yes, the sideline POV replay clearly showed it bouncing off the ground and coming loose. Easy call in relation to the rule IMO.

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.

The rule is simple and the situation is simple. This has been discussed all over the place. I did not realize you needed my words to get the answer you were looking for.

Peace

Non-official here. I actually thought the call in yesterday's game was correct, unlike the Calvin Johnson play from a few years ago.

everyone knows the rule, the officials know what is needed to be a catch when the ball hits the ground.

Why was it called a catch to start with?? It should have been ruled incomplete and Dallas should have had to challenge and lost.

Because they can officiate to replay.

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.

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.

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

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.

It looked like he moved to quickly to the spot and didn't stay focused on the receiver long enough to clearly see him as he hit the ground. Take your time and see the entire play.

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.

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

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

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.

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

A lot more responsive guidance would be a definite benefit. However we shouldn't lose sight of the reality that people BELOW the age of 19, are a lot different physically, emotionally and experience wise than adults who WORK in an enormous entertainment venue that has entirely different objectives than "interscholastic" sports.

Collegiate and professional levels of football are undoubtedly played at a higher level, and many of the enhancements developed at, or for, these levels do provide benefit and improvement to the game, but not all.

I do not think it is too much to ask players to do basic things. I also do not think if we do what many suggest, we will have very debatable situations where fumbles ruled because we use another arbitrary line of things like "how many feet touch" when the player displays no control or likelihood for control. Sorry, that to me is not good for the officials either. It is not IMO bad to require a player to show complete control. With the texture of the gloves, they can do that if they really control the ball.

Peace

I agree. I get frustrated when I see a bang-bang hit after a catch and the crew rules catch/fumble because the receiver had one foot touching the ground when he possessed the ball. It's a cheap turnover. It may not be an officially endorsed philosophy by the NFHS, but I know a lot of officials who use philosophies similar to NCAA and NFL on catch/no catch. It makes it so much more consistent.

Then you need to sit on, if not Chair, the NFHS Rule Revision Committee,or effort. There are differences between teenagers and the upper most level of skilled adult professional athletes. Until you get to where your personal assessments should apply to everyone, perhaps you might consider what HS officials have done for the past 100, or so, years and enforce the rules of the game as written by those empowered to do so.

Perhaps you missed where he said, "I do not officiate for the NF." He doesn't need to enforce the rules of the HS game ... he's not working them.

If you look back, a few exchanged comments, you'll find this sub-discussion was explicitly related to NFHS rules and differences.

The reality simply is; there are different levels of the game, which each are goverened by unique rule codes (NFHS, NCAA, NFL) which are slightly adjusted rules and interpretations, designed specifically for their respective levels. It's less a question of right vs wrong, or which adjustments are "better" as it is "differences" applied to suit each particular level.

Keep in perspective, there are a wide variety of locations covering HS football Nationwide, which includes Varsity, on down and most Youth football, operating with 4 and 5 man officiating crews, which is a completely different challenge than 6, 7, and now, 8 man configurations.

Although many of us enjoy the opportunity to work on multiple levels, the smart thing to do is adhere to the rules of whatever level you happen to be assigned to, for the game you're working.

When you call holding by not using a philosophy let me know (I have called it that way practically my entire career.) Then tell me how many games you are working as a result. Because if I call it only the way the NF says by the absence of language of POA and advantage/disadvantage, then I would still be working Pop Warner or Bill George ball. For the record, I do most things with the exact same philosophy for holding that I call or use at the NCAA or college level and that the NFL basically teaches as I do for catching a football. And if the state that I live in did not like such philosophies, they would have said something to me or my crew in my last State Final game when I called an incomplete pass for a player not surviving the ground and a hit (I posted that here BTW). I did not hear a single word from anyone telling me to do anything different. Now that was 4 years ago, so I guess that does not apply to those 100 years you are referencing. :)

Peace

Maybe you do not realize this, but the National Federation does not assign a single game in most states (someone will claim they do). Even the IHSA only assigns games for the post season in my state. Otherwise I work for an assignor(s) that would rather their officials to use proper philosophies along with the rules stated.

Peace

For which your assignor is fully entitled to define as his authoroty permits, to those he supervises, but that's as far as it goes.

I believe in the three legged stool.
 

I do not have an assignor. I theoretically can and often do work for 9 different people throughout a season and that only involves the regular season. During the post season there is only one assignor to deal with and that is the person that comes directly from the IHSA and if they do not like what we do as a crew, they have a lot of other crews to work those games than my crew.

Also I never stated that what I do is what others would do across the country. If you have to follow some other philosophy, that is fine with me. But here, we are taught many things that if you do not follow, you will not be working varsity ball or not join a varsity crew. And the NF even allows interpretations from local areas as to what to do. In a video made by someone on the NF committee on targeting, our state's people took a little different take on situations put out in that video. And just like that issue, there are people in other states that have the right and do have different expectations where the rules do not use a philosophy that is well defined.

Peace