Dez Bryant Catch

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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...

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

[JRutledge]

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

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

[bigjohn]

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

[ajmc]

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.

[scrounge]

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.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

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

[hbk314]

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

[bigjohn]

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.

[HLin NC]

Why was it called a catch to start with??

Because they can officiate to replay.

[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.