COWGIRLS CAN WHINE ALL THEY WANT

[White Devil]

Wait, is this the catch we're talking about here?

I would say there was a catch, 2 steps, and a stretch for the end zone, with the right elbow and forearm down on the ground which ended the play while he had control of the ball. This was where the ref marked him as being down by contact.

After being down by contact, he rolled, bobbled the ball and then you have your picture.

Are not you a closet cowboys fan?????
The replay ref surprisingly got the call right. Now the rule itself is stupid and needs to be changed or at least tweeked but it was called to the letter of the rule, like it or not. 2 steps or 80 doesn't matter if you don't control the ball, see the ball bouncing off the ground,

The crux of the matter is this: Upon a challenge by Green Bay, the "Calvin Johnson Rule" was applied to a spectacular catch by Bryant with less than five minutes to go. The application overturned the fourth down call and the Packers ran out the clock for a 26-21 win.

However, the Calvin Johnson Rule – so named because of a controversial non-catch by the Lions' playmaker in 2010 – applies to receivers going to the ground in the process of making a catch.

The thing is, Bryant is such a superior athlete that he had already made the catch and transitioned to being a rusher.

What Bryant was doing was different from Johnson, who was falling backwards in the end zone. Bryant was in stride when he leaped to catch the ball, not falling backwards.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/bry ... ar-AA83tMY

Oh. Well that settles it. The superior athlete that is in mortal form walking the earth known as Dez Bryant is who we're talking about? Then by all means it has to be a catch.

Rule applies to all other mortal professional athletes EXCEPT Dez Bryant. He is the exception to this and all rules.

:th2thumbs: Gotcha.

 

[Largent80]

Big deal, last week they advanced because of a bad call. This wasnt a bad call....Buh Bye

 

[Seafan]

BTW, walking around south Texas the Cowgirl fans of course are bitter but most of them are realistic. I'm hearing they knew they were going to get their asses kicked in Seattle but just wanted to go to the NFCC.

The knowledgeable among the Cowboy faithful are in awe of the Seahawks. They know they got us when we were down and are well aware that WE ARE BACK. For the first time in 30 years I'm going to have to give these morons some credit.

 

[DTexHawk]

Moreover, the rule specifically has a note when a player is going to the ground. It clearly states after they gain possession and get two feet in bounds - if they are falling to the ground - rather than making a football move - they must maintain control through the entire catch. Period. Dez should have turned onto his back rather than stretch out.

And this is where the disagreement will always be.

Rule 8, Section 1, Item 1
"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...............

Those who think it was a catch "saw" that he went up, caught the ball with 2 hands, came down on 2 feet (catch completed), then transferred the ball to his left hand and dove to the endzone.

 

[TDOTSEAHAWK]

Those who think it was a catch "saw" that he went up, caught the ball with 2 hands, came down on 2 feet (catch completed), then transferred the ball to his left hand and dove to the endzone.

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. 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.

You are getting confused between making a catch and part (a) securing control.

Securing control is NOT a catch. The rule begins with, "A player who makes a catch may advance the ball." This means a catch includes all parts of the rule described and not just securing control.

After Dez (a) secured control and (b) got TWO feet in bounds - he was clearly falling to the ground. These things cannot happen simultaneously. Therefore, all things that happened before Dez got his second foot down, and in bounds, is irrelevant to the football move part. The act common to the game MUST HAPPEN AFTER parts (a) and (b).

Moreover, the rule is written in such a way that if a player is falling to the ground after they have secured control and got both feet down - the part about an act common to the game is irrelevant.

 

[Ramfan128]

It clearly isn't a catch by the rules.

The "play common to the game" part of the rule specifically has to happen after the receiver gets control and gets 2 feet down. If you watch the play - Dez gets both feet down with possession but then just continues to fall - which is not a play common to the game.

Moreover, the rule specifically has a note when a player is going to the ground. It clearly states after they gain possession and get two feet in bounds - if they are falling to the ground - rather than making a football move - they must maintain control through the entire catch. Period. Dez should have turned onto his back rather than stretch out.

At the end of the day, I actually like this rule as there is no ambiguity as to what is a catch. In other words, a forward pass is incomplete until the receiver proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not.

This isn't as black and white as you are making it seem. Dez catches the ball with his hands then pins it in his chest which establishes possession, he has 2 feet in bounds and then makes a "play common to the game" by reaching the ball out of his chest while lunging to the goal line. It doesn't matter that he's falling down because he's already established possession. Therefore even if the ball comes out when he hits the ground it's still a catch.

Even if Dez had secured the catch as soon as it hit his hands, I think this would have been incomplete. But he didn't. He actually bobbled the ball for a split second BEFORE he secured it, before hitting the ground. The rule IS very cut and dry. Clear to see that was an incomplete pass. The rule will likely be changed now, and that's a good thing. But by the rule, that's clearly incomplete.

Another way to think of it is this: Let's say the play happens the same, except a fraction of a second before Bryant hits the ground, Sam Shields knocks the ball out - do you think that would have been a fumble or an incomplete pass? Because according to your argument, that play would be a fumble.....and there's no ref that would ever rule that a fumble. So they got it right.

 

[DTexHawk]

After Dez (a) secured control and (b) got TWO feet in bounds - he was clearly falling to the ground. These things cannot happen simultaneously. Therefore, all things that happened before Dez got his second foot down, and in bounds, is irrelevant to the football move part. The act common to the game MUST HAPPEN AFTER parts (a) and (b).

Last comment from me as this could go on forever (feel free to shoot it down if you wish).

You claim "clearly falling" to the ground, while the other side claims "diving for the endzone" which they contend is an act common to the game and is typical of Bryant and virtually every football player as they get near the end zone.

I heard of one comment from a league official that "Bryant didn't make enough of a move" which brings in a tremendous amount of gray. Did he make 27% of a move but need 51%? The official right at the spot thought and ruled it was enough as he marked it down where/when the elbow and forearm were down at the 1/2 yd line.

I dislike gray.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I dislike gray.

That's why I started the 1999 thread, they gotta go back to when it was black and white "if the ball hits the ground, no catch."

Enough of judgement call catch rules.

 

[hawk45]

After Dez (a) secured control and (b) got TWO feet in bounds - he was clearly falling to the ground. These things cannot happen simultaneously. Therefore, all things that happened before Dez got his second foot down, and in bounds, is irrelevant to the football move part. The act common to the game MUST HAPPEN AFTER parts (a) and (b).

Moreover, the rule is written in such a way that if a player is falling to the ground after they have secured control and got both feet down - the part about an act common to the game is irrelevant.

This is my interpretation also. All of the carping about the football move is irrelevant. The football move part comes into play if you're *not* going to the ground but have landed with both feet down and control. If someone knocks your face off before you've made your "football move" then it isn't a fumble. That's why the football move part is there.

In a going to the ground scenario the football move doesn't enter into it, not at all. You can be doing jukes in mid-air with perfect control of the ball, but if you land and the ball comes loose it is not a catch.

At least that's my interpretation.

Now Blandino himself has for some reason responded that a lunge does not constitute a football move. This explanation makes it seem like the football move *is* important in this case, confusing things all over again.

 

[TDOTSEAHAWK]

This is my interpretation also. All of the carping about the football move is irrelevant. The football move part comes into play if you're *not* going to the ground but have landed with both feet down and control. If someone knocks your face off before you've made your "football move" then it isn't a fumble. That's why the football move part is there.

In a going to the ground scenario the football move doesn't enter into it, not at all. You can be doing jukes in mid-air with perfect control of the ball, but if you land and the ball comes loose it is not a catch.

At least that's my interpretation.

Now Blandino himself has for some reason responded that a lunge does not constitute a football move. This explanation makes it seem like the football move *is* important in this case, confusing things all over again.

Blandino may have said one thing but the referee who made the call in his press conference called the football move irrelevant because he was going to the ground.

 

[TDOTSEAHAWK]

Last comment from me as this could go on forever (feel free to shoot it down if you wish).

You claim "clearly falling" to the ground, while the other side claims "diving for the endzone" which they contend is an act common to the game and is typical of Bryant and virtually every football player as they get near the end zone.

I heard of one comment from a league official that "Bryant didn't make enough of a move" which brings in a tremendous amount of gray. Did he make 27% of a move but need 51%? The official right at the spot thought and ruled it was enough as he marked it down where/when the elbow and forearm were down at the 1/2 yd line.

I dislike gray.

Even by this logic - he obviously started an act common to the game but didn't complete it.

Imagine an act common to the that is listed - like throwing the ball. This would be akin to getting halfway through the throw and not completing it. It doesn't say start a football move but complete it. This is why all those very quick plays are always incomplete passes rather than fumbles.

Even so going to the ground makes the football move irrelevant.

 

[canfan]

I really don't care if Cowboy fans accept it or whine about it. The thing that makes me happy right now is the fact that Michael Irvin and Deon Sanders are getting ulcers over it.

In fact, if Cowboy fans are convinced they were jobbed, it just makes it that much more entertaining! IMHO, the call was right, the rule is wrong! But Jerrah can send his boy wonder back to the competition committe to fix that in the off season.

 

[White Devil]

I don't get the argument that he wasn't going to the ground while making the catch but was lunging forward.

He lunged forward as he caught himself while falling to the ground. A great play if pulled off, but again by making the decision to make that play he pulls in the risk/reward factor of losing control of the ball. You guys make it sound like he caught the ball, landed squarely with 2 feet down and leaped toward the endzone. Didn't happen.

Momentum was carrying his out of control body to the ground. He was going to the ground, lunge or no lunge. By going to the ground, it brings in the process of completing the catch.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Mike Pereira had the best quote on this, he said if 50 drunk guys in the bar watch a play, and 48 of them think it's a catch then the rule needs to reflect that.........not the other way around.

Just the fact that we've all argued over whether this is a catch or not for pages says that the rule's broke and needs to be fixed.

 

[White Devil]

well Mike would know drunk.

As for the rule I don't see how you can change it. This actually is the revised version of the rule already that was changed after 1999. There's nothing wrong with the rule as it stands unless someone wants to add an addendum that if this happens again to someone as popular as Dez, it does not apply. :snack:

 

[mikeak]

The discussion shouldn't be centered around what he did with his hands around the ball it should be around what his legs did.

From reading this thread it is clear that the actual difference in interpretation is did he establish his feet and make a football move. People seem to have listened to his explenation which to me doesn't mean much

He goes up for the ball, comes down and falls / throws himself forward. Either way that move intentional or not intentional is part of him coming down to the ground. It is not 2 steps while fully in control of his body (you can argue one step in control).

It is no different than a guy going up in the air across the middle of the field, coming down in the field of play with both feet and then getting smacked with the ball coming lose. That will be ruled an incompletion and not a fumble despite him coming down. The act of coming down and falling forward at the same time is not a football move

 

[HawkFan72]

I don't even think Dez got two feet down before diving. If you watch closely, the ball bobbles when it is initially caught. By the time it stops bobbling around, I think he only gets one foot down and then dives. Then it pops out when he hits the ground. I have heard complainers on the radio talking about how he got "3 feet down" so it should be a catch. If you watch the control of the ball, though, I don't know that he even got 2 feet down on the play.