He took two steps with the ball firmly in his hands, and the ball was jarred loose only because he tried to reach out and tag the pylon. He never lost possession. The Cowpokes got jobbed.
OT: Dez Bryant Caught The Ball
- Thread starter Hungry Jack
- Start date
The rule is dumb but by rule it's clearly a fumble. It's the Calvin Johnson rule.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
My understanding of the rule is that if a player leaps or leaves his feet to catch the ball, he has to complete the catch as he goes to the ground, and if, during this process, the contact between the ball and the ground jars the ball loose a bit, it is an incomplete pass. I think the "two feet" understanding of a catch is only a rule if the player is upright and balanced.
The ball popped out/up when it hit the ground. Clearly incomplete pass. If his hands were under the ball when it hit the ground/popped up (and subsequently secured) it would have been a good catch.
He has to make a "football move" after the catch In my opinion, three steps and a lunge toward the goal line was a football move. Had he gone straight to the ground and been attempting to tuck the ball away and had it jarred loose by the ground, it would have been incomplete. But he was stretching out and diving to try and make a touchdown.
But they are the refs and I am not.
But they are the refs and I am not.
I don't agree with the rule, but it was clearly incomplete with the way they've been calling it. I've seen similar passes called incomplete several times this year. The Cowpokes were there because Detroit got jobbed the previous week, so no sympathy from this quarter.
September 24, 2012
"Incomplete pass" was the correct interpretation of a rule that probably needs to be modified. Enough on that. More on the effect of it:
Why this particular reversed call is so wonderful for Packer backers has to do with the events in Seattle on September 24, 2012 in what is now called either the "Fail Mary" or "Inaccurate Reception" game. That blown call by the replacement refs on the last play of the game was crucial to the Packers season. Because of it, GB at 11-5 was seeded below the Niners (11-4-1) who therefore got a bye week and then faced the Packers in San Francisco rather than having to compete in GB in January.
The correct game-ending call today versus Dallas opened the door for next Sunday's opportunity for redemption; that is, if the Pack and karma can beat the Seahawks in their house. They failed in their first attempt up there at the start of this season, and now it's even more of a long shot with a gimpy QB. But all you can ask for is the chance in a high-stakes scenario, and right now the score is 0-0 with 60 minutes left to play.
Can Cheeseheads count on the Bears faithful to be in GB's corner as they carry the banner of the NFC Central into battle?
"Incomplete pass" was the correct interpretation of a rule that probably needs to be modified. Enough on that. More on the effect of it:
Why this particular reversed call is so wonderful for Packer backers has to do with the events in Seattle on September 24, 2012 in what is now called either the "Fail Mary" or "Inaccurate Reception" game. That blown call by the replacement refs on the last play of the game was crucial to the Packers season. Because of it, GB at 11-5 was seeded below the Niners (11-4-1) who therefore got a bye week and then faced the Packers in San Francisco rather than having to compete in GB in January.
The correct game-ending call today versus Dallas opened the door for next Sunday's opportunity for redemption; that is, if the Pack and karma can beat the Seahawks in their house. They failed in their first attempt up there at the start of this season, and now it's even more of a long shot with a gimpy QB. But all you can ask for is the chance in a high-stakes scenario, and right now the score is 0-0 with 60 minutes left to play.
Can Cheeseheads count on the Bears faithful to be in GB's corner as they carry the banner of the NFC Central into battle?
The explanation there is that he did not go to the ground as part of the process of catching the punt, but rather as a result of contact by an opponent. I'm not entirely sure I interpret the play the same way, but it's consistent with the rules.
Re: September 24, 2012
As a lifelong Chicagoan, I have no love for the Packers. I DO, however, have a healthy respect for them and I admire the hell out of Rogers. So yeah, I guess you can count me on your side for this one. As a side note here, Pal, I think they're calling it the NFC North now. Don't feel bad, though; I still instinctively think of it as the Central after all those years.
I'm probably in the minority, but here goes . . .
As a lifelong Chicagoan, I have no love for the Packers. I DO, however, have a healthy respect for them and I admire the hell out of Rogers. So yeah, I guess you can count me on your side for this one. As a side note here, Pal, I think they're calling it the NFC North now. Don't feel bad, though; I still instinctively think of it as the Central after all those years.
Re: September 24, 2012
I think Glidecat is right about the "football move." Looked to me like Bryant had clear possession for two steps and then hit the ground where he bobbled it. Similar to a key Rashad Lawrence catch vs. Vandy in 2012. He ran about two steps after catching the ball and then dropped it as he was driven to the ground out of bounds. Refs ruled it a catch and it led to our game winning score. I still think GB would have found a way to win anyway with 4:00 still to play, but the rule needs to be clarified.
I think Glidecat is right about the "football move." Looked to me like Bryant had clear possession for two steps and then hit the ground where he bobbled it. Similar to a key Rashad Lawrence catch vs. Vandy in 2012. He ran about two steps after catching the ball and then dropped it as he was driven to the ground out of bounds. Refs ruled it a catch and it led to our game winning score. I still think GB would have found a way to win anyway with 4:00 still to play, but the rule needs to be clarified.
If he actually had tagged the pylon, then upon hitting the ground the ball popped out, would it be a catch or no catch? The touchdown happens when the ball tags the pylon, correct? But the ball popping out would have negated the touchdown that had already happened?
I'm so confused.
And as a Cowboys fan, I'm pissed.
If he hits the pylon with the ball, then the ball hits the turf and comes loose, it's a TD. The sequence of events means that the play effectively ends when the ball breaks the plane of the end zone.
I think.
It all comes down to whether the 2-3 steps Bryant took after grabbing the ball in flight counts as his "process" of completing the catch or doing a "football" move after gaining possession of the ball. I saw the latter. The clincher for me is him reaching for the pylon.
I think.
It all comes down to whether the 2-3 steps Bryant took after grabbing the ball in flight counts as his "process" of completing the catch or doing a "football" move after gaining possession of the ball. I saw the latter. The clincher for me is him reaching for the pylon.
I thought the "2-3 steps" looked like Bryant stumbling to the ground. Once the nose of the ball hit the ground and the ball moved, there was no way, based on the officiating of the last decade, that they could call it a catch.
While he may have taken 2-3 steps after grabbing the ball in flight, he was quite obviously stumbling to the ground at the same time. It doesn't matter if he was able to reach out for the pylon or not, or how many steps he took while stumbling -- if he is going to the ground, then he must maintain possession the first time the ball touches the ground, and he did not.
The officials reversed the call on the field, the league office backed them up (which they do not do if a call is blown), and Mike Pereira immediately identified it as an incomplete pass on the TV broadcast and agreed with the reversal (which he did not do during the DET/DAL controversy the week before). You can certainly argue that the rule itself needs to be rewritten, but it was correctly applied in this situation.
The officials reversed the call on the field, the league office backed them up (which they do not do if a call is blown), and Mike Pereira immediately identified it as an incomplete pass on the TV broadcast and agreed with the reversal (which he did not do during the DET/DAL controversy the week before). You can certainly argue that the rule itself needs to be rewritten, but it was correctly applied in this situation.
Just for full disclosure, I am a Packer fan...
1.) The Cowboy's biggest lost opportunity was in the 1st half where they had a chance to knock the Packers off their game permanently and didn't get it done. In the 2nd half, Rodgers was on. In the 1st half, it was there to be had.
2.) While I understand being upset about that call, realistically there still would a been time enough left for Rodgers to run the Packers down the field at the end. They would've only needed a field goal to win (or tie IF the Cowboys got a 2 pt conversion). Even on the last drive where they were just trying to run the clock out, they were moving the ball easily. However, I can see still wanting to score there anyway because the Packers could have possibly turned it over or missed a field goal.
3.) Any Cowboys fan can take solace in the fact that Green Bay is unlikely to make it past Seattle anyway. I doubt if the Cowboys would be able to beat them twice either though as I think it's hard to do that unless the teams are very distant in talent. As such, I also have a hard time believing that a team could beat the Packers 2 times in one season, but with Rodgers' gimpy leg it's probably going to be over for us next week.
1.) The Cowboy's biggest lost opportunity was in the 1st half where they had a chance to knock the Packers off their game permanently and didn't get it done. In the 2nd half, Rodgers was on. In the 1st half, it was there to be had.
2.) While I understand being upset about that call, realistically there still would a been time enough left for Rodgers to run the Packers down the field at the end. They would've only needed a field goal to win (or tie IF the Cowboys got a 2 pt conversion). Even on the last drive where they were just trying to run the clock out, they were moving the ball easily. However, I can see still wanting to score there anyway because the Packers could have possibly turned it over or missed a field goal.
3.) Any Cowboys fan can take solace in the fact that Green Bay is unlikely to make it past Seattle anyway. I doubt if the Cowboys would be able to beat them twice either though as I think it's hard to do that unless the teams are very distant in talent. As such, I also have a hard time believing that a team could beat the Packers 2 times in one season, but with Rodgers' gimpy leg it's probably going to be over for us next week.
Dez Bryant needs to learn to secure the ball with 2 hands when coming down with a pass and when carrying the ball thru traffic. The Cowboys would have won the game if he had done that. He is a showboat player.
I have thought about this and disagree. It is true that, if he had been trying to secure the ball rather than trying to score the touchdown, he probably would have held on and Dallas would have the ball at the 1. But if was the type of person that could see the goal that close and - in the heat of the moment - not put everything into trying to cross it, then he would not be a championship player.
He did what his core instincts told him to do and went for it. I don't fault him for it.
He did what his core instincts told him to do and went for it. I don't fault him for it.
You just made my head explode.
The NFL is so powerful today that it can now tell us what isn't a catch when the ball is caught.
The NFL is so powerful today that it can now tell us what isn't a catch when the ball is caught.
Even if he hits the pylon with the ball, if he is going to the ground when he makes the catch and the ball comes loose when it touches the ground, it is an incomplete pass and therefore not a touchdown. You have to complete a catch before a touchdown can be awarded.
I think it is easy to fault Bryant in that scenario. The most important thing any ball carrier must do is secure the ball. How many times have teams turned the ball over by riskily extending the ball over the goal line with one hand only to fumble the ball? We beat Purdue in 2005 because a Purdue WR tried that, fumbled, and the ball rolled out of the end zone for a touchback.
If Bryant had held on to the ball with two hands, they would have had the ball first and goal on the one yard line. Sounds like championship thinking to me.
All of the arguments posited here in support of the ruling are based on the "process" rule, ie the ball must be controlled throughout the process of catching the ball.
But there is another rule described in article 3 section d that stipulates a catch is complete once a move common to the game is made. This is the dreaded "football move", which includes advancing the ball. Bryant took 2-3 steps, and also transferred the ball to his left hand in order to advance it to the pylon.
This post was edited on 1/13 1:44 PM by Hungry Jack
But there is another rule described in article 3 section d that stipulates a catch is complete once a move common to the game is made. This is the dreaded "football move", which includes advancing the ball. Bryant took 2-3 steps, and also transferred the ball to his left hand in order to advance it to the pylon.
This post was edited on 1/13 1:44 PM by Hungry Jack
Similar threads
