Dez had two hands on the ball while in the air. The defender got a hand on the ball, forcing it to move from Dez's hands to his shoulder, so no clear possession established. At that point, he needs to "finish the process" of the catch - whether you like the rule or not, that is what it is.
When he goes to the ground, he stretches out and both his arm and the ball contact the ground, and the ball moves again. Right there it becomes an incomplete pass.
but I definitely don't think anything was "clear" about that or it was an obvious call. It was a very long review and I believe will be long-debated (even though I think it was correct).
here is if you believe that Dez was going to the ground as part of the catch or not. If you conclude it was all part of the same action, then its not a catch. If you think he caught it and then ran 2 steps and fell to the ground while being tackled, its down by contact. The rules are pretty clear on this.
I thought it was all part of the same action, but it was really close. This should make for some great bitching and moaning tomorrow on talk radio here in Dallas!!!!
If Bryant took 3 steps, we wouldn't be having this talk
The fact that he stumbled and fell and didn't maintain control is the issue.
There is no "if". Bryant caught ball, came down, took three steps, reached for the goal line. We're the steps not steps? Is there a new definition of steps I don't know about?
RE: RE: If Bryant took 3 steps, we wouldn't be having this talk
The fact that he stumbled and fell and didn't maintain control is the issue.
There is no "if". Bryant caught ball, came down, took three steps, reached for the goal line. We're the steps not steps? Is there a new definition of steps I don't know about?
You are right, there is no "if" - he didn't come down with the ball. Number of steps don't matter if you don't have possession. He was in the air, was contacted, and went to the ground. He has to maintain possession all the way through the process. His arm and the ball hit the ground and the ball came loose.
His two feet landing from jumping isn't taking two steps,
Thought it was going to be called a catch, but knew the rule. Before I saw the replay I thought it was in the air and a TD. Either way, glad they didn't make it.
I thought it was a catch until I saw on the replay that the ground...
Every replay was looking to see if the ball touched the ground, which it didn't. If it did hit the ground but it didn't move would that have still been a catch? Cuz, The ball Dez caught hit the ground and moved he lost control as he rolled and then repossessed it.
As soon as I saw the ball pop up as Dez rolled over. Clearly not a catch. Dez was going to the ground as he came down with the ball which puts the Calvin Johnson rule into effect and he clearly didn't maintain possession. I'm with Gary here, that's about as obvious as it gets and pretty much by the book.
I am amazed / surprised how much debate there is...
Dez fell, the ball hit the ground and moved in his hand - it turned further out of his grasp. Yes he stood up and caught it from there, but it hit the ground, his hands lost their grip on it. Not a catch at all...was surprised Carey said it was (actually not surprised - Pereira usually is on point tho).
Whereas say the Tyree catch, even if the ball had touched the ground when he bent backward and had his two hands on the ball, he had control so the ball CAN touch the ground there (tho it didn't at all, just a point of comparison) and still be called a catch.
for reaching in that spot. Instinct or not, he needs to understand the time/yardage situation. He messed up by not taking the sure thing.
It's unfortunate because I do think it "deserves" to be a catch. But by the current rules it simply wasn't because he was falling down and didn't keep control of the ball all the way through.
The correct call was made based on the rule. But the rule could be tweaked to redefine what a catch is.
Did anyone notice that in the camera shot that the network used
to show that the nose of the ball had hit the ground there was an official standing not ten yards away from Bryant looking at exactly what the camera saw and called it a completion.
If the official looking right down on top of the play couldn't call it right then something's wrong with the official or, more likely, the rule is too complicated for an official to make the call when the he sees the play live and at full speed.
As soon as I saw the ball pop up as Dez rolled over. Clearly not a catch.
I'm not tooting my own horn, but I thought the same thing live. The question at the time was whether the ball hit the ground or not. Had Dez's hand been completely under the ball when it hit the ground (jarring the ball loose), it would have been a catch.
That was a catch. Or should be if by that stupid rule
The whole stupid shenanigans about "keeping clear possesion through the falling to and contact with the ground" counts only if the catch and process of falling are one and the same.. Looks to me like the catch was finished, and the falling was part of a second football move, the attempt to cross the goal line with the ball for the td.
Dumbass shit to rob the game of its best play by one of the league's best players.
The whole stupid shenanigans about "keeping clear possesion through the falling to and contact with the ground" counts only if the catch and process of falling are one and the same.
Yes, they were one and the same. At no point was Dez in control of his own center of gravity when he jumped for the football. At that point, he must maintain possession until contacting the ground.
Imagine instead of falling to the ground, Dez was hit by a defender and the ball came loose. That would be ruled incomplete and no one would oppose the call. We've seen this COUNTLESS times.
that's open to interpretation. Clearly it was ruled on review as you see it, one and the same move. But I'd be pissed if I was Dez or any other WR making that catch. And, to reiterate, it's at least arguable and was ruled a catch by the live official on the field.
"Imagine instead of falling to the ground, Dez was hit by a defender and the ball came loose. That would be ruled incomplete and no one would oppose the call. We've seen this COUNTLESS times." He WAS falling to the ground with clear possession of the ball ALREADY. He moved the ball from two hands to one, his left hand, so that he could break his fall (or so that he could extend the ball towards the plane of the goal line, doesn't really matter why, the point is changing how he held the ball is clear possession IMO and a "football move" to boot) and then his free right arm hits the ground, all the way to the elbow, very clearly, before the lone left hand holding the ball strikes the ground. I think the rule, even as currently written, should allow that right elbow hitting the ground as the END OF THE PLAY. They don't even need to change the rule again; just interpret "hitting the ground" the same as the refs already do for a running back or QB or anyone else carrying the ball...
One elbow clearly down, the ball clearly in Dez's grip and it has been for a few seconds, that's a catch. The old "rule" that "the ground can't cause a fumble" was far better...
Trust me, the Giants are gonna get burned by this dumbass rule on some fantastic catch by OBJ at some point, and we'll all be singing the tune of how the rule, as currently written and interpreted, sucks ballz.
consistent with the fumble rule - if possession has been established. To my eyes, possession was very clearly already established by a "football move" - shifting the ball from two hands to one to allow an arm free to brace oneself.
Oh well. Not arguing the rule isn't currently being interpreted to count the "catch" as continuing all the way through hitting the ground, sliding, rolling over, falling down a gopher hole, whatever. It's dumb.
A play where the receiver caught the ball in the end zone with two feet down and it pops out and gets caught by a defender... touchdown or interception?
...is that Bryant was bobbling the ball right before the start of the GIF. So this wasn't a case of him securing the ball, and then turning and lunging. He only had it securely as he was starting to fall. And then the ground popped it loose. No catch.
IMO it is a stupid rule, but it's the rule and this was clear. If they change it in the offseason, I am fine with that.
If he maintains possession and reaches the ball over the
plane of the end zone prior to the ball hitting the ground it's a TD. He can then lose control of the ball after, but he does not accomplish this. He would have been better off controlling the ball with both hands and be content with being down at the 1 yard line. His desire to score prevented the catch because it hit the ground, came loose and therefore became an incomplete pass. That is fine line of the rule and the play itself. Dallas would probably have scored a TD with 4 cracks from the 1 yard line.
Game of inches.
RE: RE: RE: I can't believe there's so much debate about this
Gary, I'm glad you think it was that obvious. I'm not so convinced and ice read the rule and watched the replay 100 times.
I guess it depends on what you think is happening after he catches the ball. Some are arguing that he took two steps, therefore that counts as an action common to the game, i.e. a "football move" so it's a catch.
Watching the reply, it seems clear to me that he's not securing possession and taking two steps. He's falling and his feet hit the ground as he falls. Therefore the ball hits the ground as part of the process of going to the ground and pops out. That's an incomplete pass.
You can watch it here on continuous loop until it drives you insane. Link - ( New Window )
Thanks for that link and the gif by Osi there. When I first saw the replay I thought it wasn't a catch. But after looking a those two things a few times, I think I was wrong. He caught the ball, took two, dove for the endzone and then the ball popped out after his knee touched the ground. I think the act of taking 2 steps and lunging for the endzone constitutes a football move. I actually think it is 2 football moves, but it is at least one. That said, glad the Cowboys lost.
Of officiating was just on Sirius and they went over that exact point, and he said that even if it crossed the plane of the goal and then came out it still would have been overturned. His momentum from leaving the ground was still taking him back towards the ground and the rule would still have applied. He did not catch the ball land on his feet and run two steps and dive. Thats not what happened. His "steps" were part of the act of falling. .so he has to finish the catch. That's the rule. Football move wasnt even part of the discussion because he never gathered himself as a runner, he was turning and falling down...by the rule it is not a catch.
During the post game Menefee referenced two tweets. This one and the Lion's. I thought to myself "What does OBJ's opinion have anything to do with this?"
Of officiating was just on Sirius and they went over that exact point, and he said that even if it crossed the plane of the goal and then came out it still would have been overturned.
Yep, just like the TD catch that wasn't by Randle (I think?) against the Redskins this year.
You guys are not looking at the same gif in this post that I am....
Because Bryant's knee clearly never touches the ground until after the ball hits the ground and pops out. Now, I do agree that his elbow touched the ground first, but I'm not sure an elbow is considered down for a receiver in the act of a catch.
Yes, he is still in the act of the catch because he never caught it cleanly. He did not shift it to one hand to reach for the goal line. The ball got jarred loose from his hands by the cornerback. Lucky for Bryant, the ball falls on his shoulder and he picks it up from there, but at that point it is not a clean catch, he is bobbling and has to maintain control through the ground. He did not. No catch.
He WAS falling to the ground with clear possession of the ball ALREADY. He moved the ball from two hands to one, his left hand, so that he could break his fall (or so that he could extend the ball towards the plane of the goal line, doesn't really matter why, the point is changing how he held the ball is clear possession IMO and a "football move" to boot) and then his free right arm hits the ground, all the way to the elbow, very clearly, before the lone left hand holding the ball strikes the ground. I think the rule, even as currently written, should allow that right elbow hitting the ground as the END OF THE PLAY. They don't even need to change the rule again; just interpret "hitting the ground" the same as the refs already do for a running back or QB or anyone else carrying the ball...
You can't reasonably determine if someone makes a football move while in the air. And how can it possibly be determined that he had "possession", while in the air, given the sort of reckless disregard he had while jumping to attempt the catch? I'm not trying to deter the type of effort Bryant gave, but if a player is going to leap in such a manner, there has to be a reasonable expectation that they can withstand the fall.
Quote:
One elbow clearly down, the ball clearly in Dez's grip and it has been for a few seconds, that's a catch. The old "rule" that "the ground can't cause a fumble" was far better...
One second, tops; thus, why the entire ordeal is considered a "process" as defined by the rule.
Quote: He WAS falling to the ground with clear possession of the ball ALREADY. He moved the ball from two hands to one, his left hand, so that he could break his fall (or so that he could extend the ball towards the plane of the goal line, doesn't really matter why, the point is changing how he held the ball is clear possession IMO and a "football move" to boot) and then his free right arm hits the ground, all the way to the elbow, very clearly, before the lone left hand holding the ball strikes the ground. I think the rule, even as currently written, should allow that right elbow hitting the ground as the END OF THE PLAY. They don't even need to change the rule again; just interpret "hitting the ground" the same as the refs already do for a running back or QB or anyone else carrying the ball...
You can't reasonably determine if someone makes a football move while in the air. And how can it possibly be determined that he had "possession", while in the air, given the sort of reckless disregard he had while jumping to attempt the catch? I'm not trying to deter the type of effort Bryant gave, but if a player is going to leap in such a manner, there has to be a reasonable expectation that they can withstand the fall.
Quote: One elbow clearly down, the ball clearly in Dez's grip and it has been for a few seconds, that's a catch. The old "rule" that "the ground can't cause a fumble" was far better...
One second, tops; thus, why the entire ordeal is considered a "process" as defined by the rule.
The nfl.com video clip backs up your (and others') point and finally I have to agree that by the definition of the rule it clearly is NOT a catch. What finally convinced me upon review was (and many here noted Shields got a piece of the ball, so that's what I looked for, more carefully) that Shields got the tip of the ball, just after Dez initially caught it, so that the ball turned about ~180 degrees and then Dez re-secured it in the crotch of his right arm, high and tight near his shoulder. That second securing of the ball, after Shields contested the initial catch, happened while Dez is on the way down... So at that point I agree the control through contact with the ground takes precedence over any other consideration, and the pop out due to the contact with the ground became the catch breaker.
I wouldn't say Dez was "bobbling the ball" as many here have, but it clearly wasn't a clean catch and hold all the way down to the ground as I earlier thought. A shame re Dez's effort, but kudos to Shields and his fantastic effort to contest the catch. A great play by Dez got negated by a great play by Shields, IMO.
Every replay was looking to see if the ball touched the ground, which it didn't. If it did hit the ground but it didn't move would that have still been a catch? Cuz, The ball Dez caught hit the ground and moved he lost control as he rolled and then repossessed it.
Receiver has to show ball is under full control. I believe if the ball hits the ground but doesnt move, its a catch. If it hits the ground and moves, even if it just a little, then he doesnt have full control & its an incomplete pass.
losing control when your on the 1 secure the catch
To be fair, I dont think there's a WR in the league that wouldnt have tried to reach out for a TD that close, specially in a game of this magnitude, at that point of the game.
The "smart" thing to do is to secure the ball, but at that point its a gut reaction. You see the GL and thats all you can think of.
I'm not a fan of Dez... very good receiver but a big cry baby, but I cant fault him for that. Sometimes thats just the way things go.
I think most people just dont like the rule, but agree that going by the rule, its an incomplete pass.
When he goes to the ground, he stretches out and both his arm and the ball contact the ground, and the ball moves again. Right there it becomes an incomplete pass.
Not really much to see here IMO.
It's a bit convoluted but in the end the WR has to demonstrate a clear cut catch. Whatever works..
Horrible call. But the Football Gods got retribution on the Boys in a quick week after the craziness against Detroit...
I thought it was all part of the same action, but it was really close. This should make for some great bitching and moaning tomorrow on talk radio here in Dallas!!!!
The fact that he stumbled and fell and didn't maintain control is the issue.
The fact that he stumbled and fell and didn't maintain control is the issue.
There is no "if". Bryant caught ball, came down, took three steps, reached for the goal line. We're the steps not steps? Is there a new definition of steps I don't know about?
Quote:
As they would've called a TD.
The fact that he stumbled and fell and didn't maintain control is the issue.
There is no "if". Bryant caught ball, came down, took three steps, reached for the goal line. We're the steps not steps? Is there a new definition of steps I don't know about?
You are right, there is no "if" - he didn't come down with the ball. Number of steps don't matter if you don't have possession. He was in the air, was contacted, and went to the ground. He has to maintain possession all the way through the process. His arm and the ball hit the ground and the ball came loose.
Three nice strides and there's no discussion. When stumbling, protect the ball.
If you make a catch and go to the ground you damn well better maintain complete control of the ball until you get your ass up.
End of story.
Dez fell, the ball hit the ground and moved in his hand - it turned further out of his grasp. Yes he stood up and caught it from there, but it hit the ground, his hands lost their grip on it. Not a catch at all...was surprised Carey said it was (actually not surprised - Pereira usually is on point tho).
Whereas say the Tyree catch, even if the ball had touched the ground when he bent backward and had his two hands on the ball, he had control so the ball CAN touch the ground there (tho it didn't at all, just a point of comparison) and still be called a catch.
It's unfortunate because I do think it "deserves" to be a catch. But by the current rules it simply wasn't because he was falling down and didn't keep control of the ball all the way through.
The correct call was made based on the rule. But the rule could be tweaked to redefine what a catch is.
If the official looking right down on top of the play couldn't call it right then something's wrong with the official or, more likely, the rule is too complicated for an official to make the call when the he sees the play live and at full speed.
I'm not tooting my own horn, but I thought the same thing live. The question at the time was whether the ball hit the ground or not. Had Dez's hand been completely under the ball when it hit the ground (jarring the ball loose), it would have been a catch.
Imagine OBJ made that catch; you'd be bitching like hookers outside in a blizzard that's over-ruled as a non-catch.
Looked to me like clean possession and a clear football move before the ball even hits the ground.
Dumbass shit to rob the game of its best play by one of the league's best players.
Yes, they were one and the same. At no point was Dez in control of his own center of gravity when he jumped for the football. At that point, he must maintain possession until contacting the ground.
Imagine instead of falling to the ground, Dez was hit by a defender and the ball came loose. That would be ruled incomplete and no one would oppose the call. We've seen this COUNTLESS times.
The knee and elbow being down has nothing to do with finishing the catch. This isn't a fumble.
One elbow clearly down, the ball clearly in Dez's grip and it has been for a few seconds, that's a catch. The old "rule" that "the ground can't cause a fumble" was far better...
Trust me, the Giants are gonna get burned by this dumbass rule on some fantastic catch by OBJ at some point, and we'll all be singing the tune of how the rule, as currently written and interpreted, sucks ballz.
Oh well. Not arguing the rule isn't currently being interpreted to count the "catch" as continuing all the way through hitting the ground, sliding, rolling over, falling down a gopher hole, whatever. It's dumb.
Who cares...
IMO it is a stupid rule, but it's the rule and this was clear. If they change it in the offseason, I am fine with that.
Game of inches.
Quote:
Gary, I'm glad you think it was that obvious. I'm not so convinced and ice read the rule and watched the replay 100 times.
I guess it depends on what you think is happening after he catches the ball. Some are arguing that he took two steps, therefore that counts as an action common to the game, i.e. a "football move" so it's a catch.
Watching the reply, it seems clear to me that he's not securing possession and taking two steps. He's falling and his feet hit the ground as he falls. Therefore the ball hits the ground as part of the process of going to the ground and pops out. That's an incomplete pass.
You can watch it here on continuous loop until it drives you insane. Link - ( New Window )
Just seemed weird to me that they referenced it
Yep, just like the TD catch that wasn't by Randle (I think?) against the Redskins this year.
Yes, he is still in the act of the catch because he never caught it cleanly. He did not shift it to one hand to reach for the goal line. The ball got jarred loose from his hands by the cornerback. Lucky for Bryant, the ball falls on his shoulder and he picks it up from there, but at that point it is not a clean catch, he is bobbling and has to maintain control through the ground. He did not. No catch.
Normally, he speaks and acts like a mature young man yet he posts like he has brain damage.
You can't reasonably determine if someone makes a football move while in the air. And how can it possibly be determined that he had "possession", while in the air, given the sort of reckless disregard he had while jumping to attempt the catch? I'm not trying to deter the type of effort Bryant gave, but if a player is going to leap in such a manner, there has to be a reasonable expectation that they can withstand the fall.
One second, tops; thus, why the entire ordeal is considered a "process" as defined by the rule.
Quote: He WAS falling to the ground with clear possession of the ball ALREADY. He moved the ball from two hands to one, his left hand, so that he could break his fall (or so that he could extend the ball towards the plane of the goal line, doesn't really matter why, the point is changing how he held the ball is clear possession IMO and a "football move" to boot) and then his free right arm hits the ground, all the way to the elbow, very clearly, before the lone left hand holding the ball strikes the ground. I think the rule, even as currently written, should allow that right elbow hitting the ground as the END OF THE PLAY. They don't even need to change the rule again; just interpret "hitting the ground" the same as the refs already do for a running back or QB or anyone else carrying the ball...
You can't reasonably determine if someone makes a football move while in the air. And how can it possibly be determined that he had "possession", while in the air, given the sort of reckless disregard he had while jumping to attempt the catch? I'm not trying to deter the type of effort Bryant gave, but if a player is going to leap in such a manner, there has to be a reasonable expectation that they can withstand the fall.
Quote: One elbow clearly down, the ball clearly in Dez's grip and it has been for a few seconds, that's a catch. The old "rule" that "the ground can't cause a fumble" was far better...
One second, tops; thus, why the entire ordeal is considered a "process" as defined by the rule.
The nfl.com video clip backs up your (and others') point and finally I have to agree that by the definition of the rule it clearly is NOT a catch. What finally convinced me upon review was (and many here noted Shields got a piece of the ball, so that's what I looked for, more carefully) that Shields got the tip of the ball, just after Dez initially caught it, so that the ball turned about ~180 degrees and then Dez re-secured it in the crotch of his right arm, high and tight near his shoulder. That second securing of the ball, after Shields contested the initial catch, happened while Dez is on the way down... So at that point I agree the control through contact with the ground takes precedence over any other consideration, and the pop out due to the contact with the ground became the catch breaker.
I wouldn't say Dez was "bobbling the ball" as many here have, but it clearly wasn't a clean catch and hold all the way down to the ground as I earlier thought. A shame re Dez's effort, but kudos to Shields and his fantastic effort to contest the catch. A great play by Dez got negated by a great play by Shields, IMO.
Knineteen, thanks for arguing civilly!
Receiver has to show ball is under full control. I believe if the ball hits the ground but doesnt move, its a catch. If it hits the ground and moves, even if it just a little, then he doesnt have full control & its an incomplete pass.
To be fair, I dont think there's a WR in the league that wouldnt have tried to reach out for a TD that close, specially in a game of this magnitude, at that point of the game.
The "smart" thing to do is to secure the ball, but at that point its a gut reaction. You see the GL and thats all you can think of.
I'm not a fan of Dez... very good receiver but a big cry baby, but I cant fault him for that. Sometimes thats just the way things go.