Poll: You make the call - Dez Bryant

[Dr. Sak]

I debated on weighing in on the subject but I thought of another interesting way to get people's perspective.

We've all seen the Dez Bryant catch/no catch many times. I am not going to ask you what you thought of the play, I am going to ask you another question and for you to vote in the poll:

As Dez Bryant was falling to the ground had the ball been punched out OR if he would have fallen to the ground untouched by a defender and lost the ball (with GB recovering) would you call it a fumble or a incomplete pass?

[NobodyHere]

Incomplete all the way. The ball squirted loose when it touched the ground.

[molson]

I really don't know the nuances of the rule, but I assumed incomplete the whole time because the ball touched the ground, and his hands weren't underneath it.

[cartman]

If it had been punched out as he was reaching for the goal line, yes, I'd be ok with that being called a fumble. If he fell to the ground untouched, and the ball came out while he was reaching for the goal line, or came out after it hit the ground, then yes, a fumble.

In my opinion, once he had taken the steps, shifted hands, and made a clear reach to the goal, the "going to the ground rule" should have been superseded by Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 which states "a catch occurs when a player has secured control of the ball in his hands, he is inbounds and he has maintained control of the ball long enough … to enable him to perform any act common to the game." But the refs decided that the going to ground rule overrode that section.

[kingfc22]

I would likely vote fumble if it was knocked out by the defender before he hit the ground as he had taken 3 steps.

If he fell to the ground like yesterday incomplete based on the current rule.

[Chief Rum]

If it was punched out before he hit the ground, I would view that as still incomplete, as he never had full possession. You need to actually possess the ball to be able to fumble it.

I would presume that Bryant would need to "complete possession" of the ball before a fumble/punch out could happen.

[Julio Riddols]

There is that critical moment where you can see he decides to reach for the end zone. If he just tucks it and turns his body instead, we could be talking about how Aaron Rodgers directed a great final drive to win in what was one hell of a game.. Instead we're talking about this.

[murrayyyyy]

I don't watch the NFL so I'll ask this general question.

His right forearm is down before the ball hits the ground. Is he not down then since the contact from the DB already happened? It seems like in college if this happened the run would be ruled down at the half yard line.

To me if that happens in college it's a catch.

[BillJasper]

I still don't understand how a man can have possession of the ball for five yards and it still not be considered a catch.

[NobodyHere]

The Dez Bryant thing reminds me of this Calvin Johnson play

Detroit Lions wide receiver Calvin Johnson's touchdown overturned - NFL Videos

[JonInMiddleGA]

Catch and a fumble in the scenario you mention.

That's actually the first time I've seen the play btw. Went and looked for slightly longer version at full speed.

Ray Charles & Stevie Wonder could see that's a catch.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The Dez Bryant thing reminds me of this Calvin Johnson play

Detroit Lions wide receiver Calvin Johnson's touchdown overturned - NFL Videos

Can't watch the video from work, but I assume that is the one against the Bears a 3-4 years ago? That play comparison is out there a whole lot (and in fact the Lions Twitter-trolled the Cowboys with it yesterday).

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Can't watch the video from work, but I assume that is the one against the Bears a 3-4 years ago? That play comparison is out there a whole lot (and in fact the Lions Twitter-trolled the Cowboys with it yesterday).

It's the one against the Vikings a season or two ago. I probably should've posted the Bears one as well.

ETA:

here's the Bears video
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...egatron-non-TD

[Dr. Sak]

For those saying "he took 3 steps he had control":

Did the act of him attempting to go up and make the catch cause him to go to the ground or did the defender cause him to go to the ground?

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I still don't understand how a man can have possession of the ball for five yards and it still not be considered a catch.

If he was wide open and caught it, and then took 3 steps or ran 5 yards, he clearly has possession. But here, he's being defended/kind of falling and diving. I suppose the catch really isn't complete until he gets through all that and still has possession. I don't know if the rules as written accurately describe that distinction. But that seems to be how it's usually called. In a catching while moving and being defended kind of case, they're always looking for the end - whether he actually comes down with it. The Calvin Johnson play is the extreme example of that.

[nilodor]

What I think it should be from a what makes sense watching it perspective: fumble. What I think it should be knowing the rules of football: incompletion following the Calvin Johnson rule.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by nilodor

What I think it should be from a what makes sense watching it perspective: fumble. What I think it should be knowing the rules of football: incompletion following the Calvin Johnson rule.

This. Based on a shitty rule it's an incomplete pass

[lungs]

I wanted to vomit when it was called an incomplete pass but I do think they made the right call based on the rule as it is written and interpreted.

But it sure as hell doesn't pass the smell test for me.

[Suicane75]

At first I thought it wasn't a catch by the letter of the law, but it was a catch, if ya know what I mean.

Looking at that though, it's not a catch in any sense. It doesn't appear that the ground knocks the ball loose, he's clearly dropping it before it hits the ground. If the ball doesn't bounce right back up to where he can get it, and instead bounces in any other direction and he doesn't grab it, nobody is getting this worked up.

[Marmel]

The Calvin Johnson rule has been around and known by anybody following football for a few years now. You may not like the rule, but it is clear as day that this was an incomplete pass when applying that rule. The steps and the stretch don't matter...they are all a part of him leaping in the air and falling while trying to not kill himself. Of course his feet are going to come down first to soften the blow of the landing. That entire motion is just physics and gravity, not football moves.

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by lungs

I wanted to vomit when it was called an incomplete pass but I do think they made the right call based on the rule as it is written and interpreted.

But it sure as hell doesn't pass the smell test for me.

Agreed on all accounts here. The rule needs to be revisited, IMO...he made a pretty clear move with the football, so it likely would have been a fumble in that case...but he recovered it himself.

I'd be saying the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot too, FTR

[Grover]

Catch and down at the one. He takes three steps after catching the ball. The ground cannot cause a fumble.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Grover

Catch and down at the one. He takes three steps after catching the ball. The ground cannot cause a fumble.

Thats what I think should have been the call if the NFL wasn't so bad at being the NFL. Maybe thats not what one (and yeah the most important) interpretation says...but its what happened in my view.

The NFL really needs to use some better qualifying criteria, else it should NOT make the call and/or reversal on these kinds of things. We see this so much more often in the NFL than any other sport. There is just too much ambiguity and its quite honestly not fair to the refs.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Grover

Catch and down at the one. He takes three steps after catching the ball. The ground cannot cause a fumble.

You can only fumble if you've had possession, and because he was in the process of going to the ground, possession was still in question.

I happened to open up Twitter right as they were showing the replay, and when I saw a pretty big USA Today writer saying something like "hahaha what a waste of a challenge" I knew this was going to be bad.

[Dr. Sak]

For those saying that it was a catch or fumble by my question...what is your opinion of the previous questioned I asked, because, it is one that NO ONE in the media wants to address.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

For those saying "he took 3 steps he had control":

Did the act of him attempting to go up and make the catch cause him to go to the ground or did the defender cause him to go to the ground?

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

For those saying that it was a catch or fumble by my question...what is your opinion of the previous questioned I asked, because, it is one that NO ONE in the media wants to address.

I would say it was his third step which Dez used to push towards the goal line is what caused him to go to the ground.

[Solecismic]

The Calvin Johnson rule covers this, though in Bryant's defense, he was reaching for the end zone rather than trying to spike the ball.

I don't know if it's a bad rule. Wide receivers do amazing things sometimes to get their hands on the ball. It's a lot to ask to maintain possession throughout the catch sequence. But that's the game today and an issue for the rules committee, not the referee who made the call.

Because offense is up so much the last few years, I'd lean toward not changing the rule.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

I would say it was his third step which Dez used to push towards the goal line is what caused him to go to the ground.

How do you know he used that step to push him towards the goalline? You can't at all see that as he was bringing the ball down out of the air that his momentum was taking him forward?

If during the process of a catch, if a reciever is falling to the ground (which he is in this case), he must maintain control of the ball while coming in contact with the ground. The ball is allow to contact the ground, however, the ground cannot help the reciever gain possession nor can he jar the ball loose.

If we were to accept your answer I would have to be able to convince myself had Dez not take that 3rd step, he would not have fallen to the ground...that 3rd step was the ONLY reason he went to the ground, and he would have not gone to the ground had he not taken it.

[Fidatelo]

I agree with Jim, when guys are making legit catches like the Odell Beckham one then I think it's fair that these guys have a higher standard for a catch than my friends and I might have playing in a park. And when every 2nd QB is putting up numbers like Marino in his prime I don't think we need to lower the catch standards.

[Buccaneer]

Right call. Bad rule except can't think of a better rule without having a lot catches ruled a fumble.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

For those saying that it was a catch or fumble by my question...what is your opinion of the previous questioned I asked, because, it is one that NO ONE in the media wants to address.

So I argue its a catch, but no fumble as the ground cannot cause a fumble.

Apologies for the length here...but I feel it is worthwhile to post in the interest of full context. I have bolded the 2 key pieces that I find are conflicting & the reason for the outrage.

My contention is that his attempt to advance the ball over the goalline satisfies the definition of (c), and therefore does not require moving to the additional Items because he had demonstrated possession.

I understand that Item 1 is the stated rationalization for ruling it incomplete, however as I noted, I think you can very easily see that Dez satisfies both (a) and (b) and so therefore (c) must be considered prior to getting into the items (such as Item1).

He is (clearly in my view) trying to advance the ball by using his right forearm to brace himself while moving the ball towards the goalline. This (again, imho) demonstrates compliance with (c) which therefore means he did not "lose the ball while going to the ground"...that part is not relevant if has "perform(ed) any act
common to the game".

In other words, he wasn't "just" falling to the ground, he was making a football act (which satisfies c), and which should trump the need to get to Item #1...since Item #1 is how you determine what to do if he does NOT satisfy a, b, and c. But making a football move does this. So the only other outlier is a case of the ground causing fumbles, which is also not relevant (since it cannot).

The complete section posted for reference....

COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
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.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.


If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

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.
Item 2: Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the
process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout
the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.
Item 3: End Zone Catches. The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in
the field of play.
Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to
become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same
action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the
ball is dead when the catch is completed.
Item 4: Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided
that the player continues to maintain control.
Item 5: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the
ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently
gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing
team become eligible to catch the loose ball.
Item 6: Carried Out of Bounds. If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an
opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground inbounds, it is a completed
or intercepted pass.

[molson]

I think those can be read together to read that you can't perform an act common to the game (and you don't have enough time to do so), while you're falling to the ground in the act of catching a pass. That's certainly what the refs and the NFL think those rules mean together. Though I can see the argument that Article 3 defines what "losing the ball means" for Item 1.

I do like the rules the way the NFL interprets them though. It's more objective, it makes it easier to review. You have to control the ball all the way through if you fall while making the catch. People will have a lot more heartache if refs are asked to determine whether there's a "move common to the game" made in the course of a fall, especially one involving a defender.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

For those saying "he took 3 steps he had control":

Did the act of him attempting to go up and make the catch cause him to go to the ground or did the defender cause him to go to the ground?

My opinion is that the only reason he went to the ground is because of contact. Therefore, I thought that he should have been called down by contact as soon as his knee/forearm/whatever hit the ground. The ball popping out occurs after that point, so it should have been 1st and goal.

However, if this would have been nearly the exact same scenario, but with Bryant being wide open and having to lay out for the catch (or was even able to get a couple of steps before his own inertia took him to the ground), I would have said incomplete pass.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by molson

I think those can be read together to read that you can't perform an act common to the game (and you don't have enough time to do so), while you're falling to the ground in the act of catching a pass. That's certainly what the refs and the NFL think those rules mean together. Though I can see the argument that Article 3 defines what "losing the ball means" for Item 1.

I do like the rules the way the NFL interprets them though. It's more objective, it makes it easier to review. You have to control the ball all the way through if you fall while making the catch. People will have a lot more heartache if refs are asked to determine whether there's a "move common to the game" made in the course of a fall, especially one involving a defender.

But the way it is written (or the only way I can see to read it anyway) is that if you do a,b,and c...you MUST have maintained possession "long enough" to have made a "move common to the game", where they specifically call out advancing the ball. And if you've done that, you are no longer "attempting to make a catch"...you are a runner(for lack of a better description). It isn't Bryant's fault that he's a much more capable athlete than the writers of that Article anticipated but I don't see how it isn't more apparent to others (as I seem to be a minority opinion here).

[Ryno]

I'm with SteveMax58. A catch and no fumble. Only a bad/vague rule could possibly make this incomplete.

Sequence of events as best as I can tell:
He gained full possession of the ball while his left foot was on the 5
His right foot touches at the 4
His left foot touches again at the 3
His right hand hits inside the 1
He lunges for the goal with the ball in his left hand
His left leg and both arms touch the ground
Then the ball hits the ground and comes out


http://imgur.com/P9lt1dc

As a Packer fan, and hater of all things Cowboy, I'm not terribly broken up about it, but this is an awful rule.

Edit: can't figure out how to embed a picture

[nol]

Originally Posted by molson

I think those can be read together to read that you can't perform an act common to the game (and you don't have enough time to do so), while you're falling to the ground in the act of catching a pass. That's certainly what the refs and the NFL think those rules mean together. Though I can see the argument that Article 3 defines what "losing the ball means" for Item 1.

I do like the rules the way the NFL interprets them though. It's more objective, it makes it easier to review. You have to control the ball all the way through if you fall while making the catch. People will have a lot more heartache if refs are asked to determine whether there's a "move common to the game" made in the course of a fall, especially one involving a defender.

This is pretty much the conclusion I came to. This play and the Megatron one are the most extreme examples of "looks like a catch but ruled an incomplete pass," but going the other direction would result in even more ridiculous plays that don't look close to catches but are ruled so by definition.

Any player diving or falling down could make a token lunge forward with the ball (trying to gain advance the ball counts as a football act) before hitting the ground, and it'd count as a catch. This wouldn't just be a crappy rule that only benefits offenses: when a receiver lays out for a ball across the middle only to have the defender dislodge it before the catch is completed, that's a play that 99% of people claim is incomplete and not a fumble because of this very rule.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Ryno

I'm with SteveMax58. A catch and no fumble. Only a bad/vague rule could possibly make this incomplete.

Sequence of events as best as I can tell:
He gained full possession of the ball while his left foot was on the 5
His right foot touches at the 4
His left foot touches again at the 3
His right hand hits inside the 1
He lunges for the goal with the ball in his left hand
His left leg and both arms touch the ground
Then the ball hits the ground and comes out


http://imgur.com/P9lt1dc

As a Packer fan, and hater of all things Cowboy, I'm not terribly broken up about it, but this is an awful rule.

Edit: can't figure out how to embed a picture

+1

This wasn't a bang-bang attempted catch hit the ground scenario. I guess I'm looking for the definition of what a football move is. Because the NFL is telling me Bryant didn't make one.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I guess I'm looking for the definition of what a football move is. Because the NFL is telling me Bryant didn't make one.

I want to know if it's possible for a reciever to make a football move while he's falling to the ground, before he's "completed the process" of catching the ball. I don't think it is, or at least, I don't think the NFL thinks that's possible. But the rules are poorly written and don't make that clear. SteveMax58 made the point that Bryant is probably more athletic than the rule writers anticipated, and I think that's true. The rules contradict, but only because Bryant was able to do all this football stuff over 5 yards as he's falling to the ground.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

...but only because Bryant was able to do all this football stuff over 5 yards as he's falling to the ground.

I think this says it all for me. The man had control of the ball for five yards yet it wasn't a catch.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by nol

Any player diving or falling down could make a token lunge forward with the ball (trying to gain advance the ball counts as a football act) before hitting the ground, and it'd count as a catch. This wouldn't just be a crappy rule that only benefits offenses: when a receiver lays out for a ball across the middle only to have the defender dislodge it before the catch is completed, that's a play that 99% of people claim is incomplete and not a fumble because of this very rule.

I don't think its nearly that slippery of a slope.

They could make that token lunge, but they'd better have "control" of the ball AND 2 feet (or part of their body) in bounds. If they do those 2 things while also lunging...why would you want to take that away from them? Its a great play in my book.

The key to me is whether the ball starts coming out prior to his attempt to advance the ball. And I think he demonstrates that he has complete control, has the option of tucking the ball or advancing...and he chose to advance it. Risky move and obviously did not pay off but still seems the NFL blew that call by their own definition in my view.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I think this says it all for me. The man had control of the ball for five yards yet it wasn't a catch.

It sure looks like a catch to me.
He seems to have complete control of the ball as he reaches out with it at the goal line.

If someone watching a game can not tell if something is a catch or not without has to consulting the rule book, I think the NFL has lost it's way.

[Blackadar]

It's a catch in any world besides Roger Goodell's shitty NFL. The problem with today's NFL is that they get so lost in the minutia of the rulebook that they've lost sight of the obvious.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

It's a catch in any world besides Roger Goodell's shitty NFL. The problem with today's NFL is that they get so lost in the minutia of the rulebook that they've lost sight of the obvious.

And here I thought everyone was complaining about refs/replays not following/calling the rules and you want them to ignore the rule? Change the rule but be careful what you wish for when balls that quickly pop out of receiver's hands will all be called fumbles.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And here I thought everyone was complaining about refs/replays not following/calling the rules and you want them to ignore the rule? Change the rule but be careful what you wish for when balls that quickly pop out of receiver's hands will all be called fumbles.

The problem IS the rule. As I said, it's a catch in any game besides today's NFL. There's a happy medium to be had between your comment above and the bullshit Dez Bryant/Megatron calls.

[stevew]

In contrast to this, I hate the rule where you can be running with the ball and dive for the pylon and as long as you control it for a tenth of a second across the line it's a TD even if you lose it right after. Both things would be consistent. Dez got two feet down with control, that's a catch.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

It's a catch in any world besides Roger Goodell's shitty NFL. The problem with today's NFL is that they get so lost in the minutia of the rulebook that they've lost sight of the obvious.

It's not a catch in the ncaa either. But don't let the facts get in the way of your assumptions.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by stevew

In contrast to this, I hate the rule where you can be running with the ball and dive for the pylon and as long as you control it for a tenth of a second across the line it's a TD even if you lose it right after. Both things would be consistent. Dez got two feet down with control, that's a catch.

The two situations aren't comparable. "Running with the ball" implies possession has already been established, possibly for many yards. Touching the pylon is breaking the plane, and that's all you need to do because you've controlled it up to that point.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

This. Based on a shitty rule it's an incomplete pass

+1

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

It's not a catch in the ncaa either. But don't let the facts get in the way of your assumptions.

No, it isn't a catch by the rule book in either college or pro. Should it be a catch? Yes, it should be a catch. He had the ball for 4 and a half yards and took two full steps on his way to the ground while reaching for the goal line. (I would call that a football move myself, but what the hell do I know?) By the rules, he never completed a football move and went down to the ground, the ball popped up, game over.

When I first saw the play, I wondered if he was even contacted by the Packers player, which would have made that a fumble (if you believe it was a catch like I do) Watching multiple angles, I'm still not 100% convinced he was even touched.

The rule sucks ass and what is really frustrating is what happened in the Denver/Indy game. Punt returner catches the ball, drilled in a bang/bang play. His knee hits the ground and he fumbles the ball. Well, no he didn't, because they ruled down by contact. How the NFL can say this guy had possession and Dez Bryant didn't is fairly comical. (and before anyone starts, Denver more than deserved to lose that game and they would have lost it even if they get that fumble call, the better team won the game)

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by lungs

I wanted to vomit when it was called an incomplete pass but I do think they made the right call based on the rule as it is written and interpreted.

But it sure as hell doesn't pass the smell test for me.

This is my exact reaction. It does not pass my personal common sense test.