Dallas catch reversal

this is absolutely the TRUTH. He should have tucked and pulled into his belly but he stretched because he is not very bright.

TechRush said:
The receiver should have been more concerned about securing the ball than scoring a TD on a fourth down play but this is Dez Bryant we are talking about.
Click to expand...
 
before Calvin's completion was called a non-completion

in the history of football, that was a catch and still is anywhere but in the NFL. The NFL has reinvented the catch with instant replay. Tom Brady's fumble was a fumble until they reinvented was a fumble was.

No whistle was blown so Justin's fumble was a fumble according to the rules.

GTCrew said:
Bullshit. That would not have been a catch for most of the years of football. No way, no how.

Second, "people were moving and no whistle had blown"? Where is "people were moving" in the rule Book?
Click to expand...
 
Not a catch
Brought it to his chest then extended -> ball hit ground
I considered the ball extension just a continuation of his play on the ball, not a separate move.
 
By reading the posts in this thread, it is obvious that several posters have not watched many NFL games in the last several years.

This was an obvious incompletion based on how the 'Calvin Johnson' rule has been enforced.
 
KC_Jackets said:
By reading the posts in this thread, it is obvious that several posters have not watched many NFL games in the last several years.

This was an obvious incompletion based on how the 'Calvin Johnson' rule has been enforced.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The rule is written so that the refs can be consistent and introduce as little subjective opinion into it as possible -- and that's really what they've done.
 
andrew said:
Exactly. The rule is written so that the refs can be consistent and introduce as little subjective opinion into it as possible -- and that's really what they've done.
Click to expand...

The 10 Mississippi rule?
 
the former head of officials during the broadcast said "no catch" well before the crew doing the game did so, and he thoroughly explained why

you may not like the rule, but the rule seems to have been followed
 
rghoae said:
That is so obviously not a catch by rules I don't even know how anyone can argue it. Bryant did not complete a football move (falling down is not a football move).

This is indeed very similar to the CalvinJohnson thing a few years ago, and for all the complaints, by rule, Calvin Johnson did indeed drop the ball. Calvin's was a little worse, because it was in the EZ.

Should this be considered a catch? Maybe. But you need to change the rules for that.
Click to expand...

Agree that by the rules it is clearly not a catch. Maybe the rules are wrong, but when I saw the replay I knew it would be overturned.

Calvin's situation was worse IMO because it happened in the end zone and he extended the ball to get his balance, probably because he assumed the play was over once he got his feet down. (Wrong assumption, but before I knew the rule it seemed reasonable, just like you can't fumble once you cross the plane.) So I think Calvin would have avoided putting down his hand if he knew the rule.

Situation was summed up best by "the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion."
 
Re: one thing is for sure about the incomplete pass

thwg said:
if you think it was not a catch then Justin Thomas certainly "fumbled" vs UGag. Because people were moving and no whistle had blown. So, I guess that was just an easy call that the refs got right. The absurdity of the two calls is the same IMO.

For 130 years men played football and that was an incredible catch and then the NFL got instant replay and now guys think it wasn't a catch.

And Thomas fumble was not a fumble but that was the correct call according to the rule that one wishes to argue.
Click to expand...

Horrible analogy.

The whistle blowing has no bearing on forward progress stopped. And once forward progress is stopped, by rule, there cannot be a fumble. The sticky part is that the referee is the sole judge of whether forward progress is stopped.

So, by rule, Thomas clearly had been stopped, stood up for a few seconds even, assuming he hadn't already scored. The refs should have reversed that call regardless of when the whistle blew by the forward progress rule.
 
johncu said:
Questions for the people that think it should have been called a catch:

1) Did you watch the replay that showed the ball hitting the ground and moving?

2) Are you a Cowboys fan?

I have no idea how anyone could argue this call. It sucks, because he made a great play, but the ball clearly bounced off the ground and caused him to lose control.

The Calvin catch was slightly different, IMO, because it almost looked like he hit the ground and then started to get up and run to celebrate, with the ball coming loose during the transition between those two motions. By rule, that one should have also not been a catch, because Calvin really should have tucked and secured the ball before trying to jump back up.
Click to expand...

1) No, didn't see that.

2) Hate the Cowboys.

I think the call on the field should have stood. Had the call on the field been incomplete, I would say the same thing. The replay (that I saw) was inconclusive. But again, I despise the Cowboys, so I loved the call.
 
miles44 said:
Am I the only one who thinks the Cowboys got screwed on the catch reversal call by Dez Bryant?

Regardless of what happened in the Dallas-Det game, how can they say he didn't have full control?
Click to expand...


Poetic justice.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
33jacket said:
dallas got lucky vs Detroit via phantom rule.

and "maybe" unlucky vs the Packers....maybe, I think by rule they got it right...the rule sucks. It kept detriot out of the playoffs one year due to calvin catch etc.

so either way, its a wash.
Click to expand...
Luck had nothing to do with it. Evil Lions got robbed at Dallas. Dallas was allowed to be held entire game and thus robbed. Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! No calls just as effective in rigging games!
 
Beestorm said:
Im glad this dumpster fire NFL season is almost over.. I just hope Brady stops the seachickens from winning it all..

continuing my search for hockey team. f the nfl.
Click to expand...

God NO! Anybody but pretty boy Brady! Please!!!!!
 
Re: before Calvin's completion was called a non-completion

thwg said:
in the history of football, that was a catch and still is anywhere but in the NFL. The NFL has reinvented the catch with instant replay. Tom Brady's fumble was a fumble until they reinvented was a fumble was.

No whistle was blown so Justin's fumble was a fumble according to the rules.
Click to expand...

This bothers me mostly cause you doubled down. The forward pass wasn't even legal for the first 30 some years of football. 1906 was the first legal forward pass.

It appears that early on an incompletion resulted in a loss of possession.

Interestingly soccer apparently at one time had no forward passes.
 
BuzzLaw said:
1) No, didn't see that.

2) Hate the Cowboys.

I think the call on the field should have stood. Had the call on the field been incomplete, I would say the same thing. The replay (that I saw) was inconclusive. But again, I despise the Cowboys, so I loved the call.
Click to expand...

If you didn't see the ball move then I'm not sure what replay you were watching. It literally popped out of his hands and he had to catch it again.
 
Re: my take as a person with a financial interest at stake

thwg said:
I am a huge Calvin fan and thought that was a catch. i am not a Dez fan nor Cowboys fan and think it was a catch. The rules need to be rewritten IMO so this is not an issue.
Click to expand...



1) Calvin's catch was more of a catch than Bryant's

2) Calvin's catch wasn't a catch by rules, so it wasn't a catch by definition.

3) Calvin's catch was such a non-catch that the NFL uses it to explain this rule when training the refs.

4) Therefore Bryant's "catch" wasn't even close to a catch.

Maybe the rule should be changed. I would like to hear a change which wouldn't make things worse. That being said' maybe it would be easier if WRs learnt not to reach out for the EZ when they got the 1st down on the 1 yard line instead.



If there is any issue here, it is the players who stretch out for a TD when they are within feet of the EZ and have just converted a 1st down.
 
Even reaching out Bryant still would not have scored a TD. Should be a highlight on the dumbass reel.
 
Re: one thing is for sure about the incomplete pass

thwg said:
if you think it was not a catch then Justin Thomas certainly "fumbled" vs UGag. Because people were moving and no whistle had blown. So, I guess that was just an easy call that the refs got right. The absurdity of the two calls is the same IMO.

For 130 years men played football and that was an incredible catch and then the NFL got instant replay and now guys think it wasn't a catch.

And Thomas fumble was not a fumble but that was the correct call according to the rule that one wishes to argue.
Click to expand...

btw, college and NFL have different rules. so comparing NFL rules to NCAA situations is kinda dumb imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top