Dallas catch reversal

miles44

miles44

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
166
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?

If you've seen the video from the reverse angle, you can see he catches it with two hands, takes a step, transfers the ball to his left hand, takes two more steps and while falling toward the end zone, reaches out his hand to try to score. Only when the hand hits the ground does he lose control. Total BS!
 
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?

If you've seen the video from the reverse angle, you can see he catches it with two hands, takes a step, transfers the ball to his left hand, takes two more steps and while falling toward the end zone, reaches out his hand to try to score. Only when the hand hits the ground does he lose control. Total BS!
Click to expand...

I agree... Terrible call
 
People are relating this to the calvin johnson play. not at all. he was bobbling the ball THE WHOLE WAY DOWN. Howie Long kept freaking out about "THE STEPS and BLAH BLAH FOOTBALL MOVE" but in reality you can't make a "football move" without possession of the ball, which didn't happen until (still debatable if he ever even had complete control) he was lunging. So if the only football move he actually made ended up with him losing the ball, yea, probably not a catch.

What do you mean steps? bryant didn't have control when he was taking steps.
 
southendzoneBEE said:
People are relating this to the calvin johnson play. not at all. he was bobbling the ball THE WHOLE WAY DOWN. Howie Long kept freaking out about "THE STEPS and BLAH BLAH FOOTBALL MOVE" but in reality you can't make a "football move" without possession of the ball, which didn't happen until (still debatable if he ever even had complete control) he was lunging. So if the only football move he actually made ended up with him losing the ball, yea, probably not a catch.

What do you mean steps? bryant didn't have control when he was taking steps.
Click to expand...

stop being biased. it was a catch.

having said that, öööö the cowboys.
 
Akinji07 said:
stop being biased. it was a catch.

having said that, öööö the cowboys.
Click to expand...

Rules are rules. What happened today did not bring the bad out of the rule. It brought the good out of it. I'm not biased at all. My dad is a HUGE Cowboys fan and he agreed with me. There were a few points in the game where Rodgers was given a lot of extra time because of holds and I mentioned it each time.
 
Also who says the Cowboys win even if they score? Who says they would have scored anyway? Rodgers would have easily came down the field. On holds nonetheless but it would have happened
 
Will Rodgers come out of the closet if the NFL helps him win this Super Bowl?
 
southendzoneBEE said:
Rules are rules. What happened today did not bring the bad out of the rule. It brought the good out of it. I'm not biased at all. My dad is a HUGE Cowboys fan and he agreed with me. There were a few points in the game where Rodgers was given a lot of extra time because of holds and I mentioned it each time.
Click to expand...

you're being an idiot. he has control of the ball when he's down. he loses the ball when he rolls over. i've watched the play maybe 5 times afterwards, your claim that he doesn't have control of the ball is bs and there isn't substantial video evidence to overturn it.

get your head out of aaron rodgers ass.
 
southendzoneBEE said:
Also who says the Cowboys win even if they score? Who says they would have scored anyway? Rodgers would have easily came down the field. On holds nonetheless but it would have happened
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter. they got ööööed and the game is over.
 
The ball hit the ground when he went down and this is why it was ruled not a catch. If he had fully extended his arms to try to get the ball in the end zone and this happen then it would be a catch.
 
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.
 
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...

What rule are you guys referring to? The three steps and 10 Mississippi rule?
 
They need to change the rules. Common sense tells you the catch is made when the ball is possessed by the receiver.
 
I thought the NFL was consistent and called it correctly according to the rules. The rule in this case is dumb. Southendzonebee, nobody likes a sore winner - so, shaddup.

I think Bryant bobbled the ball a bit but he clearly achieved control, put the ball in his left hand and then directed himself towards the goal line (to say he lunged is a stretch, he was falling anyway but made an obvious effort toward the goal in directing how he was falling). The ball only came loose when it hit the ground because he was extending it towards the goal. I guess the frustrating part for him is that he could have chosen to turn and land on his back and secure the catch completely instead of reaching for the goal line.

Again, correct call based on rules, but the rule is dumb. At the same time it's bitten what, 2 guys over the course of several years? And lots of folks figure it's poetic justice for the game against Detroit last week. Although I'm not sure how much, if any, better of a game Detroit could have given Green Bay.
 
So, is it going to come to a point where the only time it will be ruled a "catch" is when the receiver hands the ball to a ref after the play is over?
 
miles44 said:
So, is it going to come to a point where the only time it will be ruled a "catch" is when the receiver hands the ball to a ref after the play is over?
Click to expand...

No, but it would be safer to stay in control of the ball until the whistle blows. And that includes keeping it off the ground.
 
I think some of the rules are getting too technical and taking away from the game
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top