Dez Catch?

[Marshall Karp]

Hmmm, watching this and reading what Bryant says, it seems like he actually caught the ball, had possession, and was extending for the goal line. It all happens in an eye blink, though. If anything, he may be guilty and a victim of trying too hard and trying to do too much, but hey, that's what great ones do. Different for a running back when extending, loosing the ball, but the ground not causing a fumble.

 

[scraps]

I posted this in yesterday's game thread. Check out the last few pages for the discussion.

 

[Max Power]

By rule it was an incomplete pass. They weren't reversing much over the weekend, why then?

 

[slashsteel]

when he changed it to one hand to extend it was clear he had possession, the rule needs to be tweaked............

 

[Spike]

Dallas got beat by a peg-leg QB and a rookie WR - not a rule

get over it Cowboys fans

 

[Roy92040]

When I first saw the play I said no way. Didn't maintain possession, dropped the ball. Then I saw the replay and I said it was a catch.

 

[ExUSAF]

It could have gone either way but after review and the application of the rules in existence at that time it was incomplete. Sucks being a Cryboy, oops I mean Cowboy fan. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch although I do feel a bit sorry for Dez.

 

[Steel G]

He caught it, got two feet down, got a third, lunged, gets contacted, and his right forearm and elbow hit the ground. He was down by contact just before the goal line, play over. The ball hitting off the ground after that should have had no affect on anything. But this is the NFL, from game to game, the calls are never going to be same. There is no consistency at all, ever.

 

[Steelerfan]

Surprised it wasn't ruled a catch, then a fumble. The ball comes loose when he hits the ground, and the ground can't cause a fumble, last I recall. Having said that, eat **** Cowboy fans.

 

[thesteelcity]

The problem I have with the call is another 6 inches, the ball breaks the plain and they score it a TD, no matter what the ball does when he hits the ground. I agree that the rules need tweaked. I know what the rules are, but Dez made one helluva adjustment and catch. The Lions probably feel justice was served.

 

[Spike]

The ball comes loose when he hits the ground, and the ground can't cause a fumble, last I recall.

that's for runners, not receivers in the process of making a catch - he never completed the catch, he lost control of the ball when it touched the ground

keep two hands on the ball next time


another non-catch

 

[Spike]

The problem I have with the call is another 6 inches, the ball breaks the plain and they score it a TD, no matter what the ball does when he hits the ground..

nope - goal line doesn't matter, EZ doesn't matter, 2 3 4 5 feet on the ground first don't matter - the ball hits the ground and moves - no catch

 

[Steelers1356]

Dez should know the rules in that situation, just secure the damn ball. These same type of calls are made many times each season against receivers with an incomplete ruling in the exact same situations, so why should Dallas get special privileges?

That doesn't mean I like the rule, if the ball is secured in the receivers hands and both feet are down I think it should be a catch, forget the football move garbage if the ball pops loose after that then it should be a fumble.

 

[Steelers1356]

nope - goal line doesn't matter, EZ doesn't matter, 2 3 4 5 feet on the ground first don't matter - the ball hits the ground and moves - no catch

Pretty much what we saw with Santonio Holmes a few years back during a playoff game. Incomplete in the end zone.

 

[strat68]

When a receiver goes to the ground then he must maintain control the entire way through. They did no think he made a football move either. The interpretation of the rule was correct. It's the rule itself everyone is at odds with.

 

[BAS]

As the play occurred, I thought it was a catch, but when the reverse angle showed the ball moving on his coming to the ground I knew it could be challenged and overturned.

There have been enough plays similar to Dez's 'non-catch' over the past half decade or so that you could look back on as evidence it stood a good chance of getting overturned.
If he were bobbling the ball as he was going to the ground, but the ball had never touched the ground, he would have been fine. As soon as the ball rolled on the ground it was fair game.

 

[Steeltime]

The thing about reaching for the goal line bites a team in the ***. Make the catch first, then worry about scoring a TD.

More and more, I see TD's where the offensive player no longer has the ball at the end of the play - reaching for the pylon, or the goal line, or whatever, hits the ground, ball comes out.

I admit that I am too old to appreciate how wonderful it is to risk a turnover on every @#$&ing TD, but I just hate it when a Steeler player reaches out with the football.

 

[Stainless]

I have no idea what constitutes a catch anymore, which, as a fan, makes each review much more interesting. If he had put his right hand on the back of his helmet like Deon Sanders, instead of using it to break his fall, that might have constituted a football move, and it may have been ruled a catch.

 

[Steeltime]

If he had put his right hand on the back of his helmet like Deon Sanders, instead of using it to break his fall, that might have constituted a football move, and it may have been ruled a catch.

I believe that the "Sanders-hand-on-helmet" is actually classified as a "douchebag move," and not a football move.

Though it is entirely possible in today's NFL that a douchebag move constitutes a football move.

 

[Skott]

He caught it, got two feet down, got a third, lunged, gets contacted, and his right forearm and elbow hit the ground. He was down by contact just before the goal line, play over. The ball hitting off the ground after that should have had no affect on anything. But this is the NFL, from game to game, the calls are never going to be same. There is no consistency at all, ever.

Down y contact does not coe into play when a player is going to the ground in the act of making and securing a catch. The move hit the ground and was dislodged, thus making it incomplete.

a player was maintain control throughout the catch.

 

[FordFairLane]

By rule it was an incomplete pass. They weren't reversing much over the weekend, why then?

That's the thing it was a catch on the field. I hate the Cowboys so I really don't care but to reverse the call to me is wrong. If it was called incomplete I could see them keeping the ruling but it was called a catch and I don't know how they could reverse it. Again, not my cocern but it definitely has you think when I heard a lot of people calling the NFL the National Fixed League and all stuff like this does is ad fuel to the fire. If I would find out the NFL is swaying decisions to get the matchups they want I would quit watching.

 

[BAS]

By rule it was an incomplete pass. They weren't reversing much over the weekend, why then?

If they didn't reverse it, then it would have been just as egregious an officiating error - that's why.

If McCarthy didn't challenge it, the play would have stood because it wasn't in the last 2 minutes of the half, and it still would have been incorrect by the letter of the rules.

 

[SteelerFan448]

Stupid rule. Correct interpretation.

There were two other similar plays over the weekend and one was called complete. Clear indication the rules are way too complicated to interpret.

 

[mightyguru]

Glad they got it right...rare.

 

[steelerscotty]

When a receiver goes to the ground then he must maintain control the entire way through. They did no think he made a football move either. The interpretation of the rule was correct. It's the rule itself everyone is at odds with.

This^ . . .its the correct call, but a bad rule. Just like the tuck rule is stupid but they have not changed that one either.