All Forums | NFL Betting

That was a CATCH by Dez

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 13152
Posts: 149
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 1004
Posted: #101
Quote Originally Posted by Kraut:

No, they couldn't.  The play would have been dead as soon as crossed the goal line and it would have been a TD based on a legitimate "football move".  The determination was that Bryant did not extend the ball in a significant manner to warrant a "football move".  What do you guys not understand about this?  You are talking about hypothetical situations that never occurred.

So what you're saying is because he didn't cross the goal line then it is not a "legitimate" "football move"? Seriously dude??
Dude?? You are one of 100 people on this forum not reading and comprehending other posts, and it's getting old quick. I am not saying what is was or wasn't.  I am explaining the rationale used by the NFL and referee's to make the call.  In the view of the REFEREE'S, Dez Bryant did not make a "football move", because they did not warrant the arm movement as a "football move".  Your initial question was about the goal line, and in regard to that I responded: if Dez had caught the ball and extended it to the goal line (which he did not so it makes arguing stupid) it would have been a TD.
When all you dilettantes respond to me or other people, please try and read the posts for face value and not just an interpretation of what you think the person is saying.
 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2014
Posts: 2341
Posted: #102
there is no evidence that such a rule even exists.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2010
Posts: 226
Posted: #103
Quote Originally Posted by stevopa:

Quote Originally Posted by Kraut:

No, they couldn't.  The play would have been dead as soon as crossed the goal line and it would have been a TD based on a legitimate "football move".  The determination was that Bryant did not extend the ball in a significant manner to warrant a "football move".  What do you guys not understand about this?  You are talking about hypothetical situations that never occurred.So what you're saying is because he didn't cross the goal line then it is not a "legitimate" "football move"? Seriously dude??
Dude?? You are one of 100 people on this forum not reading and comprehending other posts, and it's getting old quick. I am not saying what is was or wasn't.  I am explaining the rationale used by the NFL and referee's to make the call.  In the view of the REFEREE'S, Dez Bryant did not make a "football move", because they did not warrant the arm movement as a "football move".  Your initial question was about the goal line, and in regard to that I responded: if Dez had caught the ball and extended it to the goal line (which he did not so it makes arguing stupid) it would have been a TD.When all you dilettantes respond to me or other people, please try and read the posts for face value and not just an interpretation of what you think the person is saying.

I see.. so you all you are trying to do is regurgitate the NFLs BS and offer no opinion.
Thanks!
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 1004
Posted: #104
Jesus...do some research on your own guys.  This is a cut and paste right from the rulebook.  Please notice the section highlighted in red.  I wonder how people like yourselves are even able to get through life without being hit by a vehicle crossing the street.

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
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 1004
Posted: #105
Quote Originally Posted by Kraut:

Dude?? You are one of 100 people on this forum not reading and comprehending other posts, and it's getting old quick. I am not saying what is was or wasn't.  I am explaining the rationale used by the NFL and referee's to make the call.  In the view of the REFEREE'S, Dez Bryant did not make a "football move", because they did not warrant the arm movement as a "football move".  Your initial question was about the goal line, and in regard to that I responded: if Dez had caught the ball and extended it to the goal line (which he did not so it makes arguing stupid) it would have been a TD.When all you dilettantes respond to me or other people, please try and read the posts for face value and not just an interpretation of what you think the person is saying.
I see.. so you all you are trying to do is regurgitate the NFLs BS and offer no opinion.
Thanks!
I am trying to educate people on how to understand life and its complexities by taking an advanced look at all sides of the issue through unbiased filters.  Unfortunately, Covers is a true representation of modern western society: a barely conscious, network of primates less advanced than some of the species that have evolved and survived on our planet for millions of years.
My opinion on the ruling is that the ref and NFL interpreted it correctly based on the current rule.  Whether I think it is right or wrong makes no difference.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 17917
Posted: #106
Nice to know that when a rbextends the ball with 1 hand after 2 hands to the end zone it is not a footballmove thanks nfl
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 1004
Posted: #107
Quote Originally Posted by budwiser:

Nice to know that when a rbextends the ball with 1 hand after 2 hands to the end zone it is not a footballmove thanks nfl
Ok, so after this prime example of the stupidity exuded by people on covers I am going to be done.  The rule for a rb/qb/wr on a running play, not a passing play, is different.  I have sourced the rule and its interpretation.  If you all cannot understand the rules of the game as they pertain differently to running plays, as opposed to passing play, then that is your personal issue and your DNA should probably be wiped clear out of the gene pool.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2014
Posts: 2341
Posted: #108
"where did he lose control?
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
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2006
Posts: 19693
Posted: #109
If it's not a catch by Megatron, it's not a catch by Dez......
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 1004
Posted: #110
Quote Originally Posted by smarterthanyou:

"where did he lose control?
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
ugh...he lost control when he bobbled it.  The fact that he caught it when it bounced back in the air doesn't matter. If he had held it close to his body and his body caused the ball to pop in the air it would have been a different story because there was no contact with the ground.  This is not like "the ground can cause a fumble" because it's not a fumble.  According to the rule Dez Bryant never established control thus there is no fumble.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 1004
Posted: #111
This is for all you primates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfft9Jx9gJk
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 17917
Posted: #112
Quote Originally Posted by stevopa:

Ok, so after this prime example of the stupidity exuded by people on covers I am going to be done.  The rule for a rb/qb/wr on a running play, not a passing play, is different.  I have sourced the rule and its interpretation.  If you all cannot understand the rules of the game as they pertain differently to running plays, as opposed to passing play, then that is your personal issue and your DNA should probably be wiped clear out of the gene pool.

He became a runner when he made the move Mr know it's supergenefella 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 17917
Posted: #113
Quote Originally Posted by budwiser:


He became a runner when he made the move Mr know it's supergenefella 


Or maybe Mr super genes can explain how then all magically goes from the 5 to the 1 if he is not running you are our expert here
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 1044
Posted: #114
He didn't take two steps. His second foot came down and went to the ground.  A "football move" would be defined as being upright and propelling himself in pretty much any direction intentionally.  That means landing with BOTH feet, taking a step then taking a second step WITHOUT falling due to his own momentum.  Bryant put two feet down (the landing of his second foot is NOT a step), but the rest of the action was his own momentum as he fell to the ground.  The ball CLEARLY hit the ground and came loose before he regained control.  That will be ruled incomplete EVERY time.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2009
Posts: 1916
Posted: #115
Quote Originally Posted by The Hawk:

If it's not a catch by Megatron, it's not a catch by Dez......

I think they are 2 totally different situations. 
Megatron was standing still in the back of the end zone. He never made another move. 
Dez clearly caught the ball, clearly had possession and lunged forward towards the end zone. 
He made a football move. 
Its not like he bobbled the ball. 

But what bothers me the most about the call is that they overturned it. 
That's ridiculous. 
I cannot see how you can reverse that call. 
If they had originally called it an incompletion then I would agree you can't overturn that call. 
They should have NEVER reversed that call. 
There was not enough evidence to overturn the call. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2008
Posts: 1004
Posted: #116
Quote Originally Posted by sscott999:

He didn't take two steps. His second foot came down and went to the ground.  A "football move" would be defined as being upright and propelling himself in pretty much any direction intentionally.  That means landing with BOTH feet, taking a step then taking a second step WITHOUT falling due to his own momentum.  Bryant put two feet down (the landing of his second foot is NOT a step), but the rest of the action was his own momentum as he fell to the ground.  The ball CLEARLY hit the ground and came loose before he regained control.  That will be ruled incomplete EVERY time.
It's become officially comical, now, and I wish you the best of luck in trying to explain to these guys the rule, which I have cited and explained.  The referee determined that he wasn't "a runner" or made a "football" move, but somehow Budwiser you cannot understand this. Because you believe it doesn't make it the truth!
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 1791
Posted: #117
Quote Originally Posted by stevopa:

It's become officially comical, now, and I wish you the best of luck in trying to explain to these guys the rule, which I have cited and explained.  The referee determined that he wasn't "a runner" or made a "football" move, but somehow Budwiser you cannot understand this. Because you believe it doesn't make it the truth!
Some people don't want to hear the facts. They only want to hear what they want to hear. Anything else is BS and if you don't agree , then you don't know WTF you're talking about .
You laid it out clearly. However, it is just not what they want to hear.

So last week, they got it right. However, this week the Cowboys got screwed ???? Please, so last week the refs got it right. This week, they got it wrong??? That says it all.

The rule clearly states that was not a catch BTW.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 17917
Posted: #118
Here's the quote from the horse's * ss's mouth:
“In our judgment, he maintained possession but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game,” referee Gene Steratore explained later. “We deemed that by our judgment to be the full process of the catch, and at the time he lands and the ball hits the ground, it comes loose as it hits the ground, which would make that incomplete.”
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 17917
Posted: #119
Meaning-they considered it all a CATCH which i sabsolute BS......he already CAUGHT the ball and COMMON MOVE TO THE GAME was moving it from 2 hands to one and STRETCHING THE BALL TOWARDS THE END ZONE!!!!!!!!!

If that's not a common move to the game then WHAT IS!!!

the FLUBBED IT and FIXED THE GAME
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 17917
Posted: #120
and as the ref said it's in his JUDGEMENT it's not a g d absolutist thing IS IT!!!!!!!
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 17917
Posted: #121
Quote from Dez Bryant
"I never seen any damn thing in my life," he said. "I haven't. I'm just trying to wait and see, I want to know why it wasn't a catch."

"All I know is I had possession and I had possession coming down. That's possession, right? That's possession. I tried to stretch. Come on man, I wasn't off balance. I was trying to stretch for the end zone."
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 7891
Posted: #122
From the moment he caught the ball he was stumbling to the ground, in which case he must maintain possession.  He did not, the ball hit the ground during that process, therefore it should be an incomplete pass.  Yes he might have moving his legs, but while doing that he was still falling to the ground the entire time. 

How is this so hard to understand??
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2007
Posts: 17917
Posted: #123
Quote Originally Posted by stevopa:

It's become officially comical, now, and I wish you the best of luck in trying to explain to these guys the rule, which I have cited and explained.  The referee determined that he wasn't "a runner" or made a "football" move, but somehow Budwiser you cannot understand this. Because you believe it doesn't make it the truth!

You don't get it.

TWICE the referee determined that Dez Bryan was STILL in the process of making the catch.

The referee said TWICE in his JUDMENT-note, JUDGMENT meaning it's NOT black and white fellas-he DID NOT make a move common to football

Now, for ALL you pro-referee go-NFL everything they do is right fellas, do ANY of you think he didn't make a football move, EITHER running the ball towards the end zone OR extending the ball towards the end zone.  

ANd if he wasn't making a footbal move, and he didn't make the catch yet, I'd love to hear you pro-referree guys explain HOW DOES HE TRANSFER THE BALL FROM 2 HANDS TO ONE, IS THAT NOT A COMMON FOOTBALL MOVE
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2008
Posts: 405
Posted: #124
Quote Originally Posted by The Hawk:

If it's not a catch by Megatron, it's not a catch by Dez......

This 

karma is a bit*h 
 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2012
Posts: 421
Posted: #125
The ground can't cause a fumble doesn't apply here because he didn't have possession. Once the ball hit the ground and moved it was incomplete. Similar to making a catch and falling out of bounds, you need to maintain possession through the fall to the ground. That's my understanding of the rule at least. Seems like everyone is getting hung up on whether or not he made a football move. You could debate that both ways. At the end of the day, I think they got it right given the criteria in Article 3 above. 
All Forums | NFL Betting
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2025 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.