Eccapper1105

I think the rule is a good rule and works just how it should in the endZone and out of bounds, however it was not applied properly...the rule is "IN THE PROCESS OF THE CATCH must control through the ground. The process of the catch was over and even if you think he wasn't making a football move you cannot conclusively say he wasn't and shouldn't have resulted in an overturned replay

The thought that one of the best wide recievers in the league, an athletic specimen known to make wild catches on a regular basis,  had the ball secured in his chest and did not have the body control to keep it there as he fell ?.. That is ludacris. His arms didn't flail out to the ground because of momentum, they reached out because it was a conscience decision to try and score making it a football move, it doesn't matter how many steps or he did or didn't take, obviously if you would hae read my original post you would see the only thing that matters is two feet landing in bounds and then a football move, it just happens that taking steps are probably the most common football move and occur most of the time but steps don't necessarily  have to occur after both feet land, just a move Common to the game.

I'm not debating whether dez caught it or not... I don't know whether he did or didn't in my eyes and in my opinion, the act of having the ball in two hands secured tight to dez body, a top reciever in the league has enough body control to keep the ball tight to his body while hitting the ground. The fact that he didn't shows me he made a conscience effort to reach for the goalline constituting a football move, but I definitely see your opinion and see the refs opinion that it was momentum..... However what everyone is missing because they are bitching whether it's a catch or not is that it was ruled a catch on te field... And there is no way you me an official or anyone can look at that replay and CONCLUSIVELY decide that he didn't make a football move.... I don't think he took three steps. To me he landed took one step and moved the ball away from his body I don't see how it's clear football move and I don't see how it's not a clear football move and to me that's the error in judgment by the officials 

 

Like ESPN and there ignorance you only posted half the rule and this is where the misinterpretation lies. The first line of the rule you posted states that if a player goes to the ground IN THE ACT OF CATCHING the ball, however by nfl rules, the prior paragraph that I post states, that one those three things are completed its a catch and therefor no longer is dez in the process of making a catch, he did the three things and made the catch. The refs say he didn't they say he had control he landed but didn't make a football move and therefore was still in the process of making the catch on the ground. If they constituted the reach as a football move it would have counted as a catch but they didn't and that in no way shape or form should be conclusive in that replay.

This is exactly the rule and this is what people are misinterpreting, those are catches or not catches do to the calvin Johnson rule. A player must control land and football move. When a football move is not made because you are going to the ground, in the endzone, or out of bounds then you must completly control the ball through the catch or through the ground. That's not what happened to dez because imo he had already established the three criteria to make it a catch and the rule of the process should never come into play and if you don't think so that's fine but you can't say conclusively that he didn't 

Every time you say reach you contradict yourself. Because if dez bryan reached its a football move and therefore a catch. The officials didn't see a reach and said that it wasn't a football move and therefore if a player doesn't make a football move prior to the ball hitting the ground then he needs to control through the process. But obviously you think he reached and made a football move because you keep saying it 

What you are talking about oaif a reciever lands and gets hit, that's incomplet because the receiver doesn't have time to do all three things,control land and football move. AND YOU LITERALLY JUST CONTRAICTED YOURSELF. because you just said "the moment he reached" if dez Bryant landed and in your own words "reached" that constitutes a football move. Which would turn dez Bryant from a reciever to a runner and therefore down by contact. He never loses control f the ball in the air only on the ground. And I'm honestly not arguing catch or no catch its a judgement call. There are two facts he landed with two feet and had control of the ball in the air. Then there is an opinion of whether or not he made a football move prior to te ball hitting the ground. I thought he did some think he didn't, the refs didn't. My problem is there is no way you can conclusively say that he didn't make a football move and overturn a called catch.

And this is where you are wrong, stupid , or biased or all three. know the rules I'll post a link if you want . The completing the process rule ONLY comes into play if the receiver has not made the catch and deemed himself a runner. For a reciever to become a runner he must CONTROL THE BALL, dez did that. He must LAND WITH TWO FEET, dez did that. AND HE MUST MAKE A MOVE COMMON TO THE GAME OF FOOTBALL, dez might have done that by taking one step and reaching but maybe not. If the official thought that dez did that he is a runner and when the ball hits the ground it is down by contact because the ground cannot cause a fumble HOWEVEr the refs deemed that dez only did two of the 3 things necessary to and they were quoted after the game that  the reach "was not a move common to the game" and therefore because dez bryan ONLY did two of those things not all three in the officials eyes, control landed but did not make a football move, then he is still a reciever and needs to maintain possession through the ground. BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY CALLED IT A CATCH ON THE FIELD AND IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM CAN THE REF CONCLUSIVELY SAY DEZ BRYAN TAKINING ONE STEP AND REACHING IS NOT A FOOTBALL MOVE JUST MOMENTUM. Because like I stated earlier dez is athletic enough to tuck The ball if he thought he didn't have it therefore him reaching was obviously a conscience decision made on his part thus leading it to be very much a move common to te game

The guy is one of the best recievers in the league and a freak backed up by him going to grab that ball. There was a point where he had the ball in both hand near his body/shoulder. He landed with two feet with control, all that's left is a football move,  If he thought he didn't have possession he is dam sure athletic enough that he  would have kept the ball tucked and landed with the ball securely in his stomach, but thinking he did have possession imo he made a football type move by reaching the ball for the pylon but the refs didn't see it as a football move and that means he didn't have all three criteria for becoming a running and therefore the refs go to the control on a ground rule. Terrible overturn 

Obviously this will be shown all week and it will be debated for a while so I'm here to settle the argument once and for all. This thread may be a tad bit long but I believe it should end all debate and any semi intelligent person will agree with what I have to say. My view on the subject is that it was a very bad call, the catch itself was a judgement call but there is absolutely no way It should have been overturned.  I see a ton of people quoting the rule "maintaing the catch through the ground " but not many posting the entire rule so here is a link to it. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/AP_NFL/status/554385136591314944/photo/1

Three things need to happen for a receiver to make a catch and turn into a runner with possession of the ball. He must have two feet down, he must possess and control the ball, and he make a move common to the game of football known as a football move. I'm going to say this one time clearly, the rule about maintaing the ball through the process of the catch only applies if the reciever has not met one or any of these three criteria, because a player does meet the three instances of a catch he is now a runner and no longer a reciever.

The rule about the ball hitting the ground and the player "not controlling  through the catch" even though It appears like he has possession by rule applies to the entire field of play however it is only truly applicable in the endzone or going out of bounds catches. The reason for this is because in if a receiver goes to the ground in the endzone or out of bounds it is impossible for that player to make a football move prior to the ball hitting the ground . For example calvin Johnson caught the ball,h ad two feet down and had possession however since he was in the endzone and going to the ground he unable to make a football move before the ball hit the ground because the play is ruled over when the ball crosses the goal line. In turn, all three criteria for making a catch were not completed and the "maintaining through the catch/ground" rule comes into play so instead of it being a catch and a touchdown it needs to be ruled incomplete. 

What happened with dez bryant was not the calvin Johnson play and I challenge you to find me another play where this rule applies in the field of play excluding the endzone or a catch that was made going out of bounds. The following is a fact, dez bryant caught the ball, had the ball in his hands and brought the ball to his shoulder then stuck the ball out in one hand while taking 3 steps and reached towards the goal line. This is my opinion and the opinion of some others which doesn't matter, dez Bryant had possession prior to hitting ground and the ball hitting the ground. If dez Bryant had completed the three rules of making a catch which are again , possession, feet down, and football move then the rule about the ball hitting the ground doesn't apply because he is a runner no longer a receiver. However like I said that is my opinion, it is not the opinions of gene serantore and other officials. Their opinions were that dez reaching for the goaline was not a move "common to the game of football", that is the quote of what he told Jason garret. Making dez only have two of the three criteria to become a runner and thus still a receiver and allowing the officials to move on to "maintaining the ball through the ground/catch" rule. And that is ok, that's a judgement call, did he or did he not have possession prior to the ball hitting the ground. The ruling doesn't have much to do with the rule of controlling the ball through the catch although it seems like that, it has everything to do with whether or not possession was deemed prior to that. But this is where the mistake was made and anyone who is not an idiot or unbiased should agree and this is proven by the fact that this in itself is an argument and a debate. You may think dez had possession before the ball hitting the ground like I do or you may think he didn't like gene did, however the call on the field was a completed catch and if you think that dez Bryant catching the ball, tucking the catch by his shoulder, moving it into his left hand, and reaching for the goal line showed CONCLUSIVELY that he did NOT have possession which in turn brings the "ball controlled through hitting the ground" rule into play then you are biased or an idiot. To overturn a call on the field there must be conclusive evidence and if there is absolutely no way that someone can look at dez, before he and the ball hit the ground, and say that conclusively he didn't have possession, that was the mistake made by the refs that robbed the Cowboys of a chance to win the game. And whoever thinks this compares to last weeks call is also an idiot that was a 3 and 1 on the 45 with almost 9 minutes left not a 4 and 2 with under four minutes left with a spot at the one yard line. 

Disclaimer I had the packers minus 5.5 and am an Eagles fan from philly who despises the Cowboys. However I am unbiased, objective and know football. I don't know if it was a catch or not that's a discretion call but what I do know is that overturning the play on the field was a horrendous call and took away from the game and continues this embarrassing nfl season that' makes the league look like an absolute farce.