The Dez Bryant non-catch

[Timer]

Huge Cowboy fan. No way that is a catch and don't really understand the reasoning of those that think it is.  Ok, that might be a little harsh, however, looking at it strictly by the way the rule is interpreted under today's officiating philosophy, the RO, who I believe was probably Blandino in New York, had no choice but to reverse the call.

[Wingmanbp]

Anyone who says he didn't go to the ground in the process of making the catch, what you're saying instead is that he could theoretically have caught the ball and stayed upright if he wanted to.

I don't believe that could have been done. His body is coming straight down in an uninterrupted motion, from airborne to flat on the turf.

Yes, his two feet are the first body parts to touch down, but that doesn't prove that he's stepping or running or doing anything other than collapsing to the ground. If you think his falling to the ground was an act completely divorced from the catch attempt, you're being very very generous IMHO.

Bear in mind that, if you slow the video down enough, you can make *anything* look like a catch.

Well then according to that philosophy then his catch against the Giants wasnt a catch either. There is no way he would have been able to stay upright he was just able to dive a little farther. The only difference!

[VALJ]

I'm a Bears fan, and as soon as the play happened my wife looked at me and I said "replay's going to overturn that one."  The rule stinks (IMHO), but the reversal to me was correct (also IMHO). 

Now, I have to root for the Seahawks.

[bkdow]

I, personally, like the rule.  It has taken something that is gray and attempted to make it less subjective.  Without this verbiage, how do you objectively call anything a catch besides the ever elusive "common sense"?

[JABReferee]

The purpose of the rule is to prevent catches like the Butch Johnson catch in the Super Bowl not a legit catch like the one yesterday.   

Actually I believe the purpose of the rule is to protect the offense from cheap fumbles. For those that want this as a catch, are you good with the idea that this is a fumble if the receiver is not contacted.  Personally, I say no catch and I am good with this rule.   

[Wingmanbp]

Actually I believe the purpose of the rule is to protect the offense from cheap fumbles. For those that want this as a catch, are you good with the idea that this is a fumble if the receiver is not contacted.  Personally, I say no catch and I am good with this rule.   

NO I would be fine with it because in that scenario it would have been a  .

[texref]

I gotta go  here.

From the top of his jump it looks like he is falling the entire time on his way back down.  He keeps his feet under him a little bit but still appears to be falling.  As far as that little lungey/dive thing goes..... Look where he is when that happens.  He's inches from the ground at that point.  My opinion is he is just continuing to fall while teaching the ball out.

For the lazy: 

http://www.gfycat.com/InsecureExemplaryCockerspaniel

http://www.gfycat.com/BriskHandsomeGrasshopper

Full disclosure, I think the reversal was correct.

After watching these links a couple of times it got me to wondering....what if...instead of the field of play #88 was going towards the sideline and landed OOB after his steps and the ball came loose the same way. Would you call that an incomplete pass?

I would.

[DallasLJ]

Two things.  if it is an incomplete in the field of play, it would be IC going OB or into the EZ.  It is either a catch or a non-catch.

  Second, I wonder what the standard of review on Replay is.  While I understand they are looking for indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field -- is the RO reviewing all aspects for the play -- so that the RO can decide there was no catch and football move, so that he can then apply the process of the catch while going to the ground aspect.  Or is it broken up into segments.

  So, what if the calling official, SJ I think, goes to the R when the challenge is thrown and informs him that the SJ ruled possession, control and football move prior to going to the ground, and then he had a fumble, recovered by A88.  At that point -- is review limited to whether there is indisputable evidence that there was no football move.  I submit to you that if that had been the basis of review -- the call on the field would have been upheld because I do not believe the tape can be read to say that there was "no evidence" that Dez was making moves common to the game of football (transfer of ball to left, outside arm and lunge for EZ).

  Just a little food for thought on the Review Process.  Also would make calling official declare at the time of his ruling what he had and why so that the RO review is limited and not open ended and more subjective.

[Wingmanbp]

Full disclosure, I think the reversal was correct.

After watching these links a couple of times it got me to wondering....what if...instead of the field of play #88 was going towards the sideline and landed OOB after his steps and the ball came loose the same way. Would you call that an incomplete pass?

I would.

No because if he was falling out of bounds he wouldn't have reached out for the goalline and therefore would not have lost control

[Wingmanbp]

Actually I believe the purpose of the rule is to protect the offense from cheap fumbles. For those that want this as a catch, are you good with the idea that this is a fumble if the receiver is not contacted.  Personally, I say no catch and I am good with this rule.   

Lets say a RB falls to the ground untouched and looses the ball. Where is the protection from that? Should be the same if a receiver falls untouched to the ground and looses it

[SCHSref]

Lets say a RB falls to the ground untouched and looses the ball. Where is the protection from that? Should be the same if a receiver falls untouched to the ground and looses it

Just a shot in the dark here...maybe the difference is between a loose ball play and one where possession has already been secured and established?

[Wingmanbp]

Just a shot in the dark here...maybe the difference is between a loose ball play and one where possession has already been secured and established?

that's the point I am making. Dez had possession and made a football move. but he was down by contact

[texref]

No because if he was falling out of bounds he wouldn't have reached out for the goal line and therefore would not have lost control

Wing...that wasn't the question. If he took the same steps, came to the ground OOB and the ball was jarred loose by contact with the ground and then he reestablished control would you rule it a catch?

[APG]

Just want to point out the the RO doesn't make the ultimate decision when it comes to replay. In contrast to the college system, the referee makes the ultimate decision (whilst also conversing with RO and whomever is the consultant at the NFL offices).

[VALJ]

True.  But if Mr. Blandino is on the other end of the line saying "that wasn't a catch to me", and Mr. Blandino is the boss of the man under the hood wearing the headset...

[medi-ogre]

My first post here, and I'm gonna get my money's worth.  Sorry for the length but the explanation is what it is.

I don't believe the 'football move' or 'move common to the game' idea should have come into play as it applies to this call.  Here's how I see it.  When a receiver is attempting to possess a loose ball, which is what a forward pass is, two decision trees exist for determining if it is a catch or not.  The first question that needs to be asked is, "Is the receiver going to the ground?"  If the answer to this question is no, then one applies the simple decision tree of a standard standing catch.
1)   Does receiver have control of the ball? 
2)   Does receiver get two feet down in bounds or just one other body part eg knee, elbow etc with control of the ball?
3)   Does he make a move common to the game?
 If the answer to these questions is yes, yes, yes then you have a completed catch and the receiver in that moment becomes a ball carrier.

If the answer to the very first question is, “yes, the receiver is going to the ground while attempting to possess the loose ball” then a whole different decision tree comes into play.
1)   Does the receiver get two feet down in bounds or one other body part with control of the ball?
2)   Does the receiver maintain control of the ball all the way through his contact with the ground until his momentum stops?
a.   Yes = receiver is ball carrier
b.   No = Does the ball ever touch the ground without the receiver having control of the ball? 
i.   Yes = incomplete pass or live loose ball
ii.    No = does the receiver regain control of the ball while maintaining an inbounds status eg he doesn't slide out of bounds and then regain control.
1.   Yes = receiver is ball carrier
2.   No = incomplete pass or live loose ball

Nowhere in the 2nd decision tree does ‘move common to the game’ come up as part of the criteria.  I believe Steratore and Blandino misspoke on this topic when providing explanations.  Dez was going to the ground making the catch and had to fulfill this criteria and this criteria only to make it a completed catch.

Just to show how this flow chart works let's apply it to the Dez catch.  The answer to the first question is he is making the catch while going to the ground.  The answer to question 1 in that tree is yes, he got 2 feet down in bounds with control.  The answer to the second question is no, he did not maintain control all the way through his contact with the ground and its subsequent momentum.  the answer to the next question is yes, the ball touched the ground without Dez having control of the ball therefore incomplete pass.

The biggest problem I have seen with the basic fan's ability to interpret this call and sequence of events is the combining of the two decision trees.  They are cherry picking stuff from one and applying it to the other.  The idea of move common to the game only applies to standing catches, not falling catches.

All this being said, I believe these 2 sets of criteria for possessing a loose ball to be unnecessary and leads to the ridiculous amount of confusion seen after a call like this.  No doubt the league should go to one set of criteria for all attempts to possess a loose ball:

1)   Obvious control of a live loose ball
2)   2 feet or one other body part down with control
3)   In real time a “one thousand one” count after 1 and 2 are fulfilled.
4)   If control lost before #3, go back to #1

Yes, I know.  #3 is a bit ambiguous and could lead to debate on certain plays about was the ball held long enough before the dude got blown up catching a pass over the middle and what not, but it would have definitely made the Dez play much easier to call.  The play under this set of criteria is most definitely a catch.  He would have become a ball carrier before he hit the ground so he would have been down by contact when his arm hit.  Easy.  No debate.

There would be plays that would have new results if this is applied.  There is the possibility for more fumbles on the going to the ground plays.  If a receiver catches the ball and fulfills the above criteria but is stumbling to the ground in the process without being touched and lost control of the ball when hitting the ground, this is now a fumble instead of an incomplete pass.  Not a big deal as I see it.  Receivers would need to be cognizant of this fact and be prepared to cover up a possible fumble.

Whatever the league determines, for the good of the game and the sanity of the fanbase, this needs to be cleaned up.  A simplifying down to one set of easy to understand criteria will do this.

[mogul84]

This might settle it. From NFL CASE book of A.R.

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS"First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out.Ruling: Touchdown Team A. 

[DallasLJ]

This might settle it. From NFL CASE book of A.R.

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS"First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out.Ruling: Touchdown Team A.

  Sounds like they had it right on the field -- and messed up on replay.

[goodgrr]

I don't think that AR applies.  In there it specifically says the player goes to the ground as a result of the contact.  It wouldn't apply if the player was going down trying to make the catch.

This is more like why the call in the Bengals /Chargers game would be upheld http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-playoffs/0ap2000000310644/Official-Review-Wild-card-round

[centexsports]

How about this.  After watching it today, several weeks after the fact, it appears that Dez may have been able to come down on his feet but was contacted by the defender's feet and/or legs.  Therefore, he was down by contact after making the catch.    I don't think anybody can argue that he did not have control of the ball because he cradled it before hitting the ground.

I hate the status of football rules today.   When a professional official (who was obiviously one of the best the league has) is standing 5 feet from a play and intently watching it makes a call and half the officials in the country can not agree on the correct call, something is wrong. (sorry for the run together sentence).     

[GWK]

Although I am a Cowboys fan and would very much like to have seen the field ruling stand, I will not argue with the RO.  However, it would seem to me that there is a matter of consistency that needs to be brought up.  I cannot remember exactly when it was in the game, I think it was right before the half, when the Cowboys were on defense and Green Bay trying to keep a field goal drive going.  The GB receiver turned to make a low catch which was reviewed. On the broadcast replays, the replay from the umpire's viewpoint looked like he had his hands uner the ball and it was a catch.  But then the broadcast showed a view from downfield looking from the back side of the diving receiver between his legs.  It was obvious from that view that the point of the football bounced on the ground and the receiver's hands were not fully insulating the ball from the turf.  Replay did NOT turn that call over. I think they said the call on the field was upheld, rather than the call on the field was confirmed, which means the RO did not feel he had quite enough evidence to call it either way.  Did the RO not have the same replay views that the broadcast showed?  I doubt that.  So, to me, if that catch by Green Bay was good, the the Dez Bryant catch should have been good, also.  Or both of them should have been incomplete.  Either way, it is important for us officials to be consistent.

[goodgrr]

I feel you may be confusing two points here.  Th Dez catch had clear evidence that he lost the ball at the end of the play.

The issue with the other catch was to do with if he had control, the ball can touch the ground and he can still have control.  In that case it's likely they don't have evidence that he didn't have the control.

[goodgrr]

Competition committee changes.

From Dean Blandino (my emphasis added):

"The committee looked at the language and made several changes. In order to complete a catch, the receiver has to have control, both feet on the ground, and he has to have it after that long enough to clearly establish himself as a runner. This would fall directly in line with our defenseless player rule, where we say a receiver is protected until he can clearly establish himself as a runner. And what does that mean? That means he has the ability to ward off and protect himself from the impending contact."

The Dez catch would still not be complete.