If the ball hits the ground, its fair that its incomplete

[oldunclemark]

There's so much talk Monday about the Dallas-Green bay call on Dez Bryant's 'catch'

I know that rules have changed..and you can debate the 'Calvin Johnson' rule for days..

But if you are making a catch and you fall to the ground and the ball hits the ground and pops out of your hands..Isnt that the 'real world' definition of incomplete? If the ball hits the ground, shouldn't

the pass be incomplete 100% of the time? You cant use the ground directly or indirectly make a catch fair.

Again..Don't debate the Calvin Johnson rule unless you just want to.

The ball hit the ground whenthe receiver fell and it popped up out of his hands

...Its not a completed pass and it shouldn't be

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

As long as the ground doesn't move the ball I'd say you can catch it with it hitting the ground.

[oldunclemark]

As long as the ground doesn't move the ball I'd say you can catch it with it hitting the ground.

But since the beginning of time....you have to keep the ball from hitting the ground, right?

Not rule..just basic fairness..Hands - body- thighs yes...ground no...Not fair

[BlacknGold77]

the problem with the Dez play is you can easily make the claim that he made a football move and was past the act of catching the ball.

 

he took 3 steps and dove for the endzone.  to me the act of reaching out for the end zone (what caused the ball to pop loose btw) was a football move beyond the act of catching the ball.

 

to me that was a catch with down by contact/ground causing a fumble

[Girlzarefanstoo]

The rules already allow for the ball to hit the ground as long as you are in full control and aren't using the ground to complete the catch.  If your hands are securely wrapped around the ball and it touches the ground, they will look for any movement, bobbling, shifting of it.  

 

When a ball pops up into the air because it hit the ground that's the very definition of losing control and it's dead the moment it hit the ground.

 

Hate the Calvin Johnson rule and would like them to rework it, but this play was called according to the rule. 

[-JJ-]

the problem with the Dez play is you can easily make the claim that he made a football move and was past the act of catching the ball.

 

he took 3 steps and dove for the endzone.  to me the act of reaching out for the end zone (what caused the ball to pop loose btw) was a football move beyond the act of catching the ball.

 

to me that was a catch with down by contact/ground causing a fumble

that's what I saw.

[B~Town]

Saw it called both ways I believe the big question is what exactly is a football move in the eyes of the for official . Saw a play this year as close to being the same as you can get ruled complete because the dive was a football move and knee was down before the ball come out . Another example Wilson and Vick both threw a pass with part of there body part the Los one called illegal forward pass while the the completion stood I believe the way the interpretation of the rule by the refs is key in these situations .

[jvan1973]

But since the beginning of time....you have to keep the ball from hitting the ground, right?

Not rule..just basic fairness..Hands - body- thighs yes...ground no...Not fair

the ball can hit the ground as long as it doesn't move when it does

[Dustin]

The good thing that comes from this is that they'll fix what the definition of a catch is in the off-season.

 

Hopefully.

[Moose Of Woe]

In a simpler world, the ball should just be ruled incomplete if any part of it touches the ground. Get the grey area/judgement call out of it. We have enough rules like that already.

[jvan1973]

In a simpler world, the ball should just be ruled incomplete if any part of it touches the ground. Get the grey area/judgement call out of it. We have enough rules like that already.

t used to be that way. The Bert Emmanuel catch in tge NFCCG changed that. He had full control, the ball never moved and it was ruled incomplete. itThey changed it after that

[Moose Of Woe]

t used to be that way. The Bert Emmanuel catch in tge NFCCG changed that. He had full control, the ball never moved and it was ruled incomplete. itThey changed it after that

Yeah...it never should have been changed in the first place imo.

[jvan1973]

Yeah...it never should have been changed in the first place imo.

you would see a lot more incomplete passes then

[Moose Of Woe]

you would see a lot more incomplete passes then

Fine by me. Receivers have it too easy. Just keep the ball off the ground.

 

Plus with the gloves these guys have nowadays that may as well be stickum coated there's little excuse in being unable to secure a ball properly. (Off the ground.)

[t-rex]

I don't have any problem with the rule or how it was applied. Without this rule defining catches would be more difficult and controversial not easier. The NFL called this right. Bryant needs to secure the catch first, before lounging to the end zone. I'm shocked it's this controversial. Hmm.... If his didn't involve the Cowboys I wonder big this settled topic would really be?

[Girlzarefanstoo]

Here is the entire catch, not just the ball hitting the ground: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000456759/Did-Dez-catch-it

 

As I look at it, he isn't actually making 3 big steps after the catch, he's falling to the ground and his legs are still moving.  He is only vertical for the first step and is falling more with each following step.  The ball isn't secured until somewhere near the end of the 2nd step and the beginning of the 3rd step at which point it is in one hand and pops out the moment it hits the ground.  The fact he's "going to the ground" in the process of the catch is what triggers the "must maintain possession all the way to the ground" part of the rule.  

 

It's hard to argue that he made three steps as a football move, when the ball hasn't yet been secured until the third step.

 

Even his extension to the goal line isn't that pronounced, it is a slight stretch.

 

AGAIN I hate the rule and want to see it changed (but have no idea what it should be changed to).  I don't have a dog in the fight so I'm not prejudiced one way or the other.  

[House]

Here is the entire catch, not just the ball hitting the ground: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000456759/Did-Dez-catch-it

As I look at it, he isn't actually making 3 big steps after the catch, he's falling to the ground and his legs are still moving. He is only vertical for the first step and is falling more with each following step. The ball isn't secured until somewhere near the end of the 2nd step and the beginning of the 3rd step at which point it is in one hand and pops out the moment it hits the ground. The fact he's "going to the ground" in the process of the catch is what triggers the "must maintain possession all the way to the ground" part of the rule.

It's hard to argue that he made three steps as a football move, when the ball hasn't yet been secured until the third step.

Even his extension to the goal line isn't that pronounced, it is a slight stretch.

AGAIN I hate the rule and want to see it changed (but have no idea what it should be changed to). I don't have a dog in the fight so I'm not prejudiced one way or the other.

It isn't even close. Every time I see an argument about it I question my sanity.

[BpG]

Such a horrible call. The football move was him reaching for the endzone, thus the ground caused a fumble.....terrible, terrible rule and a terrible ending to a game. 

[SilentHill]

I'm  not even sure that ball hit the ground, every replay they show on NFL network doesn't show the ball on the ground.

 

Regardless, I believe he had the catch and made a football move towards the end zone, so, I don't like the call.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

But since the beginning of time....you have to keep the ball from hitting the ground, right?

Not rule..just basic fairness..Hands - body- thighs yes...ground no...Not fair

No. I see all the time where the player catches a ball and it touches the ground yet doesn't move at all, as long as it's secured with your hands, body etc... in other words the ground has no bearing on the catch. obviously if it bounces, moves, or is caught against the ground then it isn't a catch.

Btw I completely agree with the Dez call, as the rules stands.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

Here is the entire catch, not just the ball hitting the ground: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000456759/Did-Dez-catch-it

As I look at it, he isn't actually making 3 big steps after the catch, he's falling to the ground and his legs are still moving. He is only vertical for the first step and is falling more with each following step. The ball isn't secured until somewhere near the end of the 2nd step and the beginning of the 3rd step at which point it is in one hand and pops out the moment it hits the ground. The fact he's "going to the ground" in the process of the catch is what triggers the "must maintain possession all the way to the ground" part of the rule.

It's hard to argue that he made three steps as a football move, when the ball hasn't yet been secured until the third step.

Even his extension to the goal line isn't that pronounced, it is a slight stretch.

AGAIN I hate the rule and want to see it changed (but have no idea what it should be changed to). I don't have a dog in the fight so I'm not prejudiced one way or the other.

Exactly.

[Superman]

the problem with the Dez play is you can easily make the claim that he made a football move and was past the act of catching the ball.

 

he took 3 steps and dove for the endzone.  to me the act of reaching out for the end zone (what caused the ball to pop loose btw) was a football move beyond the act of catching the ball.

 

to me that was a catch with down by contact/ground causing a fumble

 

When did he dive for the end zone? When did he reach for the end zone? I disagree that he did either of those things. As a matter of fact, he put his right arm out to soften his landing, rather than the left arm where the ball was. His momentum took him forward, there was no distinct move toward the end zone.

[House]

Such a horrible call. The football move was him reaching for the endzone, thus the ground caused a fumble.....terrible, terrible rule and a terrible ending to a game.

Is it reaching or is it falling while trying to catch the ball. I would argue the latter.

Also there were 4 minutes left. Even if Dallas gets a TD the game is far from over.

[Girlzarefanstoo]

I'm  not even sure that ball hit the ground, every replay they show on NFL network doesn't show the ball on the ground.

 

Regardless, I believe he had the catch and made a football move towards the end zone, so, I don't like the call.

Go look at the clip posted above.  For simplicity here it is again: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000456759/Did-Dez-catch-it

 

You can see the ball react to hitting the ground and hitting the ground.  His hand is on the side a little bit to the top of the ball.  The ball clearly hits the ground without his hand under it.  

 

Here is Blandino's comments about why the rule applies: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/12/blandino-stands-by-overturning-dez-bryant-catch/  

 

“Is Bryant going to the ground to make the catch?” Blandino said on PFT Live. “It’s clear. He’s stumbling. . . . Then we have to look to see, does the ball touch the ground? Which it clearly did, and it came loose after it touched the ground. . . . The last part which was discussed is did he make a football move? . . . Looking at it, he didn’t.”

Blandino said Bryant lunging forward toward the goal line is not the kind of overt act a player needs to make in order to be seen as making a “football move.”

“There’s judgment involved in all of these plays,” Blandino said. “We felt it was indisputable that’s not what Bryant did. He was just trying to gain control of it.”

[House]

I'm not even sure that ball hit the ground, every replay they show on NFL network doesn't show the ball on the ground.

Regardless, I believe he had the catch and made a football move towards the end zone, so, I don't like the call.

https://vine.co/v/ODZTV7z2UZ2

100% smacks the ground and he loses all control.

[Superman]

I'm  not even sure that ball hit the ground, every replay they show on NFL network doesn't show the ball on the ground.

 

Regardless, I believe he had the catch and made a football move towards the end zone, so, I don't like the call.

 

http://www.nfl.com/v...id-Dez-catch-it

 

Go to the 1:39 mark of the video. You'll see the ball clearly hit the ground and move.

[ruksak]

But since the beginning of time....you have to keep the ball from hitting the ground, right?

 

No. Only the player cannot relinquish control of the ball for even a second as a result. 

[BOTT]

Stop watching the play in super slow mo. It's clearly not a catch if you watch it full speed.

[SilentHill]

Go look at the clip posted above.  For simplicity here it is again: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000456759/Did-Dez-catch-it

 

You can see the ball react to hitting the ground and hitting the ground.  His hand is on the side a little bit to the top of the ball.  The ball clearly hits the ground without his hand under it.  

 

Here is Blandino's comments about why the rule applies: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/12/blandino-stands-by-overturning-dez-bryant-catch/

 

“Is Bryant going to the ground to make the catch?” Blandino said on PFT Live. “It’s clear. He’s stumbling. . . . Then we have to look to see, does the ball touch the ground? Which it clearly did, and it came loose after it touched the ground. . . . The last part which was discussed is did he make a football move? . . . Looking at it, he didn’t.”

Blandino said Bryant lunging forward toward the goal line is not the kind of overt act a player needs to make in order to be seen as making a “football move.”

“There’s judgment involved in all of these plays,” Blandino said. “We felt it was indisputable that’s not what Bryant did. He was just trying to gain control of it.”

 

 

https://vine.co/v/ODZTV7z2UZ2

100% smacks the ground and he loses all control.

 

 

http://www.nfl.com/v...id-Dez-catch-it

 

Go to the 1:39 mark of the video. You'll see the ball clearly hit the ground and move.

 

 

Thanks,  didn't see all those angles before.

[Girlzarefanstoo]

This just up on NFL.com  

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000457284/article/blandino-competition-committee-to-review-catch-rule

 

Competition committee to review the catch rule in the off season.

 

Let's just hope they are able to figure it out and make it better not worse?!!!

[Nesjan3]

whatever you can argue for years whether it was a catch or not, Ironically Jerry Jones sayd it best after the game, "we signed up for this, this is what we wanted was to put calls like this in the officials hands, theres nothing we can do about it". Simple.

By the way I believe in Karma and I think the football gods spoke that game and brought some justice to a cowboy team that really probably wouldn't have made it to GB if it wasn't for a different ref incident

[Paulballs]

I had no dislike of Dallas or Green Bay, in fact I wouldnt have minded seeing Dallas to win, but it was incomplete. I cannot believe how many of these sports talk guys (Mike and Mike, Dan Patrick, Skip, Stephen A, PTI, etc) feel like it was a bad call. 

 

People complain how they dont call the rules the same in the playoffs and thats not right, yet they called the play to the letter and suddenly no one is happy about it. Once he hit the ground and the ball rolled up his shoulder I immediately said imcomplete. 

[Superman]

This just up on NFL.com  

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000457284/article/blandino-competition-committee-to-review-catch-rule

 

Competition committee to review the catch rule in the off season.

 

Let's just hope they are able to figure it out and make it better not worse?!!!

 

Or leave it the way it is. I'm all for reviewing it and stuff, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

[oldunclemark]

I'm  not even sure that ball hit the ground, every replay they show on NFL network doesn't show the ball on the ground.

 

Regardless, I believe he had the catch and made a football move towards the end zone, so, I don't like the call.

the ball definetly touched the ground...

[oldunclemark]

This just up on NFL.com  

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000457284/article/blandino-competition-committee-to-review-catch-rule

 

Competition committee to review the catch rule in the off season.

 

Let's just hope they are able to figure it out and make it better not worse?!!!

I believe the NFL 'looked at it' after the Calvin Johnson play in Chicago in 2010..and they agreed to keep it as it is.

Its very simplistic..

I keep heraing the ground cannt cause a fumble but that is beside the point..

It has nothing to do with fumbles..because the rule says you don't have it until you are on the ground and still.

They are unlikely to change it.

Just don't let the ball touch the ground, Dez

[crazycolt1]

The rules already allow for the ball to hit the ground as long as you are in full control and aren't using the ground to complete the catch.  If your hands are securely wrapped around the ball and it touches the ground, they will look for any movement, bobbling, shifting of it.  

 

When a ball pops up into the air because it hit the ground that's the very definition of losing control and it's dead the moment it hit the ground.

 

Hate the Calvin Johnson rule and would like them to rework it, but this play was called according to the rule. 

I agree. The second the ball was out of possession it was incomplete. I looked a the repay over and over and according to the rules it was incomplete IMO.

[ColtsBlueFL]

There's so much talk Monday about the Dallas-Green bay call on Dez Bryant's 'catch'

I know that rules have changed..and you can debate the 'Calvin Johnson' rule for days..

But if you are making a catch and you fall to the ground and the ball hits the ground and pops out of your hands..Isnt that the 'real world' definition of incomplete? If the ball hits the ground, shouldn't

the pass be incomplete 100% of the time? You cant use the ground directly or indirectly make a catch fair.

Again..Don't debate the Calvin Johnson rule unless you just want to.

The ball hit the ground whenthe receiver fell and it popped up out of his hands

...Its not a completed pass and it shouldn't be

 

If the player does not have possession, then yes it is incomplete.  If Players is deemed to have possession and a runner, then it is down by contact as the ground cannot cause a fumble.  The way rule is written Dez had not established possession.  Many folks out there believe he had, and the way the rule is written is to strict.  The competition committee will have to revisit when/how a receiver goes from 'in the act of making a catch' to a runner that has just made a catch.  That is where the rubber will meet the road.

[ColtsBlueFL]

the problem with the Dez play is you can easily make the claim that he made a football move and was past the act of catching the ball.

 

he took 3 steps and dove for the endzone.  to me the act of reaching out for the end zone (what caused the ball to pop loose btw) was a football move beyond the act of catching the ball.

 

to me that was a catch with down by contact/ground causing a fumble

 

You could make that claim...  I couldn't.  I claim he caught it in air and and after his first foot comes down, his second comes down tangled with defender and receiver knocks him off balance and is not in stable running position.  His third foot touch is a toe tap on the turf as he is falling to the ground.  I don't believe he was ever in a position to pitch it or pass it, etc...  as the rule dictates -

 

© 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

 

he was falling to the ground and tried to stretch the ball. Replay loop is here-

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/01/11/watch-the-dez-bryant-catch-that-wasnt-a-catch-in-cowboys-packers-game/

 

Remember, the refs called it a catch!  Mike McCarthy challenged it.  Dean Blandino in New York intervened with Ref and overturned it saying Dez was never in possession and thus a 'runner'.  Now the rule needs revised so a play like that can be ruled a catch.  I'd be for it. But that's a catch on the ragged edge, for sure, IMO.

[Superman]

 

You could make that claim...  I couldn't.  I claim he caught it in air and and after his first foot comes down, his second comes down tangled with defender and receiver knocks him off balance and is not in stable running position.  His third foot touch is a toe tap on the turf as he is falling to the ground.  I don't believe he was ever in a position to pitch it or pass it, etc...  as the rule dictates -

 

© 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

 

he was falling to the ground and tried to stretch the ball. Replay loop is here-

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/01/11/watch-the-dez-bryant-catch-that-wasnt-a-catch-in-cowboys-packers-game/

 

Remember, the refs called it a catch!  Mike McCarthy challenged it.  Dean Blandino in New York intervened with Ref and overturned it saying Dez was never in possession and thus a 'runner'.  Now the rule needs revised so a play like that can be ruled a catch.  I'd be for it. But that's a catch on the ragged edge, for sure, IMO.

 

 

I still don't see why it needs to be changed. There are plenty of plays like that every year where the receiver maintains control of the ball through the process of hitting the ground, and gets credit for the catch. Dez should have put both hands on the ball and secured and maintained possession through the play.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I still don't see why it needs to be changed. There are plenty of plays like that every year where the receiver maintains control of the ball through the process of hitting the ground, and gets credit for the catch. Dez should have put both hands on the ball and secured and maintained possession through the play.

 

True, but I'm not a fan of the 'Ground can cause an incompletion, but not a fumble.'  In Dez and Calvin Johnson's case, I'm in favor of the down by contact rule.  If they got both feet down and no bobbling then they hit the ground... play over if defender had contact, or receiver fumbles it on ground impact, whether ball hits ground or not.  They didn't use ground to secure the catch, the ground is point of ending the play, not nullifying the play, IMHO.