Steratore strikes again...

"VManis wrote:

The second video in this link clearly shows the ball making contact with the ground.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2015-01-11/dez-bryant-catch-cowboys-packers-nfc

I dunno.. i see something dark hitting the ground... could be the ball, could be his arm.

"Paul 13 wrote:

honestly no... i don't see it hitting the ground

Actually, looking closer at the animated gif, the pylon covers the part where the ball could have hit the ground.

So, I do hope they had a better angle that shows the ball hit the ground.

"Desides wrote:

Know the rule before you cite the rule, please. From the 2013 NFL Rulebook (which is the most recent available on NFL.com), the "Going to the Ground" rule, aka the Calvin Johnson Rule that is the core of this thread:

In other words, if the player is down before the ball comes out, it's a catch. If the ball comes out before the player is down, it's an incomplete pass. Dez Bryant was down before the ball came out.

I agree. You should try that, instead of trying to act holier than thou.

LOL!!

I see others have already clarified this for you, so I won't bother. You're not understanding it properly.

Dez clearly does not maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. He's lost the ball, as it touches the ground when he hits. Therefore the pass is incomplete.

I really dont understand why people are disputing this fact. The rule is there. The video is there. The call is there. The confirmation it was called properly according to the rule is there. All we're doing here is arguing because some people disagree with the rule. And that's fine. But lets not pretend it wasn't called properly, we can't call it a catch, because the rulebook says it's not a catch.

Dispute the rule, sure... but before doing that even, I think it's important to understand the reprecussions changing the rule would have. You want to say he has posession simply because he' got 2 feet, or in Dez's case 3 feet down? OK... fine... however what it he then gets hit by a DB and looses the ball. Now what do we call it? A Completion and a fumble? Noo... it's incomplete. two feet down is only posession along the sidelines, and even then, he's got to have control all the way out of bounds, or all the way to the ground out of bounds. Changing the rule for this case, changes many other things. The rule was made, so there's a determining factor for the NFL, and officials, and even players to understand what is a catch according to the rule.

"rafael wrote:

That's not the way it's been interpreted since the Calvin Johnson catch/non-catch. It's not "down" like a runner would be down. The receiver has to control the ball even after he hits the ground.

The receiver has to control the ball until the end of the play. The play is over when the player is down.

The Going to the Ground rule complicated things, but I'm sorry, that is a reception and he is down at the 1.

"brandon27 wrote:

Dez clearly does not maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. He's lost the ball, as it touches the ground when he hits. Therefore the pass is incomplete.

He clearly does have one handed control of the ball until his body hits the ground--which is fine, because at that point he is down and the play is over.

This isn't even a matter of a bad rule, it's a matter of when the ball came out, whether before or after the end of the play.

I don't know what a catch is these days going back to the 99-00 season when the changed the rules. Its all subjective now.

"Desides wrote:

The receiver has to control the ball until the end of the play. The play is over when the player is down.

The Going to the Ground rule complicated things, but I'm sorry, that is a reception and he is down at the 1.

He clearly does have one handed control of the ball until his body hits the ground--which is fine, because at that point he is down and the play is over.

This isn't even a matter of a bad rule, it's a matter of when the ball came out, whether before or after the end of the play.

tem 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.

The only way he would be down is if he was contacted by another player and clearly the rule says that doesn't matter.

"Desides wrote:

The receiver has to control the ball until the end of the play. The play is over when the player is down.

The Going to the Ground rule complicated things, but I'm sorry, that is a reception and he is down at the 1.

He clearly does have one handed control of the ball until his body hits the ground--which is fine, because at that point he is down and the play is over.

This isn't even a matter of a bad rule, it's a matter of when the ball came out, whether before or after the end of the play.

It's not though. The ground can not cause a fumble, but the ground can cause an incompletion when the player has not demonstrated control while falling to the ground. That's what's happening here.

"Desides wrote:

The receiver has to control the ball until the end of the play. The play is over when the player is down.

The Going to the Ground rule complicated things, but I'm sorry, that is a reception and he is down at the 1.

You said the rule complicates things earlier, but it doesn't complicate things though. It clarifies them in the NFL's eyes. That's why they claim they made and have the rule, and why they chose to keep the rule after the CJ incident a few years ago. The rule is there to determine whether it is a catch or not in these types of plays, where the player has lost control of the ball when impacting the ground while in the act of a catch. It's the only definitive way in the NFL competition comittee's eyes to make that ruling as per Blandino in several interviews heard on the radio today. The act of the catch is only completed when the player has posession, and establishes himself as a runner and makes a football move. That doesn't happen here, he's still completing the act of the catch because he's deemed to be falling to the ground.

"brandon27 wrote:

LOL!!

I see others have already clarified this for you, so I won't bother. You're not understanding it properly.

Dez clearly does not maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. He's lost the ball, as it touches the ground when he hits. Therefore the pass is incomplete.

I really dont understand why people are disputing this fact. The rule is there. The video is there. The call is there. The confirmation it was called properly according to the rule is there. All we're doing here is arguing because some people disagree with the rule. And that's fine. But lets not pretend it wasn't called properly, we can't call it a catch, because the rulebook says it's not a catch.

Dispute the rule, sure... but before doing that even, I think it's important to understand the reprecussions changing the rule would have. You want to say he has posession simply because he' got 2 feet, or in Dez's case 3 feet down? OK... fine... however what it he then gets hit by a DB and looses the ball. Now what do we call it? A Completion and a fumble? Noo... it's incomplete. two feet down is only posession along the sidelines, and even then, he's got to have control all the way out of bounds, or all the way to the ground out of bounds. Changing the rule for this case, changes many other things. The rule was made, so there's a determining factor for the NFL, and officials, and even players to understand what is a catch according to the rule.

It's complete by Article 3 Item 1 because he never lost control of the ball as he was going to the ground. For it to be incomplete, he would have had to lose control of the ball prior to the ball hitting the ground.
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.

It's also complete by Article 3 item 4 because He maintained control after the ball touched the ground.
Item 4: Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided
that the player continues to maintain control.

"brandon27 wrote:

It's not though. The ground can not cause a fumble, but the ground can cause an incompletion when the player has not demonstrated control while falling to the ground. That's what's happening here.

One handed control of the ball is demonstrated until such time that the player is down. That the ball becomes separated by 3 inches from the player's forearm while the player maintains a grip on the ball does not constitute losing control during the process of going to the ground. He's still holding it.

"Desides wrote:

The receiver has to control the ball until the end of the play. The play is over when the player is down.

The Going to the Ground rule complicated things, but I'm sorry, that is a reception and he is down at the 1.

He does not have control all the way through b/c the play isn't over when he hits the ground. The ball bounces off the ground and comes out of the receivers hands. There is no way that that would be called a catch anytime in the last few years. The going to the ground rule doesn't complicate things. It actually makes things simpler. If the ball hits the ground and comes loose from the receivers hands as the picture above shows, it's not a catch. I don't agree with the rule b/c I believe the process of the catch is completed if the receiver controls the ball and gets to feet down, but that's not the rule. The rule is that if the receiver goes to the ground the catch is not completed until he shows control after hitting the ground. He simply can't let the ball hit the ground and lose control of it and still have it called a catch.

"rafael wrote:

He does not have control all the way through b/c the play isn't over when he hits the ground.

There is nothing about the act of receiving that extends the play beyond when the player is down.

At this point, an argument could be made that giving the ball back to the referee can be considered losing possession and therefore is not a reception.

Bryant is going to the ground, so he has to maintain control even if he is down.

"Desides wrote:

One handed control of the ball is demonstrated until such time that the player is down. That the ball becomes separated by 3 inches from the player's forearm while the player maintains a grip on the ball does not constitute losing control during the process of going to the ground. He's still holding it.

No, that's where you're missing it maybe. The fact that the ball becomes separated by 3 inches from the player's forearm, is loosing control. It's the same as if a guy is on the sideline gets both feet in and bobbles it out of bounds and it's called incomplete. You have to maintain complete control.

"finwin wrote:

He maintained control after the ball touched the ground. Atricle 3 Item 4
Item 4: Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided
that the player continues to maintain control.

You're missing the bold part. The ball bobbled in his arm. It almost popped out. That's not maintaining control. If the ball touched the ground but didn't move out of Dez's arm, didn't wiggle, didn't nudge, it's actually a catch.

"brandon27 wrote:

No, that's where you're missing it maybe. The fact that the ball becomes separated by 3 inches from the player's forearm, is loosing control.

No, it is not losing control, because he still has a five fingered one handed grip on the ball. It's still fully in his control.

"Desides wrote:

There is nothing about the act of receiving that extends the play beyond when the player is down.

At this point, an argument could be made that giving the ball back to the referee can be considered losing possession and therefore is not a reception.

No, because giving the ball to the referee is not part of the 'process of contacting the ground'.

"rafael wrote:

He does not have control all the way through b/c the play isn't over when he hits the ground. The ball bounces off the ground and comes out of the receivers hands. There is no way that that would be called a catch anytime in the last few years. The going to the ground rule doesn't complicate things. It actually makes things simpler. If the ball hits the ground and comes loose from the receivers hands as the picture above shows, it's not a catch. I don't agree with the rule b/c I believe the process of the catch is completed if the receiver controls the ball and gets to feet down, but that's not the rule. The rule is that if the receiver goes to the ground the catch is not completed until he shows control after hitting the ground. He simply can't let the ball hit the ground and lose control of it and still have it called a catch.

Exactly!

The only problem though with saying as long as it's in his hands and he has two feet down then is plays where the WR has the ball, with both feet down, then immediately is hit and looses posession prior to "making a football move" the play can then be ruled a turnover. However, they don't want that happening frequently, so the football move is required. Same with a play like this. If he hits the ground, looses the ball like he did, but lets say he doesn't end up with it, and a Packer's player does. Should it really be a turnover? Probably not, because then people would argue the opposite, that it wasn't a catch and he didnt have complete control. It's all in what you want to see. So, this way.. .the rule is there, the rule says if it's bobbled as he hits the ground and doesnt complete the catch all the way through to the ground, its not a catch. Same way it says you have to catch it, show posession establish yourself as a runner in the open field then make a move prior to establishing posession in a normal type of play in open field.

The rule is there to say what is a catch, and what isn't in that instance because they wanted to avoid it being ruled a turnover, if it wasn't a "complete catch". Those were Blandino's words on the radio this morning as to why the competition comittee wanted it kept the way it was after the CJ play.

Really the only point to debate was whether Bryant contacting the ground was part of the catch, or whether contacting the ground was a football move by Bryant. IMO its clear that Bryant going to the ground was part of the catching process. Once that is initiated, he needs to maintain control throughout the entire process of contacting the ground.

"Desides wrote:

No, it is not losing control, because he still has a five fingered one handed grip on the ball. It's still fully in his control.

Really? Take a look at this picture.

That's not fully in his control after he hits the ground with it...

I'm really not sure what the argument is here. Other than you just simply don't agree with the rule... The right call was made.

"VManis wrote:

Except when he landed the ground dislodged the ball. This is the best shot I've seen of him without the ball.

"Desides wrote:

One handed control of the ball is demonstrated until such time that the player is down. That the ball becomes separated by 3 inches from the player's forearm while the player maintains a grip on the ball does not constitute losing control during the process of going to the ground. He's still holding it.

This is not control, one-handed or otherwise. The ball is not touching either hand.

"brandon27 wrote:

*sigh*

He did not have possession of it though according to the rule of the NFL because he did not complete the catch when going to the ground. If the ball doesn't hit the ground and then get bobbled, then yes, it's a catch. However, that's just not the case. We cant be altering the rule to fit our opinions here...

Why doesn't tne "if his arm is under it" rule apply here? I don't think the ball ever hit the ground without him having possession of it. Who cares if it bounced in the air when he fell, he regained possesion without it hitting the ground.

"rafael wrote:

This is not control, one-handed or otherwise. The ball is not touching either hand.

Nor is it touching the ground, he is allowed to regain possesion.

They need to clarify what maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. I believe that statement applied to losing the ball after he hits the ground. If maintain control means the ball can't move after it hits the ground then it's incomplete, but he "maintained control" of the ball before and after it hit the ground.

"Fin-Omenal wrote:

Why doesn't tne "if his arm is under it" rule apply here? I don't think the ball ever hit the ground without him having possession of it. Who cares if it bounced in the air when he fell, he regained possesion without it hitting the ground.

Because the ground can cause an incompletion (because of the rule we're discussing) unlike how the ground can not cause a fumble.

He lost posession of it when he, and the ball hit the ground. That makes it incomplete.

"Desides wrote:

There is nothing about the act of receiving that extends the play beyond when the player is down.

At this point, an argument could be made that giving the ball back to the referee can be considered losing possession and therefore is not a reception.

That is simply wrong. The rule says that the player must show control when going to the ground. Unless you haven't watched football the last few years, you must have noticed the refs watching receivers after they hit the ground to make sure they maintained control. They don't look away once an elbow or knee hits the ground. They don't disregard everything after that point. The refs have made that explanation a 1000 times. "The receiver did/or did not control the ball through the process of going to the ground". They do not say that the receiver had control until the point when he was down. If you believe the play is over at that point you are simply wrong.