Why do you Cowboys fans think that was a catch?

As for the ball hitting the ground. This page has a photo that some are saying is proof the ball is on the ground.

http://www.totalprosports.com/2015/01/11/dez-bryant-catch-overturned-video/

In the first half I thought there was proof a GB pass hit the ground as well and the replay official said there was no proof. So in this instance I assume he would give preference as well to the call on the field that it did not hit the ground.

In other news the NFL today announced Butch Johnson's TD Catch in Super Bowl XII has been overtruned as the ball hit the ground and the score adjusted to 20-10.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8ad3pDqFO4

wejo wrote:

As for the ball hitting the ground. This page has a photo that some are saying is proof the ball is on the ground.

http://www.totalprosports.com/2015/01/11/dez-bryant-catch-overturned-video/

In the first half I thought there was proof a GB pass hit the ground as well and the replay official said there was no proof. So in this instance I assume he would give preference as well to the call on the field that it did not hit the ground.

In other news the NFL today announced Butch Johnson's TD Catch in Super Bowl XII has been overtruned as the ball hit the ground and the score adjusted to 20-10.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8ad3pDqFO4

are you seriously still arguing about this? It was 100% without a doubt not a catch based on the rules. But how many hours are you going to spend saying otherwise?

This is the epitome of poor sportsmanship ("fanmanship" ?)/useless whining.

Someone contact who is ever really running the show here and get all the brojo posts deleted.

This has been thoroughly explained. There really isn't any room for more discussion.

"'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...'

1) Bryant never gained his footing after touching the ball

therefore

2) He WAS "Going to the Ground"

and obviously

3) He did NOT "control the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground"

What part of this is giving you such a difficult time?"

You might have to take it out of italics, that's probably like a foreign language to the Brojos.

You are wrong. If it was 100% without a doubt as you say then it wouldn't have been called a catch on the field and there wouldn't be loads of analysts and ex players saying it was a catch.

P0T0 wrote:

This has been thoroughly explained. There really isn't any room for more discussion.

"'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...'

1) Bryant never gained his footing after touching the ball

therefore

2) He WAS "Going to the Ground"

and obviously

3) He did NOT "control the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground"

What part of this is giving you such a difficult time?"

If a football move is considered to have been made then the process of having made a catch is over and it does not matter if he then goes to the ground after.

I'm just saying if you want to get all technical you could say even with the definition of the rules a catch was made.

Exactly.

P0T0,

"What part of this is so hard for you to understand?"

On the football act: Read law talking guys post at the top of page 7. Originally, I thought the same thing, and with good reason, because Mike Pereira and the others are doing an horrible job of explaining these rules. But if you look at the rule book under Article 3 - Completed or Intercepted Pass- it seems you need to satisfy points a, b, c, to complete a catch, but a catch is not necessarily completed if you do so, because if you're doing item 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 then you need to meet those additional requirements as well. So if that's right, then if Dez was falling to ground he would need to complete the process, even if he made a football act.

El Pagan wrote:

wejo wrote:

If a football move is considered to have been made then the process of having made a catch is over and it does not matter if he then goes to the ground after.

I'm just saying if you want to get all technical you could say even with the definition of the rules a catch was made.

Exactly.

P0T0,

"What part of this is so hard for you to understand?"

Well, yeah...except that you and Wejo are simply WRONG.

Here is the relevant rule:

Item 1: 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 after he touches 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.

This whole notion of making a football move is not even there. AT ALL.

Seriously dudes, take off your Cowboy fanboy glasses for an instant and get a clue.

The receiver caught the ball and took two steps, was tackled, and the ball hit the ground with his hands gripped on the ball.

I think it was a good catch.

Jerry Jones and Chris Christie had male-on-male sexual relations afterwards so not all was lost.

P0T0 wrote:

El Pagan wrote:

Exactly.

P0T0,

"What part of this is so hard for you to understand?"

Well, yeah...except that you and Wejo are simply WRONG.

Here is the relevant rule:

Item 1: 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 after he touches 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.

This whole notion of making a football move is not even there. AT ALL.

Seriously dudes, take off your Cowboy fanboy glasses for an instant and get a clue.

The problem with your premise is that it isn't just cowboys fans who think it was a catch. It is ex players, current players, analysts, and neutral television and radio hosts. As well as those who watch it with common sense. The only people who insist article 4.892 section 37b make it not a catch are cowboys haters.

Texas Land of Steers & Queers wrote:

The receiver caught the ball and took two steps, was tackled, and the ball hit the ground with his hands gripped on the ball.

I think it was a good catch.

...

That's because either:

a) you don't understand the rule

or

b) you don't believe in following the rules

Except of course that it really doesn't matter what ex-players, current players... think. It matters what the rule says. And sorry for you being so butt hurt but the rule is very clear and very simple.

In the backyard, sure that's a catch. In the NFL the rules say otherwise. Simple as that.

This should remove all doubt. This guy explains perfectly why it was a catch:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/15/7543955/dez-bryants-third-step

Done and done!

P0T0 wrote:

Dial it up wrote:

The problem with your premise is that it isn't just cowboys fans who think it was a catch. It is ex players, current players, analysts, and neutral television and radio hosts. As well as those who watch it with common sense. The only people who insist article 4.892 section 37b make it not a catch are cowboys haters.

Except of course that it really doesn't matter what ex-players, current players... think. It matters what the rule says. And sorry for you being so butt hurt but the rule is very clear and very simple.

In the backyard, sure that's a catch. In the NFL the rules say otherwise. Simple as that.

I was going to take the time to re-explain to you why you are incorrectly interpreting what you think is the rule(despite myself and others already doing it on this and other threads). However, I will just refer you to the link just posted as it sums it up and well. Maybe it will be like the situation where kids tend to listen better to new people despite their parents telling them the same thing.

Groan...you guys keep pulling out the same twisted logic and the guy that wrote that piece is using the same dumb argument....

Bryant didn't take 3 steps under control. He took 3 steps while falling down. That means the "going to ground" rule applies. No catch.

If he was in the open field, caught the ball, took 3 steps completely under control (NOT falling down) it would be different. But that isn't what happened here.

You need to let it go. The NFL says it wasn't a catch. It isn't.

UFO Expert wrote:

This should remove all doubt. This guy explains perfectly why it was a catch:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/15/7543955/dez-bryants-third-step

Done and done!

Has the result been reversed?

Randy Oldman wrote:

UFO Expert wrote:

This should remove all doubt. This guy explains perfectly why it was a catch:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/15/7543955/dez-bryants-third-step

Done and done!

Has the result been reversed?

Yes, haven't you heard?

There have been many calls by officials in NFL history.

We just have to go back to the Lions getting gypped against the Cowboys the week before.

Or the Tom Brady tuck rule in the 2001 season playoffs that put the Patriots into the Super Bowl over the raiders.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/0ap2000000113871/Top-Ten-Controversial-Calls-Tuck-Rule

The Dez Bryant no catch had less impact because they still had to get into the endzone (and probably would have) and then stop the Packers from coming right back with 4 minutes left in the game, only needing a field goal.