I've already addressed that with you. The VP said subsequently that they had to ALSO make a decision as to whether he made a football move. They said it wasn't obvious enough.

 

Go to 2:04. He says the line is "controllable, feet, and do something with it."

 

Pretty clear.

 

My opinion is if you are falling down as you are catching the ball, then you have no chance to make a "football move". It doesn't matter how you twist your body or extend your arms or whatever. You have to control the ball and the ball can't be jarred loose by the ground. If Dez Bryant takes that ball as he is falling and waves to Jerry Jones, plays patty cake with it, does three tuck and extend moves with the ball but the ball gets knocked out of his control by the ground when he hits, that is an incomplete pass. That is the way I see the rule and that is the way the rule must stay. If not, we are just like gymnastics judges debating these calls every single week because it will be totally subjective.

My opinion is if you are falling down as you are catching the ball, then you have no chance to make a "football move". It doesn't matter how you twist your body or extend your arms or whatever. You have to control the ball and the ball can't be jarred loose by the ground. If Dez Bryant takes that ball as he is falling and waves to Jerry Jones, plays patty cake with it, does three tuck and extend moves with the ball but the ball gets knocked out of his control by the ground when he hits, that is an incomplete pass. That is the way I see the rule and that is the way the rule must stay. If not, we are just like gymnastics judges debating these calls every single week because it will be totally subjective.

 

To follow up on this, here's what head of officiating Dean Blandino said...

 

“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.”

 

So basically, you're 100% correct VOR. His going to the ground was a part of the catch process, therefore he has to maintain possession through contact with the ground, which he does not.

The Cowboys had the opportunity to put this game away and didn't. They should have rushed Rodgers but didn't. Going into the half, they should have given the ball to Murray on a 3rd and 1 and didn't.

 

The refs did not take this game away from the Cowboys. Less than stellar coaching did.

 

Spot on. Convert on our opportunities and no one is talking about this 4th down play. GG to the packers. Time to move on.

Its simple by rule it is not a catch, and they have consistently called that no catch for the last few years. However in my mind that was a catch, he controlled the ball, and controlled the ball enough to stretch the ball out towards the goal line. The ball was not going to come out of his arm, because he did have control of it. It took the ground to knock it out of his hands. If someone doesn't have possession of the ball, they wouldn't be able to stretch the ball out while falling. So in my eyes it is a catch, and common sense should take place here. However by how the rule is written and especially how they have called it the last few years they got it right in that sense. Good call, stupid rule.

Has anyone seen any interview with a current or former NFL ref who has said that should have been a catch? I guess the current refs do not comment but it would be interesting to see a poll of former refs and how they would have called it.

Has anyone seen any interview with a current or former NFL ref who has said that should have been a catch? I guess the current refs do not comment but it would be interesting to see a poll of former refs and how they would have called it.

I haven't heard an interview from any former ref that said it should have been a catch. I actually haven't heard anyone outside the Dallas cowboys or a WR say that it was a catch.

I may be mistaken but it looks like the sideline referee at the pylon drops his bean bag on the spot, with Dez's body turned to him.. He called the play a catch and a fumble on the way to the ground that Dez then recovered. One of the reasons why when the play was challenged they viewed the ending of him not having control which shouldnt have even been discussed, especially since the replays do not show Dez with the ball as the referee did in front of the play because the ball is on that side of his body. If it is not irrefutable evidence it should have been ruled a catch and then a fumble.

I may be mistaken but it looks like the sideline referee at the pylon drops his bean bag on the spot, with Dez's body turned to him.. He called the play a catch and a fumble on the way to the ground that Dez then recovered. One of the reasons why when the play was challenged they viewed the ending of him not having control which shouldnt have even been discussed, especially since the replays do not show Dez with the ball as the referee did in front of the play because the ball is on that side of his body. If it is not irrefutable evidence it should have been ruled a catch and then a fumble.

 

It was irrefutable though. The ball touched the ground and popped out of his hands when he hit the ground. That, by definition is an incomplete pass.

I don't even like the Cowboys and I think it was a catch.

I don't even like the Cowboys and I think it was a catch.

 

It is not that I think it was a catch by the rule, I just think it is was hard to overturn. Had it been ruled incomplete, there would not be near the equal amount of outrage.

My thinking was this was way before the ground incident according to that official, he cathces the ball two steps, then on way to ground starts losing control, that is the fumble part, so really dont think the ground had anything to do with it because he dropped his bag way before that. Obviuosly that official thought he had control of the ball. The only reason the ball touched the ground is because Dez stretched out for the goal line, that is why it should have been ruled a catch

I will say my opinion again ... if the ball hits the ground and is knocked out of the receiver's hands, it should never be ruled a catch. The ball hit the ground. Are we really going to start allowing the ball to hit the ground and somehow be a catch? No way that should ever be allowed.

 

Second point, Dez didn't take steps. He jumped and fell. Yes his feet hit the ground. That's gravity. He jumped and fell trying to make a catch. As he was falling his feet hit the ground first but he was falling the entire time of trying to make that catch.

Let's say Cowboys score, you think Dallas could keep GB out of FG range?

 

No, they couldn't.

I haven't heard an interview from any former ref that said it should have been a catch. I actually haven't heard anyone outside the Dallas cowboys or a WR say that it was a catch.

 

The ref at the game said it was a catch until it was challeneged and put into slow motion where anything looks different.

I think this will be the call that changes the way RBs and WRs approach the goal line. There have been so many close calls, fumbles through the endzone and other plays when RBs and WRs are trying to make the spectacular play. Coaches are going to start emphasizing control of the ball and using this as a prime example -- "You want to make SportCenter Top 10 and be responsible for the rest of your team watching GB and SEA play in the NFC Championship Game like Dez Bryant or do you want to wrap 2 hands around the ball and not give it up until the ref comes over and pries it out of your hands and give us a chance to score a TD with 1st & Goal from the 1?"