11/21/24
January 11, 2015
Packers Rally Past Cowboys, Who No Longer Love the Refs: The zebras giveth, the zebras taketh away. Trailing 26-21 late in the fourth against the Green Bay Packers, the Dallas Cowboys thought they had a first-and-goal from the one yard line after Dez Bryant acrobatically caught a fourth-down pass from Tony Romo. But replay officials reversed the call because the ball touched the ground and Bryant briefly lost control of it afterwards. Green Bay didn't give the ball back and advanced to the NFC Championship Game despite quarterback Aaron Rodgers being limited to the pocket due to a calf injury. His bullet to tight end Richard Rodgers completed the team's comeback in the final quarter.
I think Dallas should have had that as a catch; I disagree that if a ball touches the ground at any point it's not a catch. It seems to me the hairsplitting is that how long after a catch can a player be said to have controlled the ball enough to turn any further drops/fumbles/hitting the ground as normal compared to any other post-reception events.
They replayed this incessantly on TV, and I still think Bryant had a catch, took two steps, fell stretching for the goal line, and the ball came loose- but it looked for all the world like a reception to me up to that point. Dallas ball at the 1 yard line.
I think Dallas was robbed today.
posted by hincandenza at 08:21 PM on January 11, 2015
I disagree that if a ball touches the ground at any point it's not a catch.
If you're responding to me, I wasn't saying that is the rule at present. I know the rule has wiggle room that lets the refs talk about things like "the process of the catch" and "completing a football move."
What Bryant was trying to do was something he's really good at: Make the insane catch near the goal, then contort yourself like Cirque de Soleil to get into the end zone. That's two football moves. I could see a ref arguing that he completed the first move, but the real refs and the TV ref both thought otherwise so it's hard to make a case for that.
As for the game, I wish Jason Garrett had not screwed up by calling timeout when Jason Witten was given a first down late in the first half. You don't give the refs more time to think about reviewing their own call late in a half, when your opposing coach can't throw a challenge flag.
The Cowboys will never be better set up to beat an Aaron Rodgers team than they were Sunday. When he can't move that's a beatable team even in Lambeau, especially on a summery 24 degree day.
posted by rcade at 08:46 PM on January 11, 2015
Noteworthy to remember that a lot of our current rules on catch comes from the Bert Emanuel rule (which I remember as a TB fan).
posted by Bonkers at 09:21 PM on January 11, 2015
When you get so far into a ruling that it has to be explained in fine detail in order to convince the fans, and I mean those fans who are not just the casual game watchers, that the ruling is correct, then you have a rule that is far too complicated. I sometimes feel that there ought to be a high desk set up behind one end zone and at the desk is seated someone in black robes carrying a gavel. Rather than replay, have a rules lawyer for each team argue the case. Twelve people, in a city that is not part of the contest in any way, will decide, with a majority vote, rather than unanimous, determining the decision. In other words, simplify the rules somehow, as rcade suggests.
posted by Howard_T at 09:34 PM on January 11, 2015
To add to my comment above, baseball rules are equally complicated, but there is one thing that keeps arguments over interpretation from becoming a daily occurrence. Most of the rules of baseball contain the phrase "in the judgement of the umpire..." Calls that are reviewable are those that have a physical aspect: safe/out; fair/foul; catch/no catch; and the like. Ball/strike calls are not reviewable for obvious reasons. The ones that are really touchy are things like the balk rule or especially the infield fly rule. How do you convince a manager that it's an infield fly when the ball was caught by an outfielder? Well, the rule says something to the effect that if in the judgement of the umpire the ball may be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort it is an infield fly. Of course the other conditions of runners and outs must exist. It doesn't matter who catches the ball or where in fair territory it is caught. To argue whether it was ordinary effort is arguing about the umpire's judgement, and this is forbidden. Adding a similar sort of expression to some of the football rules and giving better definition to what constitutes a "football move" and possession might help.
posted by Howard_T at 10:11 PM on January 11, 2015
That was a gutsy call and damn near an unbelievable throw and catch. Heroic attempt. Makes you wish the NFL judged plays on degree of difficulty like Olympic dives. On a merit basis, the Cowboys deserved to gain some sort of positive outcome from that play.
On the other hand, it's 4th and 2. You've got over 4 minutes left to go. You've got a helluva running game. Are you sure you don't want to call a high percentage short throw that gets you the first down and keeps the drive alive, then grind out a TD on the ground and kick the ball back to GB with a short clock remaining?
Similar deal yesterday with Baltimore going long on second down with 5 yards needed for a first down well inside Patriots territory and ample time left on the clock with which to score. Even if Flacco had hit Torrey Smith for the TD instead of getting picked on that play, Brady still would have had around a minute and a half left to try to get the Pats in position for a tying field goal.
Both the Cowboys and Ravens are headed home because they valiantly went for the biscuit when they didn't have to and probably shouldn't have.
posted by beaverboard at 11:25 PM on January 11, 2015
Of course, the same logic they used to determine Dez Bryant did NOT catch the ball (didn't complete a football move before the ball was jarred from his hands by contact with the ground) was then completely ignored when the Colts punter returner was obliterated by his own teammate (and a Bronco), causing (what was ruled at the time) a fumble.
The FOX talking head (Mike Carey, former NFL official) swore up and down that the replay official would agree with the call on the field...and then seemed stunned when they overturned it and said he was "down by contact".
Side note: It was nice to see that player safety means something to at least one person. After the fumble, it was painful to watch all of the Broncos trample/jump on the prone body of the Colts returner in order to get the fumble. Afterwards, the first guy from the sidelines to help the obviously concussed player seemed to be the Broncos trainer/assistant.
posted by grum@work at 12:07 AM on January 12, 2015
I didn't mind the Cowboys going for the long pass on fourth and 2. If they could get a one-on-one matchup for Dez Bryant in that situation with the Colts stacked for the run, it's an extremely favorable matchup. Bryant fights for the ball as well as anybody in the league.
posted by rcade at 08:14 AM on January 12, 2015
Mike Fisher puts the best face on the "it was a catch" argument in this piece for Fox Sports Southwest.
posted by rcade at 08:26 AM on January 12, 2015
The call on the Bryant play was a correct application of the rule.
The rule sucks, but if it wasn't revisited by the rules committee after the Megatron catch I can't see it ever changing. And I believe Bryant dropped the ball on the play.
I find this interesting: If Bryant had crossed the goal line and the ball came loose the same ruling would have applied. If a running back is handed the ball and looses it while crossing the goal line it's a touchdown.
Green Bay drove the length of the field on the ensuing possession before downing the ball so would have won the game regardless of the ruling. I agree Dallas should have pounded the ball on the ground and used up the clock.
posted by cixelsyd at 10:36 AM on January 12, 2015
It's weird to say Green Bay wins the game "regardless." If Dallas scores from the 1 and goes up 28-26 there's no guarantee Green Bay scores again just because they moved the length of the field in different circumstances.
posted by rcade at 11:23 AM on January 12, 2015
Colts punter returner was obliterated by his own teammate (and a Bronco), causing (what was ruled at the time) a fumble.
I guess the unconscious man made a football move where Dez Bryant did not.
posted by tron7 at 11:32 AM on January 12, 2015
I just noticed that Dez Bryant moves the ball from one hand to another during that catch, which some people might describe as a "football move."
posted by rcade at 05:13 PM on January 12, 2015
..and here I thought that a "football move" was what a player did when he was traded or signed with another team.
posted by Howard_T at 05:24 PM on January 13, 2015
No, I was responding to the general rule- and I think agreeing with you, that if it hits the ground after established control (which I think he had) the idea that it somehow undoes the reception itself seems a very poor way for the officials to interpret the ruling. Their interpretation was that he was still making the catch all the way to the ground, which... well, that's not what I think I'm seeing.hincandenza: I disagree that if a ball touches the ground at any point it's not a catch.rcade: If you're responding to me, I wasn't saying that is the rule at present. I know the rule has wiggle room that lets the refs talk about things like "the process of the catch" and "completing a football move."What Bryant was trying to do was something he's really good at: Make the insane catch near the goal, then contort yourself like Cirque de Soleil to get into the end zone. That's two football moves. I could see a ref arguing that he completed the first move, but the real refs and the TV ref both thought otherwise so it's hard to make a case for that.
What Bryant seemed to do was several moves as you describe- starts in his right hand, goes to his left and stretches out to try to break the plane of the goal line- but I'm also not familiar enough with the rule and its intent to make a case. However, the replays didn't seem- to me- to be conclusive enough to overrule the initial call of completed reception.
grum@work: Of course, the same logic they used to determine Dez Bryant did NOT catch the ball (didn't complete a football move before the ball was jarred from his hands by contact with the ground) was then completely ignored when the Colts punter returner was obliterated by his own teammate (and a Bronco), causing (what was ruled at the time) a fumble.What the heck?!? I don't understand that, and yeah, that's basically a very similar ruling applied differently.The FOX talking head (Mike Carey, former NFL official) swore up and down that the replay official would agree with the call on the field...and then seemed stunned when they overturned it and said he was "down by contact".
And wow, how much different is that game if Denver has the ball on the Colts 30 with 6:58 left in the third quarter instead of Indianapolis possession?
posted by hincandenza at 01:13 AM on January 14, 2015
Does anyone think the replay refs are lowering the threshold for what they have to see to overturn a call? It seems like they were more deferential to the call on the field when replays began and would fall back on "not conclusive" more often.
A network should lock 10 NFL fans in a room with Frank Luntz one weekend and have them make replay calls.
posted by rcade at 08:19 AM on January 14, 2015
It seems like they were more deferential to the call on the field when replays began
Definitely seems that way. I think they're always one step behind the trend: they probably started being more aggressive with overturning calls because of fan/ media outcry about bad calls and once everyone starts complaining about this trend they'll reverse it 2 years later instead of addressing it more even-handedly.
posted by yerfatma at 08:39 AM on January 14, 2015
I'm not complaining about how the rule was interpreted on the Dez Bryant play, but even before that I was wondering whether the rule for catching passes and hitting the ground is too complicated and prone to uneven interpretation.
I think it might be better if the rule was simpler: If the ball touches the ground at any point in the catch, it's not a catch.