Pro Rules vs. College Rules on Catching a Pass (Dez Bryant and Dallas Cowboys)

BamaMoon said:

I thought Bryant made a football move and tried to score, but I understand the "rule" as it pertains to the NFL.

What's the difference in the college game, if there is?

If Bryant would have broken the plane of the endzone and then lost the ball would it have been different?

Click to expand...

I think, if I read the rule correct, it doesn't matter; the ground can cause a fumble. In the eyes of all of the officials, he didn't make a "football move" (I hate that term), so he had to retain control of the ball after he hit the ground. He didn't, hence the call; as per the rule, it's the correct call. Whether the rule is crap or not is another issue.
If he doesn't extend his arm all of this is moot. How many times have we seen players fighting for extra yards and losing the football? More than once or twice....
I don't know what the college rule is...

BamaMoon said:

I thought Bryant made a football move and tried to score, but I understand the "rule" as it pertains to the NFL.

What's the difference in the college game, if there is?

If Bryant would have broken the plane of the endzone and then lost the ball would it have been different?

Click to expand...

In the NFL, it would not have mattered. No sure about the college rule, but the crux in the NFL is that you have to make a football move (as you stated). Since he was falling to the ground, his "steps" as he fell do not count for anything other than getting his feet in bounds. Since he immediately started falling to the ground he has to maintain possession throughout the catch, including when making contact with the ground.

Bad luck that the ground directly caused the ball to get loose as the pass was immediately incomplete at that point, even if he regained control in bounds after that. Loose while touching the ground before possession is established = incomplete. Had the ball been knocked loose but not touched the ground, the pass would have been a completion as he stayed in bounds and regained control.

BamainBoston said:

To me, it is insane to think that two steps and reaching for the goal line was not a football move. I think it was the wrong call, because I think they got the first part wrong.

Click to expand...

They were not steps - he was falling down. Had he not been falling down, they would have counted.

I think the NFL rule is stupid, but I can see why they overturned it based on what the rule states. As soon as I saw the ball pop up and then he caught it again, I said that may not be a catch. Sure enough it got challenged.

I think they will look hard at this rule in the off-season.

I thought it was a good call. I think part of the reason that made it so controversial is that it kept being disected in slow motion. From that perspective, it looks like a catch, a couple of steps and then it pops loose when he stretches out. But in real time, from the point he makes the catch to when the ball pops loose is a split second.


Regarding the original question as to whether it would be a catch in college and I believe the answer is no because he didn't control it through the entire motion of making the catch. I believe Millner's non-interception in the 2012 SECCG was similar in that he caught the ball near the ground but used the ground to help secure the ball. Same philosophy in that the ground cant' cause the ball to come loose during the motion of completing the catch. The only difference is that Bryant's catch he probably could have avoided popping the ball loose had he not stretched for the goal line.

If his knee had hit the ground before the ball, it would have been down when his knee hit and the play dead at that point. THEN, the ground can't cause a fumble and the play would have been good.

bamaltc said:

If his knee had hit the ground before the ball, it would have been down when his knee hit and the play dead at that point. THEN, the ground can't cause a fumble and the play would have been good.

Click to expand...

Not so in the NFL. You still have to maintain possession through the contact with the ground.

B1GTide said:

They were not steps - he was falling down. Had he not been falling down, they would have counted.

Click to expand...

step n.

a. The single complete movement of raising one foot and putting it down in another spot

They made the correct call per the NFL rule, but I don't like the rule personally as it is now.

As for college, probably would have been ruled a catch.

twofbyc said:

I think, if I read the rule correct, it doesn't matter; the ground can cause a fumble. In the eyes of all of the officials, he didn't make a "football move" (I hate that term), so he had to retain control of the ball after he hit the ground. He didn't, hence the call; as per the rule, it's the correct call. Whether the rule is crap or not is another issue.
If he doesn't extend his arm all of this is moot. How many times have we seen players fighting for extra yards and losing the football? More than once or twice....
I don't know what the college rule is...

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe the commentator ref after the game stated that the ground cannot cause a fumble. It can however cause an incompletion. Had it been a fumble he would have recovered and they would either had a TD or the ball near the goal line.

Power Eye said:

I think part of the reason that made it so controversial is that it kept being disected in slow motion. From that perspective, it looks like a catch, a couple of steps and then it pops loose when he stretches out. But in real time, from the point he makes the catch to when the ball pops loose is a split second.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, it was called a catch in real time.

If he had planted feet on the ground, and then jumped for the goal line it would have been a "football move".

The college rule is very similar if not the same.

IS IT A CATCH?

• 1.Be sure Player has FIRM Control of Ball for ENTIRE PLAY for it to be a CATCH, (Control Established after player makes a Move or is Tackled Immediately in Possession). WHEN IN DOUBT, WIPE IT OUT.
• 2. If Player clearly Controls Ball in the air and is Firmly in possession, then Player touches the ground and continues to secure possession of the Ball or Nose of Ball touches ground, yet Player retains his firm control of Ball and it does not Move during this action, the Process of the CATCH is not interrupted, so it is a CATCH.
• 3. On a Simultaneous CATCH, RULE Survival of the Fittest, whoever has Ball at End of Process will Have Possession.
• 4. If a Player has a “Tippy-toe” stance on the Sideline or End line either from returning to the ground or on the ground after establishing Firm Control, the Player must maintain that stance for the duration for it to be a CATCH. If the Toe touches inbounds, but the Heel touches out of bounds, RULE INCOMPLETE.
• 5. If Player turns after a Catch? And Ball is not secure or SEEMS secure and/or player is moving ball for possession, and CONTACT is made and Ball becomes loose- RULE INCOMPLETE.
• 6. If Player, whether airborne or not, makes a Catch in Field of Play or the End Zone, is immediately hit or immediately goes to ground (In or Out of Bounds) and looses possession – RULE INCOMPLETE.
• 7. If Airborne Player makes a Catch and contacts ground in the Field of Play or the End Zone and Ball becomes loose – RULE INCOMPLETE.
• 8. No Cheap Fumbles. The ground cannot cause a fumble, BUT the ground can cause an incompletion as illustrated in #6 and #7. A Player must maintain possession during the entire process for it to be a CATCH.

A CATCH IS WHEN A PLAYER ESTABLISHES FIRM CONTROL OR THE BALL AND MAINTAINS POSSESSION FOR THE ENTIRE PLAY.
FOR A COMPLETION TO EXIST, THE CATCH PROCESS MUST BE COMPLETED IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT INTERRUPTION.

Tide1986 said:

step n.

a. The single complete movement of raising one foot and putting it down in another spot

Click to expand...

You are pulling a sentence out of the rulebook and placing it out of the context of the play. When falling to the ground, you are falling not taking steps.

Hooks4bama said:

If he had planted feet on the ground, and then jumped for the goal line it would have been a "football move".

Click to expand...

Agreed, and Mike Pereira said the same thing last night. Apparently just leaning toward the goal line while falling down doesn't count. Not sure why.

B1GTide said:

Agreed, and Mike Pereira said the same thing last night. Apparently just leaning toward the goal line while falling down doesn't count. Not sure why.

Click to expand...

Key words "falling down". That is not considered a move.

Did the ball ever hit the ground? I have looked and looked again at replay. I never saw the ball hit the ground. The back of his hand hit the ground and the ball bounced up from his hand, but he regained total possession again. This should be a catch in college or the NFL.

So, if the ball NEVER touches the ground but the back of his hand does, it is still an incomplete pass? That rule needs to be changed!

Can't make a gif at work, as it would show it more clearly. But from this angle, yes the ball hits the ground and pops up. The ground caused the bobbled ball.


VIDEO

BamainBoston said:

So if he'd stumbled all the way down the field out of balance and the same thing had happened, it would still have been an incomplete pass? Absurd. The fact that Mike Pereira is on one side should be all you need to know.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking Linnie Patrick style.

Hooks4bama said:

Can't make a gif at work, as it would show it more clearly. But from this angle, yes the ball hits the ground and pops up. The ground caused the fumble, but that rule doesn't apply when falling to the ground after a catch.

VIDEO

Click to expand...

Thanks. So, according to rule, the refs made a good call.