Okay, Was Dez Bryant's Catch A Legal Catch?

[Tom Kessenich]

I'm asking this for my understanding (not to make a statement, I really didn't care who won) but I keep hearing that making a football move before the ball hits the ground makes it an okay catch. A lunge towards the end zone seems to indisputably be a football move. Whether or not what Dez did was a lunge towards the end zone IS certainly disputable... but we all know you need indisputable evidence to overturn a call, not disputable evidence.

It seems to be commonly accepted by the media that it was called correctly "by the letter of the law"... but I'm really not following how they get there based on my understanding of the rules. If Dez's lunge was even disputably a football play (even if it's uncertain), I don't understand why the catch was overturned since an act common to the game was made before the ball hit the ground.

This is why I'm not convinced the rule was even applied adequately. I've yet to see anyone provide a convincing argument against Dez making a football move on that play. You can say maybe he didn't and he was just falling but Dez insists he was making a football move and there's certainly ample visual evidence to support the possibility he did. So even taking into account what this mucked up rule says I'm still not convinced it was even applied properly. Unless I'm missing something it seems to revolve around the belief Dez fell down, went boom and the ball popped out. It doesn't seem to even take into account the possibility he took 2-3 steps forward and then lunged toward the EZ which is what I sure thought he did.

[Sabretooth]

Yes it was a catch, that rule sucks and needs to be changed!

[Cocktails and Dreams]

With Tom here. I am not sure why that is not considered a football move. He was certainly in the process of reaching out to try to score. It was interrupted by the ground. Maybe it was a football move. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was interpreted correctly, maybe it wasn't. But what I do know is that common sense says it is a catch. Common sense needs to be used when writing the rule. And maybe the rule just needs to be just that. Use common sense when determining if the play is a catch or not and then have a rule to break the tie. This rule is asinine, as this critical play demonstrated.

[David U Kennedy]

With Tom here. I am not sure why that is not considered a football move. He was certainly in the process of reaching out to try to score. It was interrupted by the ground. Maybe it was a football move. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was interpreted correctly, maybe it wasn't. But what I do know is that common sense says it is a catch. Common sense needs to be used when writing the rule. And maybe the rule just needs to be just that. Use common sense when determining if the play is a catch or not and then have a rule to break the tie. This rule is asinine, as this critical play demonstrated.

Amen!! Football should be about players making great plays and not a dumbass rule overturning them or Refs deciding games. Attorneys as refs and I guess this is what you get. This is a simple game why complicate anymore than we already have.

[kjduke]

Absolutely a catch. I've heard the arguments and still think the rule was mis-applied ... and it's the worst rule in the game. Robbed football fans of what would have been a great finish, either a tough defensive stand or a dramatic Rodgers comeback.

Maybe it will be the catalyst to fix this POS rule.

[Tom Kessenich]

Sam Shields said today he thought it was a catch.