Staff Interviews - Tiberius

[emjay]

As for the bad call, was that because the ball the receiver caught touched the ground just before the end zone? If so, then I'd accept the call being reversed. It's a tough one really isn't it: on the one hand you've got what what's technically correct, in light of video evidence etc, but on the other hand they did make a call and I take it what you mean is that this decision wasn't reversed until long after the game? In which case I'd understand the team being pissed off on a technicality. But nonetheless I think the only fair way is to go with the video evidence, even if it does mean reversing a call long after the game. How many times have England played and there been clear evidence after the fact that it was a bad call but nothing anyone could do about it? So I'm definitely in favour of calls being challengeable after the fact.

So, back when the play happened, in order to make a legal "catch" you had to secure the ball and make a "football move", but the rules didn't define what that was. If the football move was getting tackled and/or going to the ground, you had to keep control of the ball while doing so.

What the refs argued was that Dez was going to the ground and he didn't control the ball (it was bobbling and it touched the ground and came free for a moment, though he secured it again).

What fans argued after was that he'd already caught and secured the ball, and was trying to get to the endzone to score a touchdown, which would make him an established runner. Now, an established runner can fumble (lose control of the ball) and recover it again, and nothing else happens.

So the question that got asked for days and days was: had Dez Bryant caught the ball and established himself as a runner, then fumbled and recovered the ball, or did he ever have control of the ball enough for it to be considered a catch in the first place.

The original ruling on the field was a catch, but then the other team challenged the ruling, and it was reviewed and reversed on the field, which basically cost the Cowboys the game.

Right... so a bit more involved than I thought. How would you call it? He did look like he was kind of tip toeing a bit... sort of stumbling, so not 'sure of feet' which could count as not being in control?