What were Aikman, Buck and Pereria talking about on the Dez TD? - Page 3 - Dallas Cowboys Forum

theogt · 11-11-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantReboot

If it was clearly INC then the there wouldn't be any argument. But there is a debate on this TD. I think it should stand because it never hit the ground and he had control on the ball all the way.

If it was overturned it would have been as much as a controversy because there was no evidence at all to overturn it.

There isn't any argument. There is no logical argument that it was a catch. No one has espoused any reasonable argument -- at all. The only argument is "it didn't touch the ground". Well...uhh....yeah, the pictures don't lie.

The only argument is just how clear it was that it wasn't a catch. Everyone agrees now it wasn't a catch. If it's not "clear" to someone it's because they're not looking at the replay.

**Idgit** · 11-11-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by theogt

One person's judgment (with a strong bias) isn't very convincing to me. That was about as clear a non-catch as they come on replays.

One person? It was at least two officials, including the one in the booth. And neither were biased.

BRoni · 11-11-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by theogt

There isn't any argument. There is no logical argument that it wasn't a catch. No one has espoused any reasonable argument -- at all. The only argument is "it didn't touch the ground". Well...uhh....yeah, the pictures don't lie.

The only argument is just how clear it was that it wasn't a catch. Everyone agrees now it wasn't a catch.

Your picture doesn't show it touching the ground. It looks like it might be, but they need conclusive evidence to over turn the call on the field. The evidence is inconclusive.

theogt · 11-11-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idgit

One person? It was at least two officials, including the one in the booth. And neither were biased.

Yes, just one person. In live action, it wasn't clear at all. But I wasn't referencing live action. Only one person makes the call in the replay. And the correct call was clear as day.

Boyzmamacita · 11-11-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinsscalper

On a play where a player is going to the ground you have to maintain possession THROUGHOUT the entire process. Since the ball wasn't secured completely before going to the ground, he didn't establish possession.

The refs blew the call, but I'll take it.

Thanks for the clarification. It was a great effort on Dez's part regardless. Let's give him credit for even being in position to make it close. Most receivers aren't that gifted.

theogt · 11-11-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRoni

Your picture doesn't show it touching the ground.

ConstantReboot · 11-11-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by theogt

There isn't any argument. There is no logical argument that it was a catch. No one has espoused any reasonable argument -- at all. The only argument is "it didn't touch the ground". Well...uhh....yeah, the pictures don't lie.

The only argument is just how clear it was that it wasn't a catch. Everyone agrees now it wasn't a catch. If it's not "clear" to someone it's because they're not looking at the replay.

Everyone does not agree with you though. I think it was a catch. Because he had his elbow underneath the ball. Thus there was no evidence to overturn it.

I don't care about what announcers say. They don't sway me to think other wise.

ConstantReboot · 11-11-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinsscalper

On a play where a player is going to the ground you have to maintain possession THROUGHOUT the entire process. Since the ball wasn't secured completely before going to the ground, he didn't establish possession.

The refs blew the call, but I'll take it.

But it didn't hit the ground and when he rolled over shunning the ball from the camera. Thus there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it.

adwar · 11-11-2012

[quote=theogt;4836431][IMG]

Im not exactly sure where Dez's other arm is in picture, and the ball can touch the ground and it still can be a catch.

Did you think the Eagle touchdown was a catch?
How about the Witten incompletion?

BRoni · 11-11-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by theogt

Well, it doesn't. That is how it works. I don't think it was a catch either, but there was not enough actual proof.

theogt · 11-11-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantReboot

Everyone does not agree with you though. I think it was a catch. Because he had his elbow underneath the ball. Thus there was no evidence to overturn it.

I don't care about what announcers say. They don't sway me to think other wise.

I can't help it if you're being delusional.

Proximo · 11-11-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindzebra

The replay they were showing right before the ref came back was from the other endzone and the ball never hit the ground.

Somebody should post a GIF of that angle. I thought that very last shot they showed during the broadcast made it clear that it was a catch.

theogt · 11-11-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by adwar

Im not exactly sure where Dez's other arm is in picture, and the ball can touch the ground and it still can be a catch.

Did you think the Eagle touchdown was a catch?
How about the Witten incompletion?

No, I don't think the Eagle touchdown was a catch. Nor was the Witten incompletion.

It doesn't matter where Dez's arm was. The ball was moving and it was touching the ground. And there's no physical way that Dez's right hand was gripping the ball.

BHendri5 · 11-11-2012

I hate it when aikman and buck do our games, I'm really started to dislike aikman

BRoni · 11-11-2012

There would need to be a better pic. With that one all i see is blur and shadow.