Twitter: Dez documentary on the Cowboys 2014 season

[MarcusRock]

BTW.......has anyone asked McCarthy if Dez caught it since he became our HC? (lol)

Yes. That's the reaction link Aviano90 provided above. I think it was among the first questions he got when he had his first presser.

 

[MarcusRock]

The call on the field was a catch. There had to be clear and overwhelming evidence of a wrong call to overturn it. People disagreeing on what a lunge is or what if that was enough of a football move, etc is not clear and overwhelming evidence, its a subjective application of a rule, which is not how it is meant to be done.

That is BS. Show me what's "meant to be done" from the rulebook. If a ref doesn't see a ball hit the ground and replay shows it hits the ground, they don't get to ignore it. How do you know the ref on the field didn't rule Dez was going to the ground but didn't see the ball hit the turf? If it doesn't hit, then it IS a catch by those same rules. But rule was all about the ball touching the ground. How do you not apply the correct rule when all the evidence becomes clear? Your argument is done right here.

If the ruling on the field was a no catch, then I would be arguing the same thing, not enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. It's pretty simple really. There was possession, there were steps, there was the changing the ball from one hand to the other and there was a dive for the end zone. The Ref on the field thought all that was enough to satisfy the rule and thus he ruled it a catch.

See above. How do you know the ref didn't rule going to the ground but didn't see the ball hit the ground because Dez' arm obstructed it? He would also rule it a catch in that case and would be right. But replay showed the ball hit and that's what makes it a non-catch. Again, you demonstrate that you don't know the rule. In those days, once going to the ground was applied, it overruled the other set of catch rules. So steps, moving the ball, and that failed lunge don't matter UNLESS a proper lunge shows he wasn't going to the ground. So in that case you have to not let the ball touch the turf and maintain possession. Dez didn't.

For Dean B to to use his own personal definition of what he considers a football move to over rule a ref on the field was just wrong. It was the wrong call then and it would be the wrong call now. The fact that they have had to change the rule about 50 times since 2014 tells me they got it wrong. But it doesn't matter, you will believe what you believe and I will believe what I believe. And if you think that call in Detroit had no bearing on the call in GB, then I have some ocean front property in AZ for you to buy. I know it shouldn't but after all the heat they took, they were not ruling in favor of Dallas on any close calls in GB, they just happened to pick a play that wasn't really all that close and that is why 6-7 years later people are still talking about it. It was a disgraceful call and act by the NFL.

Again, you conveniently ignore the fact that judgement calls have to have a standard for meeting criteria or not. A DB putting a hand on a receiver is not automatically PI the same way intending to lunge doesn't mean you actually did. The rest of what you type is just creative, reality-bending BS and a victimhood blame game to obscure having to accept unfavorable results. Explains a lot about society today. A lot.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

That is BS. Show me what's "meant to be done" from the rulebook. If a ref doesn't see a ball hit the ground and replay shows it hits the ground, they don't get to ignore it. How do you know the ref on the field didn't rule Dez was going to the ground but didn't see the ball hit the turf? If it doesn't hit, then it IS a catch by those same rules. But rule was all about the ball touching the ground. How do you not apply the correct rule when all the evidence becomes clear? Your argument is done right here.



See above. How do you know the ref didn't rule going to the ground but didn't see the ball hit the ground because Dez' arm obstructed it? He would also rule it a catch in that case and would be right. But replay showed the ball hit and that's what makes it a non-catch. Again, you demonstrate that you don't know the rule. In those days, once going to the ground was applied, it overruled the other set of catch rules. So steps, moving the ball, and that failed lunge don't matter UNLESS a proper lunge shows he wasn't going to the ground. So in that case you have to not let the ball touch the turf and maintain possession. Dez didn't.



Again, you conveniently ignore the fact that judgement calls have to have a standard for meeting criteria or not. A DB putting a hand on a receiver is not automatically PI the same way intending to lunge doesn't mean you actually did. The rest of what you type is just creative, reality-bending BS and a victimhood blame game to obscure having to accept unfavorable results. Explains a lot about society today. A lot.

That's the point, you don't know what the REF saw. I can play that game too, he saw everything, he saw the ball that might have hit the ground or it might not have hit the ground, he saw everything and applied the rule correctly and called it a catch. There is nothing in the video that shows it wasn't a catch, other than someone saying, oh I don't think that really qualifies as a football move, or that lunge is not what I consider to be a lunge. The whole ruling is based on whether or not a move common to the game of football was made, the REF on the field and 99% of everyone who watched it thought it was, you and Dean (and Dean had alter motives) said it wasn't. It was a catch by their rule at the time, by any rule since the beginning of football. Just because Dean used some arbitrary definition of a football move to justify his stupidity doesn't make it so, even if you bought into it.

 

[MarcusRock]

First you say ...

That's the point, you don't know what the REF saw.

Then you say ...

The whole ruling is based on whether or not a move common to the game of football was made, the REF on the field and 99% of everyone who watched it thought it was

In addition to clearly not knowing the rule you're arguing against, you're also not great at the ol' distraction pivot. Next time, just yell CONSPIRACY! from the start to confirm your strategy in the face of not being able to explain the rules.

 

[Ranched]

 

[BigDPlayer]

7 years later......catch or no catch? Looking back, that game/loss stayed with me for a while. There was no doubt in my mind, beat the Packers, we're going to the Super Bowl. Still believe it.......

Still infuriating!! Had total control of it, switched hands! It was a catch and a fumble for a TD. PERIOD!!

 

[Aviano90]

Still infuriating!! Had total control of it, switched hands! It was a catch and a fumble for a TD. PERIOD!!

How can it be a fumble for a TD? If it were a catch then it would have been ruled down by contact, right?

 

[kazzd58]

Just hang onto the ball moron.

So you blind too ‍♂️

 

[foofighters]

7 years later......catch or no catch? Looking back, that game/loss stayed with me for a while. There was no doubt in my mind, beat the Packers, we're going to the Super Bowl. Still believe it.......

Here's what so many people are dismissing in this game. So let's say it's ruled a catch then what? We still have a few inches to go. Do we then try and milk the clock and then score on 3rd down? Either way, we give Aaron Rogers the ball with a time frame of 4 minutes to 2 minutes to win the game. And how good was our defense? Even if it was a catch, there's a lot more against us in this game.

 

[eromeopolk]

7 years later......catch or no catch? Looking back, that game/loss stayed with me for a while. There was no doubt in my mind, beat the Packers, we're going to the Super Bowl. Still believe it.......

He took two steps, and an elbow is worth 2 feet down. It was a catch and that rule has been eliminated not only from football but out of all sports. I lost a fantasy game with that Calvin Johnson BS and Cowboys lost a NFC title game just like the New Orleans Saints no pass interference call. Referees are the only way you can fix a football game.

Jerry was battling the NFL and NFL commissioner in 2014. NFL was not going to make a lot of money in Atlanta with Saints fans who would have came down Saturday and Sunday and leave as quick as the could to have a Super Bowl party in New Orleans.

 

[MarcusRock]

He took two steps, and an elbow is worth 2 feet down. It was a catch and that rule has been eliminated not only from football but out of all sports. I lost a fantasy game with that Calvin Johnson BS and Cowboys lost a NFC title game just like the New Orleans Saints no pass interference call. Referees are the only way you can fix a football game.

The rule is actually still on the books. The only thing that's different is that it doesn't take precedence over the regular catch rules anymore to focus solely on "surviving the ground" and now all parts of the "upright" catch rules can be performed on the way down to the ground. The old rule structure is precisely why you're wrong about why it was a catch. Number of steps did not matter. You needed control, 2 feet, and time to complete a catch upright. GTTG is applied when a player hits the ground without completing the 3rd which is demonstrated by performing a football move. Sticking your elbow out is not one.

And refs are not the only or easiest way to fix a game. What y'all are saying is the refs let us get up 21-13 in the game and then had to hope for GB to come back and wait for an opportunity to shut the door on us to complete the fix. What if that opportunity never came? And are all of them in on it or just the head ref? Lol. So creative. And the easiest way to fix a game is to proposition a QB. You know, like happened with Neil O'Donnell. Y'all should be thankful for fixed games, lol.

 

[buybuydandavis]

3 steps wasn't even in the rules then, which is why it wasn't a catch. 3 steps is in the rules now which would make it a catch today.

It "football move" three steps and a dive to the endzone is a lot of football moves.

 

[chagus]

Watching the footage of Romo after the game surrounded by his family... that just crushed me. It was his last chance.

 

[NotForLong]

That game was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back for me.
Crushing
Still love football and the NFL but my level of fandom has been permanantly diminished.
Thats probably a good thing……

Same here brother

 

[NotForLong]

Watching the footage of Romo after the game surrounded by his family... that just crushed me. It was his last chance.

2016 was his last chance but he was robbed then as well

 

[NotForLong]

I was at the game and feel I was robbed of what would have been likely called "The Catch II." I cant stand to hear people bashing him.... oh hold onto the ball moron.... he did. He caught it with 2 hands, placed it into one hand, 3 steps forward and dove for the endzone. This play is the exact reason the league changed the rule a few years later. They didnt want to change the rule after that season because they know the outcry it would have sparked. And yep, I also think we go to the SB if we had beat the packers. We had already gone into Seattle and beat them earlier in the year.

They changed it just in time for the Eagles to score a TD in the Super Bowl

 

[NotForLong]

If that play happened anytime during the days of real football pre-2005, it wouldn't have even been discussed.

Then they turned football into a weekday game show, and you get this nonsense.

Obvious catch.

The Bookies make the final call . . its beyond obvious . . . Every body bets the Cowboys usually they are the late game and there are a lot of Parlays

Gambling rules the NFL because LEGALLY they are only categorized as Entertainment like the Ballet or a Play not a Sport like the NBA or MLB . . . there fore it can be scripted like WWE and they can not be sued because any and all out comes is just drama

 

[NotForLong]

This is where you are completely wrong. You just said it yourself, "if he made a proper lunge".. the REF on the field, said he did. He was the closest person, it was his call. The REF on the field, saw possession, 3 steps and a football move, thus a catch. What they did and you by proxy are defining "football move" after the fact based on slow motion. Even Dean B said on a broadcast after the game that it was a football move, but in their "opinion" not enough of a football move, which is what you just said as well. That was not the not rule, if a football move was made, which there is no denying that one was, then it was a catch, per the rule. There is zero, nada, no way to argue any other way. They got it wrong simply because of the call the week before in Detroit and the heat they took for picking up the flag. I 100% guarantee you if that call was not made, that would have been ruled a catch, plain and simple. it really is sickening how they manipulate the game these days.

Eliminate Gambling on the NFL and you eliminate this problem

 

[NotForLong]

all time great play (throw + catch), robbed by bozo refs.

NFL screwed themselves . . they could have showcased that play for the next 30 years instead they alienated a huge segment of their fanbase . . . because of that play you either dispose the NFL or you dispise Dez.

Smart move NFL, instead of telling my grand kids about that play. . . . the love of the sport was sucked out of me and now I am a casual fan and because of that the love of the sport is not passed on to my sons. . . . what for?

 

[NotForLong]

First you say ...



Then you say ...



In addition to clearly not knowing the rule you're arguing against, you're also not great at the ol' distraction pivot. Next time, just yell CONSPIRACY! from the start to confirm your strategy in the face of not being able to explain the rules.

All your posts are terrible on this subject. You need to know this. . . but if it helps you to cope with it go ahead keep lying to yourself and keep justifying the worse call in sports