Video: Tony Romo Said That Was a Catch; I Agree

[MarcusRock]

Looking at the gif clip you posted, uhhhhhh, Dez caught the ball AND TOOK 3 STEPS BEFORE LUNGING FORWARD, thus solidifying he did actually make a catch!!! Plus, since he was touched and tripped AS HE MADE THE CATCH AND BEFORE HE STARTED LUNGING FORWARD, Dez proved he had possession, thus didn't have to maintain possession as the ball hit the ground since he already had proven he had possession prior to lunging forward. But since he was touched/tripped when he proved possession of the catch and as he lunged forward, the ground can not cause a fumble. It should have been ruled a catch and called down at the 6 inch line mark just short of the goal line.

Lol. Y'all just don't understand. 3 steps didn't matter if you were deemed going to the ground then. And he was deemed going to the ground. He could have taken 5 steps on the way down to the ground. Also doesn't matter if he was touched or not because the rule says there's no difference. Dez also didn't lunge. He tried, but slipped and a proper lunge is the only thing that shows a player is not going to the ground, again per the rules. Why don't you quote them if you actually have a handle on them? Here they are from 2014. Go!

RULE 8, Section 1

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is
complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.).​

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact
by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.​

 

[America's Cowboy]

Lol. Y'all just don't understand. 3 steps didn't matter if you were deemed going to the ground then. And he was deemed going to the ground. He could have taken 5 steps on the way down to the ground. Also doesn't matter if he was touched or not because the rule says there's no difference. Dez also didn't lunge. He tried, but slipped and a proper lunge is the only thing that shows a player is not going to the ground, again per the rules. Why don't you quote them if you actually have a handle on them? Here they are from 2014. Go!

RULE 8, Section 1

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is
complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.).​

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact
by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.​

You don't understand English that well, do you?

Dez had maintained control of the ball...prior to going to the ground. Plus, Dez took 3...count them...3 (2 is only required to prove a completion) before lunging as he was touched prior to making that lunge while tripped and forced to fall down. Any contact with the ground causing the ball to pop loose should be determined a completed catch and down by contact at that spot. The ground can not cause a fumble if the player was touched prior to touching the ground (which Dez was). Hence why 3 years later, the NFL Review Committee determined that play should have been ruled a catch AND downed by contact, thus the Offense retains possession at the 6 inch line.

 

[MarcusRock]

... he was touched prior to making that lunge while tripped and forced to fall down.

Relevant parts in red.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact
by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.​

Just stop.

 

[America's Cowboy]

Relevant parts in red.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact
by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.​

Just stop.

Dez had already caught the pass, maintained control, THEN took 3 steps to solidify a catch PRIOR to going to the ground. Why do you think the NFL Review Committee ruled it a catch 3 YEARS LATER?

YOU STOP. You're wrong. The Committee is right. Accept it.

 

[Cowpolk]

It was a catch but all the pirdy colors were nice

 

[DogFace]

The post about the defender hitting him was after he caught it and was running to the endzone of his own accord. The GB play he was stumbling right out of the gate

“By rule, when a receiver with possession of the ball is in the act of going to the ground and performs a second act by reaching out to break the plane, that completes the process of the catch.”

From Mike Pereira


https://cowboyszone.com/threads/dean-blandinos-explanation.371844/page-19

 

[Cowboy4ever]

It was a catch. And it was a make up call. The week before they picked up the PI flag and took a lot of flack for that. No way the Cowboys were getting another call in their favor after that. That play was close enough they could make the argument so they went against the Cowboys.

 

[America's Cowboy]

“By rule, when a receiver with possession of the ball is in the act of going to the ground and performs a second act by reaching out to break the plane, that completes the process of the catch.”

From Mike Pereira


https://cowboyszone.com/threads/dean-blandinos-explanation.371844/page-19

Boom! Exactly my point.

 

[MarcusRock]

Dez had already caught the pass, maintained control, THEN took 3 steps to solidify a catch PRIOR to going to the ground. Why do you think the NFL Review Committee ruled it a catch 3 YEARS LATER?

YOU STOP. You're wrong. The Committee is right. Accept it.

He did all that while going to the ground which is why those rules apply in that instance. Hence, just like this video says, the going to the ground rules take precedence over the 3-part catch rules because those apply to a receiver who is upright. Dez was not. Even you say so because you say the DB "tripped" Dez to make him fall. The rule says it doesn't matter who touches the receiver. If he's going to the ground, those rules apply. You keep talking about 3 steps when that didn't matter in going to the ground then. That's the rule NOW, but not then. The only requirement was that the ball not touch the ground and stay possessed. Know your rules, bro. You just don't. So address this video or show me who debunked it as inaccurate. You can't. No one can which is why no one addresses it (and I keep posting it).

 

[phildadon86]

What makes it the wrong rule? The red at the time said it was the right rule. The head of officiating later said it was the right rule. The NFL itself never came out and condemned the call, instead choosing to change the rule later to make sure future plays aren’t called the same. Both the people who make the rule and the people who enforce the rule said it’s the right rule.

In all honesty I can accept that the Dez catch wasnt a catch.

However. What bothers me more is that they called a catch that Cobb had made when the ball bounced off of the ground in front of him a CATCH and they scored a field goal off of it. If you are going to call that a catch. The Dez catch has to stand just to be fair. Neither one was a catch by rule. But one of them stood, one of them didnt.

 

[phildadon86]

He did all that while going to the ground which is why those rules apply in that instance. Hence, just like this video says, the going to the ground rules take precedence over the 3-part catch rules because those apply to a receiver who is upright. Dez was not. Even you say so because you say the DB "tripped" Dez to make him fall. The rule says it doesn't matter who touches the receiver. If he's going to the ground, those rules apply. You keep talking about 3 steps when that didn't matter in going to the ground then. That's the rule NOW, but not then. The only requirement was that the ball not touch the ground and stay possessed. Know your rules, bro. You just don't. So address this video or show me who debunked it as inaccurate. You can't. No one can which is why no one addresses it (and I keep posting it).

Ive come to terms with the fact Dez didnt catch the ball under those rules.

However. IF that is the case. Then the Cobb catch shouldnt have counted either. The ball touched the ground and bounced into his hands. The inconsistency is what I take issue with.

 

[MarcusRock]

“By rule, when a receiver with possession of the ball is in the act of going to the ground and performs a second act by reaching out to break the plane, that completes the process of the catch.”

From Mike Pereira

https://cowboyszone.com/threads/dean-blandinos-explanation.371844/page-19

Pereira is talking about this play from the Super Bowl and this one WAS a catch. Possession, 2 feet, and a lunge for the line of gain. Just like I've been saying from jump. Dez did not complete a lunge for the line of gain. Blandino compared Dez' lunge for the goal line against the Giants in 2014 as Kevin posted here versus the one in Green Bay and in Green Bay he just didn't complete it. There was no extending and reaching out of the ball like any of the other examples posted in this thread. Literally every official's point in arguing for the call.

 

[MarcusRock]

Ive come to terms with the fact Dez didnt catch the ball under those rules.

However. IF that is the case. Then the Cobb catch shouldnt have counted either. The ball touched the ground and bounced into his hands. The inconsistency is what I take issue with.

That's a different story with a different set of rules. I don't totally recall but I think the Cobb catch was no good too. Just different rule mechanics.

 

[phildadon86]

That's a different story with a different set of rules. I don't totally recall but I think the Cobb catch was no good too. Just different rule mechanics.

Oh no I agree. I wasnt disagreeing with you. I am just saying if you are going to call Cobb's catch a "catch" you cant then say Dez didn't catch it. It looks like home cooking.

 

[America's Cowboy]

He did all that while going to the ground which is why those rules apply in that instance. Hence, just like this video says, the going to the ground rules take precedence over the 3-part catch rules because those apply to a receiver who is upright. Dez was not. Even you say so because you say the DB "tripped" Dez to make him fall. The rule says it doesn't matter who touches the receiver. If he's going to the ground, those rules apply. You keep talking about 3 steps when that didn't matter in going to the ground then. That's the rule NOW, but not then. The only requirement was that the ball not touch the ground and stay possessed. Know your rules, bro. You just don't. So address this video or show me who debunked it as inaccurate. You can't. No one can which is why no one addresses it (and I keep posting it).

Here is where you're wrong...

That old rule applied if you were going to the ground as you caught the ball. It would get nullified if you caught the ball, established possession by taking 2 steps, then made another football move ... which Dez did as shown in the picture below...

Notice, Dez is not going straight down but instead leaping forward with his 3rd step/knee bent/leverage coming off of that bent leg after he had already established a legal catch and football move with the first 2 steps done prior to his 3rd step and different football move after. THAT cancels the previous rule since a catch was previously established and now creates a new rule pertaining to a separate new football move where if touched by the defender and possession has already been established, the ground can not create a fumble during a tackle attempt as long as the ball carrier had possession of the ball all the way until the ball hit the ground, which Dez did. It can not be an incomplete catch since a catch was already previously established, thus nullifying the old rule you keep trying to apply to Dez's catch which the NFL Review Committe overwhelmingly voted 3 years later that it indeed was a catch.

 

[BoyzBlaster]

Isn't it time to move on?

 

[McKDaddy]

Bottom line, years after the fact the league & multiple people directly involved with the officiating acknowledged that it was a bad call. I'm not sure why some people are still trying to interpret the rules to say it was the right call under the rules at the time. The league came out and said it wasn't.

The entire world knew it was bogus at the time it happened regardless of the rules or the explanation given by the league at the time of the play. Even hard core GB fans told me it was complete BS. As did many other fans and casual observers.

When you make rules that are so lame that even a child can see they are completely out of step with the concept of a catch, you have botched your job ..... badly.

 

[Ranched]

Many players get snubbed for many years, but eventually make it into the Hall. No doubt in my mind Romo will get in.

 

[America's Cowboy]

Bottom line, years after the fact the league & multiple people directly involved with the officiating acknowledged that it was a bad call. I'm not sure why some people are still trying to interpret the rules to say it was the right call under the rules at the time. The league came out and said it wasn't.

The entire world knew it was bogus at the time it happened regardless of the rules or the explanation given by the league at the time of the play. Even hard core GB fans told me it was complete BS. As did many other fans and casual observers.

When you make rules that are so lame that even a child can see they are completely out of step with the concept of a catch, you have botched your job ..... badly.

 

[phildadon86]

Bottom line, years after the fact the league & multiple people directly involved with the officiating acknowledged that it was a bad call. I'm not sure why some people are still trying to interpret the rules to say it was the right call under the rules at the time. The league came out and said it wasn't.

The entire world knew it was bogus at the time it happened regardless of the rules or the explanation given by the league at the time of the play. Even hard core GB fans told me it was complete BS. As did many other fans and casual observers.

When you make rules that are so lame that even a child can see they are completely out of step with the concept of a catch, you have botched your job ..... badly.

In all fairness to the referees. I remember reading something somewhere that the league had changed the rule and used that game as a testing game to see it. It may have been a different game though so dont quote me. But apparently the officials were very confused.