Did the Refs Rob the Commanders of a Gutsy Road Win?

It was a catch ........ if a Cowboy receiver had that happen to them ........ the same people claiming it was incomplete would be calling it a catch.

I do not care because the rivalry is over ........ we do not have a rivalry with the commanders ....... the team we had the best rivalry in football with is gone.
 
There was a clear bobble before the knee touched, it looked closer on TV but now seeing after its clear why it was not overturned
 
It’s a stupid rule, but the wr has to maintain control through the ground, even when out of bounds. He clearly caught the ball, had a knee inbounds with control, but the play and whistle do not stop until he still has control at the end, on the ground. The ball clearly moved on his chest. If that happens while in bounds without the ball touching the ground, it’s a good catch, but because he was now out of bounds with the ball moving on his chest, it is incomplete. A few years ago, a receiver caught the ball running in the endzone, both feet in bounds as he was leaning, but he tumbled out of bounds and lost the ball despite taking 3 steps inbounds. Because he was off balance and went to the ground out of bounds and lost the ball, it was called incomplete. Unlike a running play, the play doesn’t stop when the catch is made in the endzone if the player goes to the ground, not even when the catch is in bounds and the fall is out of bounds.
 
Jipper said:
There was a clear bobble before the knee touched, it looked closer on TV but now seeing after its clear why it was not overturned
Click to expand...
I’m only saw the ball move after he was on the ground out of bounds, but by rule, that’s incomplete.
 
McKDaddy said:
Ya'll do realize that almost every ball moves when the player hits the ground? Especially ones like this where the player is landing on the elbow & side of the body where the ball is at.

Looked like he had firm control when knee\shin came down. After that he is only required to maintain "control".
Click to expand...
Apparently the refs disagreed.... I know you and Walmart would rather lose and see a consistently officiated game, but arguing against a call after it's been reviewed, is what makes it inconsistent.
Most fans know that bad calls are part of the game, like missed tackles and dropped passes....that's what keeps it real. Eventually we'll have robots and AI technology, playing the game...maybe then everyone will be happy.
 
I didn't think he had control. The one view they showed it looked to move without control.

That said, if the call on the field had been a catch, I don't think there was enough evidence to over turn it. Since it was called an incomplete, I don't think there was enough to overturn that, either. Replay has to be conclusive, not just a different opinion.
 
gimmesix said:
Frankly, I think that is why the Dez call should not have been reversed. It looked to me like he made a football move, so it should have stayed as called on the field.
Click to expand...
But the reason it was first called a catch is the on-field official didn't see the ball hit the ground. If you ignore that it did, the Dez catch is absolutely a catch. You keep the ball off the ground and you can hot potato that ball 50 times so long as you grasp it in the end. In Gene Steratore's pool report after the game, he said that in replay they confirmed the ball hit the ground and that's because it was labeled as going to the ground even before they even hit replay.

That's why the call was that "the receiver did not maintain possession of the ball ..." when it was made. The going to the ground part was the given. The debate was over trying to go backward to say going to the ground didn't apply because Dez made a football move but GTTG applied from beginning to end. If that's the call from jump and video helps you confirm the ball did hit the ground, it's rather simple to apply that rule.
 
Chuck 54 said:
I’m only saw the ball move after he was on the ground out of bounds, but by rule, that’s incomplete.
Click to expand...
You're right, by rule is the key term. Agree or not, that's the rule and the right call was made. Dez caught it, that play led to rule changes and some like it, some don't. Keeps it real and fun. He'll, we're still talking about it. If he caught it, we may have lost and we'd be talking about that. Gotta love!!
 
Ranching said:
but arguing against a call after it's been reviewed, is what makes it inconsistent.
Click to expand...
no, its questioning how a decision can be made that doesn't seem to line up with the video evidence or the written rule. the entire broadcast crew also questioned the "review".

with the technology we already have, it should be almost impossible to have bad calls. the fact we have so many is very suspicious.
 
Chuck 54 said:
I’m only saw the ball move after he was on the ground out of bounds, but by rule, that’s incomplete.
Click to expand...
no, this is what the rules say.

Going to the Ground
If a receiver falls or goes to the ground while attempting to secure a pass, the standard changes slightly:
    • The player must maintain control of the football when they hit the ground.
    • If the ball hits the ground and comes loose before they establish themselves as a runner or survive contact with the turf, the pass is incomplete.
    • Once all requirements are met and the player becomes a runner, any subsequent loss of the ball is ruled a fumble, not an incomplete pass. [1, 2]
The ball can move during the contact with the ground, sliding out of bounds, etc., as long as the player doesn't lose control of the ball.
 
McKDaddy said:
no, its questioning how a decision can be made that doesn't seem to line up with the video evidence or the written rule. the entire broadcast crew also questioned the "review".

with the technology we already have, it should be almost impossible to have bad calls. the fact we have so many is very suspicious.
Click to expand...
Who cares who questioned it. The call was made by those that are supposed to make it. Done deal. BTW, we won the game.
 
I thought it was a catch. Even after multiple replays.

If the rule truly qualifies that as a no-catch then it's time to simplify the rule.

For the sake of the players, the fans and the game of football itself you have to give the guy the catch in situations like that. Possession demonstrated in the field of play equals catch. Period.
 
Dez caught it.. to me it was, but when he turned we couldn't see if he had clear possession. It stayed as called, and if they called it a catch it wouldn't have been overturned either.
 
McKDaddy said:
no, this is what the rules say.

Going to the Ground
If a receiver falls or goes to the ground while attempting to secure a pass, the standard changes slightly:
    • The player must maintain control of the football when they hit the ground.
    • If the ball hits the ground and comes loose before they establish themselves as a runner or survive contact with the turf, the pass is incomplete.
    • Once all requirements are met and the player becomes a runner, any subsequent loss of the ball is ruled a fumble, not an incomplete pass. [1, 2]
The ball can move during the contact with the ground, sliding out of bounds, etc., as long as the player doesn't lose control of the ball.
Click to expand...
There is also Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7 on Player Possession that states in Note 1, "Movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control." This is what anyone who knows the rules will cite.
 
The bigger story here is that a play like this flies in the face of conspiracy theorist that claim the refs are out to get the Cowboys.

There is enough there for supposed refs to have called that a catch to do in the Cowboys but they didn’t.

Another fun exercise is to ask the Commanders fans if they think the refs are biased against them.
 
It was clearly a catch.

This board would be out of its mind if that call was made against Dallas.

The back is allowed to move. He never lost control. There was no bobble.
 
MarcusRock said:
There is also Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7 on Player Possession that states in Note 1, "Movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control." This is what anyone who knows the rules will cite.
Click to expand...
Disagree.

The Book of Blandino 3:32 clearly states “thou shalt possess to verily catcheth the rock.”

Other translations may differ but I’m a KJV-only guy myself.
 
Ranching said:
Who cares who questioned it. The call was made by those that are supposed to make it. Done deal. BTW, we won the game.
Click to expand...
those of us who are discussing it obviously. your declaration of "done deal" has been duly noted but we will continue to question as we see fit.

yes we did win but that isn't the subject of this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 235 more.
Total: 5,890 (members: 335, guests: 5,555)
Robots: 1,675

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
476,154
Messages
14,670,004
Members
24,227
Latest member
Nathaniel
Back
Top