***The Second Call/NonCall good/bad conspiracy etc thread***merged**

[Boyzmamacita]

Do you think this defense hold Rodgers on the last drive? By the end of this game the GB OL was dominating.

So what? Call the game right.

 

[hairic]

Can you link one please?

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/the-ball-never-hit-the-ground-bspn-photo.312899/page-4#post-5933399

 

[gimmesix]

i keep going back to irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field.....

This guy saw "irrefutable evidence" ??

Really? What person in their right mind doesnt think that was a Catch?

This dude should be fired within a month or reassigned to "other" duties...

But none of that stuff really matters to me. I wanted the win. We deserved the win. The players and coaches deserved the win. and we got robbed. And dont even bring up the PI call/No call against the Lions, that call wasnt even in the same level as this call.

This was the worst call i have ever seen in my 45 years of life.

I believe by rule that it wasn't a catch. I don't agree with the rule, but you have to maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground and Dez did not. The ball hit the ground and moved after doing so, so it was incomplete. I believe that is simply why it was reversed.

However, I can buy the argument that Dez was reaching for the goal line, thus making a "football move" that renders the rule null. I did not see it that way, but I can see that argument.

 

[gimmesix]

Do you think this defense hold Rodgers on the last drive? By the end of this game the GB OL was dominating.

No, which is why I think we would have gone for two if we had scored to try to make it a three-point game. Not sure we would have been able to keep Green Bay out of the end zone, though.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

Do you think this defense hold Rodgers on the last drive? By the end of this game the GB OL was dominating.

No doubt, Rodgers was starting to take control.....and when he gets like that, what Defense can?

But that does not excuse maybe ....maybe the "worst call ever made in modern NFL history" certainly the playoffs...

maybe there are more/others....but I cant think of any? it it all can be debated forever....

But. That was a catch.

that was a catch.

that was a catch.

 

[LatinMind]

So what? Call the game right.

They did call it right. Its a stupid rule but it was the right call based on that rule.

 

[joshjwp]

I don't care if the ball hit the ground or not. He took 2 steps and lunged for the endzone (that is a football move). If anything it was a fumble not an incomplete pass.

 

[links18]

The ball did touch the ground, but it looked to me like it was still in his control. It didn't look to me like the ground helped him maintain possession. He flips over, the ball pops in the air and he catches it again. It should have been a catch either way.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

I believe by rule that it wasn't a catch. I don't agree with the rule, but you have to maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground and Dez did not. The ball hit the ground and moved after doing so, so it was incomplete. I believe that is simply why it was reversed.

However, I can buy the argument that Dez was reaching for the goal line, thus making a "football move" that renders the rule null. I did not see it that way, but I can see that argument.

yeah. and I am trying to be objective. I am. Well, I am starting to get there at least.. it may take awhile.

But

1. The rule is horrible. Housewives who's only exposure to football is because their husbands watch or their sons play and are more concerned about the uniforms and what time the game will be over..... were scratching their heads on this BS call....

2. To me. And having watch Dez play since he came here.... He was making a football play. In his mind he had caught the ball, two feet in bounds , secure the ball, was "going" forward, etc etc. then, he got a chance to see how close he was to the goal line after he got(caught) the ball, and dove with all he had left, for the end zone...... no doubt in my mind thats what happened. And for someone to over turn the call, there has to be "Irrefutable evidence" ..... wow. just wow!!! to whoever made that "Irrefutable evidence" call.... I mean that guy, must of played football himself!! and on top of that, is some kind of "mind reader", to think that Dez wasn't diving for the goal line , he was falling from 2 or 3 steps Dez took while he had possession of the ball. Thats what that guy determined. And he had soooo much belief in his examination of what was going through Dezs mind and the rule book, that he believed he had ""Irrefutable evidence".....

3. I am trying gimmesix, I am trying...... but that's a catch for 99% of every person who watches football, from 8 year olds to professionals.. ... forget the rule.... and that's a catch. and then even apply this goofy rule, and its still not enough for a reversal of the call.....imho.

it will take a few days. and i will move on. but,,, I cant think of a worse call , especially in the playoffs, ..... i know its probably out there and I am blinded right now.... but this call has to be top 5 worst calls EVER!!!!

 

[xwalker]

No, it touches the ground, IMO; however, that's not the point. He took steps before he went to the ground. His feet were down Left-Right-Left. If it was 10 steps and then he came down exactly as he did it would obviously have been a catch. In the famous Calvin Johnson no-catch he didn't take multiple steps.

Also, as I understand the rule, they would have to have ruled that he didn't lunge towards to the goal-line in order to call this a non-catch.

The first gif below shows the sequence of the arm/ball going to the ground.

The 2nd gif would have been a definite view but the network cut away from it too soon.

The 3rd gif shows his feet and the full sequence.

 

[Kevinicus]

The ball did touch the ground, but it looked to me like it was still in his control. It didn't look to me like the ground helped him maintain possession. He flips over, the ball pops in the air and he catches it again. It should have been a catch either way.

It doesn't matter if the ball comes loose while it touches the ground, or after. It's all a part of "going to the ground." It's irrelevant though, because it was already a catch before he went to the ground.

 

[Kevinicus]

No, it touches the ground, IMO; however, that's not the point. He took steps before he went to the ground. His feet were down Left-Right-Left. If it was 10 steps and then he came down exactly as he did it would obviously have been a catch. In the famous Calvin Johnson no-catch he didn't take multiple steps.

Also, as I understand the rule, they would have to have ruled that he didn't lunge towards to the goal-line in order to call this a non-catch.

The first gif below shows the sequence of the arm/ball going to the ground.

The 2nd gif would have been a definite view but the network cut away from it too soon.

The 3rd gif shows his feet and the full sequence.

That first view gives definitive proof that there was a football move. When the ball is at about the 2 yard line, it is going nearly straight down, but then it stops that trajectory when Dez lunges and is extended out horizontal to the ground.

 

[links18]

It doesn't matter if the ball comes loose while it touches the ground, or after. It's all a part of "going to the ground." It's irrelevant though, because it was already a catch before he went to the ground.

I guess I don't understand the rule and I am not sure anyone could explain it to me. He lost control only after he turned over and then caught it again. I think it should have been a TD actually.

 

[xwalker]

That first view gives definitive proof that there was a football move. When the ball is at about the 2 yard line, it is going nearly straight down, but then it stops that trajectory and is extended out horizontal to the ground.

Yes, no doubt that he was lunging towards the goal-line. If he wasn't going for the goal-line he never would have lost control of the ball.

 

[craig71]

The field judge had the best view and ruled it a catch (decisively) and I don't see enough video to overturn his ruling. I think the call stands if the field judge was pared with his normal crew. I guess indisputable video evidence doesn't mean what it used to.


Craig

 

[Kevinicus]

I guess I don't understand the rule and I am not sure anyone could explain it to me. He lost control only after he turned over and then caught it again. I think it should have been a TD actually.

If the receiver loses control of the ball (for whatever reason) prior to the catch being completed, and it hit the ground at any point before that, then it's incomplete.

 

[31smackdown]

I'm with hairic on this one.. the ball does hit the ground but dez still has it possessed, then as his hand starts to go towards his body the ball slides up and hits his shoulder pad. The shoulder pad is what makes him lose possession after the ball is off the ground, which Dez then repossesses in the endzone. The ball should be marked down at the 1 yard line. He had possession and changed his falling angle with the lunge, constituting a football move not part of his momentum and even if you want to say he didn't the ground still did not force the ball to come loose, his shoulder pad did after the ball was off the ground and the ball never hit the ground again.

 

[Ken]

If the receiver loses control of the ball (for whatever reason) prior to the catch being completed, and it hit the ground at any point before that, then it's incomplete.

You KEEP saying that. The fundamental flaw with that is that there is NOTHING in those 3 gifs above that shows the ball hitting the turf. NOTHING. It certainly SEEMS like it did but there is more evidence that his arm hit than that the ball hit the ground.

So the very premise of overturning an officials call on the field is WRONG.

 

[gimmesix]

I don't care if the ball hit the ground or not. He took 2 steps and lunged for the endzone (that is a football move). If anything it was a fumble not an incomplete pass.

The steps don't matter because it was part of the process of him falling to the ground after contact. In order for the steps to have mattered, he would have needed to have clearly shown that he had regained control of his body before falling. He did not show that but appeared to be falling from contact, which makes the ball hitting the ground an issue.

The lunge is a different issue. If the officials had determined he had lunged, then the reversal is wrong. I didn't think he lunged and apparently neither did the officials on review. That I can see it one way and you can see it another is the problem with the rule.

 

[Kevinicus]

You KEEP saying that. The fundamental flaw with that is that there is NOTHING in those 3 gifs above that shows the ball hitting the turf. NOTHING. It certainly SEEMS like it did but there is more evidence that his arm hit than that the ball hit the ground.

So the very premise of overturning an officials call on the field is WRONG.

There is a ton of clear evidence the ball hit the ground. That you refuse to see it is your own problem. I'm not even talking about those gifs, so why bring them up? There is absolutely no angle that indicates the arm is UNDER the ball. Everything shows it to the side. Other shots show the ball ON THE GROUND. Pull your head out, already. That is all beside the point anyway, as I'm just explaining that whether or not the ground is the actual "object" that knocks the ball out doesn't matter.