Explain to me how that wasn't a 'football move' **Bryant Reversed Call Thread**

[manster4ever]

I work with a lot of rabid, ant-Cowboy fans here in Balt. We have a diverse fan base and have fans of almost all teams at work here. I have yet to hear from any football fan saying that was not a catch.

Ridiculous! That was a catch. Pure and simple. The NFL and Blandino and whatever fool they trot out there to cover their rear ends is just blowing smoke and lying.

Blandino just didn't want to make the right call and be plastered with people accusing him of improprietary since he was on the party bus with JJ a long time ago.

I won't lie guys, I thought for SURE the sports talk shows on radio and TV would take GLEE in our Cowboys painful demise. To my shock, they didn't. Sure there were some small time tools in my home state of Michigan that did but we know what that's all about. Chicago stations, NY, Philly, Mike and Mike and Dan Patrick all said it was a catch. Just added to the misery. I felt OK going to bed last night. But to see how devastated Romo, Witten and Dez are....yeah, it's like swallowing a turd.

 

[THEHEREAFTER]

You have a major problem. There is no conclusive evidence that the ball even touched the ground. Not only did Dez's right elbow touch the ground prior to the ball coming out, DEZ's LEFT ELBOW contacted the ground first. I thought that the ground may have caused the ball to come loose initially, but it didn't. The ground contacted the LEFT ELBOW, causing the ball to move, BEFORE it ever touched the ground. I've rewound this play 30 times already. There's never a definitive frame that shows the ball touching the ground. I've looked for it. It was assumed that because the ball moved, the ground caused it. The LEFT ELBOW contacting early caused the ball to rotate above the ground!!!! Dez regained control, on his back in the end zone. NO DEFINITIVE PROOF THE BALL EVER TOUCHED THE GROUND,

MASSIVE OVERSIGHT, THE BALL NEVER TOUCHED THE GROUND. PERIOD.

This is interesting. I never looked at it from this perspective and I thought the call was horrific with the ball touching the ground.

 

[gbrittain]

If you come down with the ball and then are in control and turn up field then are tackled that is a different story...but here is momentum is carrying him down to the ground...so his stumbling steps are immaterial in the eyes of the rule because theyre happening as hes going to the ground. Because he is falling down during the process of the catch control must be MAINTAINED. It was not. Dumb rule, but correct call. Not trolling man, just not letting my emotions control my opinion. Again, DUMB RULE. But correct call by said dumb rule.

If he had simply stumbled to the ground I would agree but you have to explain the lunge forward. That is a football move. How many touchdowns are scored every Sunday by a deliberate lunge forward to reach the ball across the goal line. If the lunge is not a football move then it is interesting that so many TDs are scored every year on a non-football move.

Observe this video and tell me why every single step he takes the grass is intact but the one step he takes at the :43 second mark grass goes flying up in the air???



And since the call was a Touchdown also tell me how this video indisputably proves that Dez did not make a football move...because if he did make a football move the ball that "allegedly" hits the ground is null and void.

 

[ThrowuptheXDez88]

lol on the Dan Patrick show, Blandino says he would've had to lunge to try & score, Dez clearly has his left foot in the turf & springs off for another extra 2-3 yards

 

[GoCowboysGo]

After lunging for the goal line...a move common to football.

 

[ThrowuptheXDez88]

watch how he pushed off the grass lunging for the end zone therefore completing a football act or move whichever you want to call it at that point with the catch 3 steps and the act of a football move the only thing the ground could cause was a fumble ... <iframe width="854" height="510" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/LzmKun3XnB8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[TheIceman]

He didn't stop moving against Jacksonville, weaving through multiple defenders, he kept his motion going all the way through throwing up the X, and the ball was on the ground at that point. Completing the process is very wordy, but has no specific meaning if someone calls that 4th and 2 catch something other than a catch. It was and will be, FOREVER, a catch. To try to apply that NFL rule to it, is COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL. My anger is growing about this, but the COWBOYS WON THIS GAME. The refs took it away from them. This moment was completely vindictive, the NFL should replay the game from 4:09 on. Dallas should have left the field at 4:09. There's no point in even playing if the refs are going to take the game from you.

Even if it was ruled a catch, we still had to score AND stop their offense with a little less than 4 min to win. You can't say we won even with the catch. It improves the odds, but we can't KNOW that.

 

[mmohican29]

After lunging for the goal line...a move common to football.

Every Cowboy fan on the planet should email this photograph to Pereira, Blandino and Steratore. At the same time.

 

[EPL0c0]

Even if it was ruled a catch, we still had to score AND stop their offense with a little less than 4 min to win. You can't say we won even with the catch. It improves the odds, but we can't KNOW that.

You're right... Dallas would have had a chance. Instead a season came down to an subjective decision of an ambiguity in the rule

 

[blindzebra]

Even if it was ruled a catch, we still had to score AND stop their offense with a little less than 4 min to win. You can't say we won even with the catch. It improves the odds, but we can't KNOW that.

The entire point is we never got the chance to find out. That was two evenly matched teams that deserved to not have the game end in that way. I can live with them going down and winning, getting screwed out of having to make them do that, not so much.

 

[TheIceman]

His momentum is carrying him towards the end zone. and if you're momentum is carrying you towards the end zone, you stretch towards the marker and try to score. And if that isnt a "football move" then I am not sure what is. Football players don't do this unless they have....control of the freaking ball!!! He had already switched the ball from one arm to another and taken 3 steps....And further more, this application of the rule had to come with no doubt. There had to be No doubt what so ever that this was the right call in order for it to be over turned!

It was a bad call. plain and simple. Just a really really ....bad call.

You're right. He had FULL CONTROL of the ball.....UNTIL he hit the ground. Which is apart of the process. You can have full control at various points in the process, but if, as you go to the ground, you lose control, its not a catch by rule. We really should focus our energy on changing the RULE because they're not changing the call guys and only a rule change will help us going forward. It really REALLY sucks to have it all end this way, but the right call was made based on the rule book as it is. You can argue theres an obvious football move, but the fact that theres even a debate, kind of shows that its not COMPLETELY obvious. I think it could be considered a football move for sure, and I personally believe thats what he was in his mind trying to do, but the football move rule is an "out" or an exception to the going to the ground rule. And as Blandino explained, the exception says it has to be a CLEAR and OVERT football move like gathering yourself and then reaching forward or stopping and turning up field. Here, its one big heap of momentum, some steps, and falling forward. Nothing is COMPLETELY obvious so exception is not applied and the going to the ground rule is applied. Sucks big time. Rule needs to be changed because they're not restarting this game.

 

[mmohican29]

You're right... Dallas would have had a chance. Instead a season came down to an subjective decision of an ambiguity in the rule

It improves the odds to better than 50%, especially if a two point conversion is successful. That's a significant chance at an NFC Title game berth.

 

[nathanlt]

Every Cowboy fan on the planet should email this photograph to Pereira, Blandino and Steratore. At the same time.

Yes, there are definitively 2 elbows down, if he were simply running 50 yards and did this inside the 1, they wouldn't call it a fumble. They would call it down at the 1 foot line.

And I wish I could like this 100 times.

 

[vicjagger]

A player can control the ball, land with not one, not two but THREE steps, dive, land on his elbow before a ball comes loose that never hits the ground can be ruled incomplete?

I didn't read this entire thread (31 pages as I type this), so someone else may have already posted this:

http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com...football-move-anyway-we-dont-know-either.html

 

[TheIceman]

The entire point is we never got the chance to find out. That was two evenly matched teams that deserved to not have the game end in that way. I can live with them going down and winning, getting screwed out of having to make them do that, not so much.

Yeah, but this happens all the time in the NFL. A call here or there, even a non-call, always prevents us from finding out what would have happened if the call had not been made or had the non-call been made.

 

[TheIceman]

You're right... Dallas would have had a chance. Instead a season came down to an subjective decision of an ambiguity in the rule

Well, that and we also our defense could have stopped them after that to get the ball back. There's a lot of reasons you lose unless its the last play of the game. It's not all just a refs call.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

You're right. He had FULL CONTROL of the ball.....UNTIL he hit the ground. Which is apart of the process. You can have full control at various points in the process, but if, as you go to the ground, you lose control, its not a catch by rule. We really should focus our energy on changing the RULE because they're not changing the call guys and only a rule change will help us going forward. It really REALLY sucks to have it all end this way, but the right call was made based on the rule book as it is. You can argue theres an obvious football move, but the fact that theres even a debate, kind of shows that its not COMPLETELY obvious. I think it could be considered a football move for sure, and I personally believe thats what he was in his mind trying to do, but the football move rule is an "out" or an exception to the going to the ground rule. And as Blandino explained, the exception says it has to be a CLEAR and OVERT football move like gathering yourself and then reaching forward or stopping and turning up field. Here, its one big heap of momentum, some steps, and falling forward. Nothing is COMPLETELY obvious so exception is not applied and the going to the ground rule is applied. Sucks big time. Rule needs to be changed because they're not restarting this game.

your wrong.

the call was wrong.

He clearly had possession of the ball. before the ball came out. And even then, there is still some question as to whether it can proven, proven mind you without any doubt, that the ball touched the ground.

bottom line here is this. This replay official over turned a call on the field, he had no business what so ever over turning. There is plenty in that play to have at least some doubt as to whether he made a football move or not....

the replay official ignored all of that doubt. and over turned the call on the field. It was the worst call in modern NFL history. Absolute worst call ever.

That was a catch. plain and simple. that got over turned by some replay official who thinks an awful lot of himself....

 

[nathanlt]

Every Cowboy fan on the planet should email this photograph to Pereira, Blandino and Steratore. At the same time.

After lunging for the goal line...a move common to football.

There are FIVE football moves on this play.
#1 turning upfield. Caught the ball with his back to the sideline and turned 90 degrees upfield.
#2 switching the ball from the right shoulder with both hands to the left hand only. The ball is secure the whole time.
#3 lunging for the end zone
#4 Extending his arm for the pylon.
#5 Traveling 5 yards during #1-#4

This picture looks like someone is building a conclusive case for down by contact. (Unrelated to this situation apparently... but why should a running play differ SO MUCH from a passing play?)

 

[JoeBoBBY]

Well, that and we also our defense could have stopped them after that to get the ball back. There's a lot of reasons you lose unless its the last play of the game. It's not all just a refs call.

that game was determined on that play....

yeah yeah , this that or the other. sure.

we were the better team, we made the play. replay official made a really bonehead, bad, and irrational call. He should be fired.

 

[TheIceman]

Refs have already admitted that if he made a football move it is a catch by definition. There were multiple football moves pointed out.

Think of the "football move" thing as an out or an exception to the base rule. According the refs, such an act must be a clear, overt act that is separate from the act of falling to the ground. Because that is UNCLEAR, i.e. the football move and the falling kind of merge together, ruling that there was a football move cannot be made, and so that exception cannot be applied. My mind is boggled that anyone who watches a lot of other NFL games and has seen this applied in the same way for a few years now is surprised. It's a dumb rule, because its overturning what appear to be catches (see Calvin Johnson...i mean he was just putting the ball down to celebrate!) but its in place currently so it is what it is until they change it.