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

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Sometimes in the second half, they looked like the "old" Cowboys from a year ago.

Yeah, that's happened several times this season. Usually only a few plays though and they get back right, except for the Thanksgiving game where last year's team showed up and stayed for the day.

It seemed less and less as the year progressed however. Maybe they are getting it out of their system. There is that old saying, "First you win, then you get good".

 

[31smackdown]

What's interesting is the comparison to the Gresham catch where Gresham caught the ball, tap his second foot and then as he was doing that gets pushed out of bounds and drops the ball. Call a catch on the field. They let the play stand saying that was not part of the catch. But apparently getting tripped is different than being pushed if you make it look like one continuous motion of a player falling for 5 yards... somehow there is sufficient evidence to overturn what was called a catch on the field in that case. There was also a Gio Bernard fumble reviewed where they ruled it a fumble and Bernard did nothing more than get a second foot down before the ball got knocked out. They again let the call stand as a fumble. That is really the mind boggling part about it all, there is nothing which can convince someone to overturn what was called on the field on that play. If there was, there would not be this much debate.

 

[DogFace]

Troy Aikman must be a biased idiot.

Even he stated that he did not complete the catch.

Don't get me wrong here. I felt that he caught the ball...but according to the rules...since he was falling.
Anyone that says he wasn't falling is delusional.

Ok. How many steps would it take for the falling to be irrelevant ? Not part of the catch. He took 3. Obviously 15 steps would make it not "part" of the catch.
What number in the middle would make falling not part of the catch.

 

[speedkilz88]

In Gresham's case it was two steps.

 

[ConstantReboot]

But this argument falls flat when you consider that the call on the field was a completed pass
Now, by the NFL s own rules you need "indisputable evidence" of if not being a catch to overturn the ruling on the field

They did not have that so the original ruling on the field should have stood as called

People are taking these so called professional word for it when they say things like "I think he didn't do this" "or I think there was not enough of that" - all that is is nothing more than interpretation and thus would not be enough to overturn the call on the field.

 

[ConstantReboot]

You raise a good point.. I am still pissed about many calls. Calls that seemed more legit. Especially how Dallas got a call their way last week.

I do hope it motivates them. Every player in the locker room knows they got jobbed on that. The Packers fans know it too. But, I think it's just too close to the Lions game when many Cowboys fans were telling Lions fans not whine over a call. Now, here are Cowboys fans doing it..

BUT!!! Deion Sanders STILL PI'd Irvin on the go ahead/game winning TD in the 94' Championship game at Candlestick.. That one still stings.

This one will too. But, it's Tuesday. It's over. LOL..

What call were you pissed at that got a call their way? Please enlighten me?

Isn't this about the Dez noncatch? Please enlighten me about why that matters on previous bad calls?

 

[ConstantReboot]

Well Pereira can kiss my you know what and his explanation of what happened is total bs and he knows he and the entire NFL can take that "Calvin Johnson rule" and shove it and for those troll fans here and other fans of other teams who agreed with this garbage can shove it too.

Pereira, Blandino, Chris Carter, even Troy Aikmen - they all are told what to say and follow a script. Thats what I like about Irvin is that you know that he can't say that was a catch on TV because he knows that wasn't But I bet he was told to do so and he resisted. Thus the look that he was baffled by this.

The NFL is in damage control because of this call. Its not a big deal if it would stand. The big deal is that the call was reversed and that there was no way you CANNOT call that a catch. Thus why was it reversed?

This has nothing to do with the CJ rule. This has everything to do with what evidence did they have in reversing this call?

 

[Hook'em#11]

What call were you pissed at that got a call their way? Please enlighten me?

Isn't this about the Dez noncatch? Please enlighten me about why that matters on previous bad calls?

There is no need to come into this conversation was in regards to something else other than the catch that "wasn't" by Dez. We were discussing something else.

 

[DogFace]

No, it would not have made a difference. That's basically the Calvin Johnson move. CJ was in the end zone already. He catches the ball and his momentum takes his arm to the ground as the ball touches it.
Because Dez catches the ball, but his momentum is taking him towards the ground, he would have had to maintain possession all the way to the ground even if he had gotten into the end zone.

Ok. I'll ask you too. How many steps would it take for the fall/dive not to be part of the catch?
He took 3.
Obviously 10-15 and it would no longer be part of the process. So what is it?
Also, as Staubacher pointed out a couple of times the Bengals play last year and the complete contradiction of the fall being part of the process.

 

[DogFace]

The NFL said the contact could have been called either way. To me it was clear cut PI. After a glaring hold.

The problem with that play is the Lions got screwed on it.

No fan spin. No homeristic nonsense. Just the facts.

He grabbed his mask making it not possible to turn his head.
He also initiated the contact during the catch.
The hold is another story and I could point out 10against the lions not called.
It's a man's game and man's down let the play of the athletes decide it not some monitor.

 

[Risen Star]

He grabbed his mask making it not possible to turn his head.
He also initiated the contact during the catch.
The hold is another story and I could point out 10against the lions not called.
It's a man's game and man's down let the play of the athletes decide it not some monitor.

The facemask, if there was any, wasn't called. That doesn't factor into picking up the flag or not. It's whether he interfered or not and he clearly did making contact with his shoulder while his back was to the football.

I suspect your take on a "man's game" might be a little different if it were Jason Witten getting molested like that. Man's game or not, you can not allow a player to grab a jersey and interfere with the catch on the same play.

 

[DogFace]

Aaron Rodgers, whom the Cowboys couldn't stop on one leg, would have marched down the field and thrown the game-winning touchdown.

The sad reality about this game is that it wasn't simply the Murray fumble or the no-catch call against Dez. The sad reality is that our defense couldn't ruffle a one-legged quarterback.

That was more egregious. This really shouldn't have been a game.

Of course he would have. They never even should've played the game.

 

[DogFace]

The facemask, if there was any, wasn't called. That doesn't factor into picking up the flag or not. It's whether he interfered or not and he clearly did making contact with his shoulder while his back was to the football.

I suspect your take on a "man's game" might be a little different if it were Jason Witten getting molested like that. Man's game or not, you can not allow a player to grab a jersey and interfere with the catch on the same play.

You are missing my point. He could not turn and play because he grabbed his mask before any other PI contact. Clearly he didn't interfere anyway. He pushed his arm off by pushing his shoulder.

 

[Swanny]

I have finally seen the sad and dim light. I have now changed my mind on this call. It was the right call. When a WR is falling the process of a catch rules change from what the real rules are. When falling the rules then change to the Calvin Johson falling to the ground rule. That rule does state that you must maintain possession when you hit the ground. I don't understand why the regular process of a catch rules do not override that rule but clearly they must not with the call being reversed. But I did read the rule book and no where does it explain that one rule overrides the other. I think changing this rule in the off-season is simple. If a player makes a football act while falling the regular catch process rules apply

 

[percyhoward]

I have finally seen the sad and dim light. I have now changed my mind on this call. It was the right call. When a WR is falling the process of a catch rules change from what the real rules are. When falling the rules then change to the Calvin Johson falling to the ground rule.

Not when he's falling as a result of contact, which is exactly what the field judge ruled. When that happens, as long as he got two feet down first, the process of the catch is completed.

 

[BoysfanfromCanada]

Bill Burr's opinion on the 'catch'. He's always awesome

 

[Swanny]

Not when he's falling as a result of contact, which is exactly what the field judge ruled. When that happens, as long as he got two feet down first, the process of the catch is completed.

Dang you're right..... this is frustrating

 

[percyhoward]

Dang you're right..... this is frustrating

It's fubar.

 

[DogFace]

The facemask, if there was any, wasn't called. That doesn't factor into picking up the flag or not. It's whether he interfered or not and he clearly did making contact with his shoulder while his back was to the football.

I suspect your take on a "man's game" might be a little different if it were Jason Witten getting molested like that. Man's game or not, you can not allow a player to grab a jersey and interfere with the catch on the same play.

Wait. If there was any facemask? I'm sorry but if you didn't see that your judgement or eyesight is poor at
best. I'm not trying to come off like a jerk but I feel this is true.

 

[ConstantReboot]

It might have been a great ending to a very good game. Even if we'd come out on the losing end of it. It's a shame it didn't happen.

Same here. I would not have cared that Green Bay drove the length of the field and made the finally score. At least I know from a shadow of a doubt that they won it fair and square.

I did not like it when refs have to interject with their own ruling on why something is not a catch and turn this otherwise great game into some controversy.

The NFL and the refs have ruined it. Sure it was still a good game. But in retrospect, it good have even a better game and possibly one that we can remember for a very long time if they didn't mess up on the call and let it go as is.