Twitter: Competition Committee says Dez caught it **merged**

[Aerolithe_Lion]

At no point does anyone say the call on the field was incorrect. When they’re saying “it should have been a catch” it implies they want to change the rule to where it is a catch in the future when it wasn’t one before.

 

[khiladi]

 

[khiladi]

This makes no damn sense. People have been trying to convince us for years that Mara was one of the main conspirators agianst the Cowboys. #fakenews

Because Rooney got robbed. So they changed a rule to rob Dez, but when Rooney got robbed they had to back-track and change the rule to make it a catch.

The problem in both cases is that they both were catches according to the rules of the time irrespective, so the NFL is trying to save face in their phrasing that it was a language issue, when “it wasn’t”.

Now they can pretend that Cook as a Patriot when they were struggling caught it per the new rules, so it was always a catch when in fact it wasn’t.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/10/20/should-jared-cooks-late-touchdown-have-been-upheld/

 

[percyhoward]

Already answered it. What stops one from going to the ground? A reach or a lunge?

What did Blandino say in "Explaining the Calvin Johnson Rule" completed the catch process when a player goes to the ground? A reach or a lunge?

What did he say the day of the overturn would have completed Dez's catch process? A reach or a lunge?

Note that neither one of those questions deals with a hypothetical. They're about the actual standard that they were using for "going to the ground" plays at the time. Watch Blandino's video tutorial in the link and you won't hear the words "lunge," "brace," or "gather." What you will hear is exactly what he said on the day of the overturn -- that the reach was an act common to the game that would have made it a catch.

Blandino: "Calvin did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line. So this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.

 

[DogFace]

I think Brandon Carr would finally make a play to save the game. That's my bold prediction.

He did once vs the Stealers. That’s all we could’ve expected.

 

[DogFace]

MarcusRock used to deny (with 100% proof shown to him) just as much in the now defunct Official Cowboys Fan Forum. Some people never change.

Is he the reason that forum went under?

 

[Aviano90]

Because Rooney got robbed. So they changed a rule to rob Dez, but when Rooney got robbed they had to back-track and change the rule to make it a catch.

The problem in both cases is that they both were catches according to the rules of the time irrespective, so the NFL is trying to save face in their phrasing that it was a language issue, when “it wasn’t”.

Now they can pretend that Cook as a Patriot when they were struggling caught it per the new rules, so it was always a catch when in fact it wasn’t.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/10/20/should-jared-cooks-late-touchdown-have-been-upheld/

The Lions got screwed. The league hates Detroit.

 

[DogFace]

I don't think you understand the case play very well. The act of changing hands with the ball is ignored because it doesn't happen. This is at least the 3rd time I've corrected your misreading something, I'm curious if you will continue to bat 1.000 in ignoring me when I poke holes in your theories.

Yes, he completely ignored you when you pointed out some, including me, were reading that caseplay wrong.

I pointed it out to him again. He ignored it. It’s fascinating because he continues to say others ignore his “points”.

I can’t find it or I’d repost it so he could act like it didn’t happen. Again.

 

[Section446]

Terrible... That one play could have changed the narrative of Romo's career.

 

[G2]

Terrible... That one play could have changed the narrative of Romo's career.

Yeah, run the ball on 4th and 2.

 

[BrassCowboy]

So even after the competition committee tells you he caught it you wont admit it?

Don't bother trying. It was a catch no matter what anyone thinks.

 

[DogFace]

Already answered it. What stops one from going to the ground? A reach or a lunge?

You’ve been ask 4 times and this is number 5. Originally by percy. Again by blindzebra. Yes, my superiors or whatever you want to refer to them as. (Funny that you actually whined that you were being bullied)

Can you see the rules changed? I mean if you can’t even acknowledge what’s written clearly and for all to see what are we doing here? We’d like a reasonable debate and we are factoring in who you are in defining reasonable.

This is same caseplay. One is from 2015 and one 2014. They have different rulings to the same play. Can you see that means there’s a difference in the rule of each year?


2014
A.R. 15.95
Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.
In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not
have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

2015
A.R. 15.95
Does not become runner prior to going to ground
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then, still in control of the ball, he reached out for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A20.
In this situation, the receiver had not clearly become a runner before going to the ground. In order to complete the catch, he must maintain control until after his
initial contact with the ground. The act of reaching out with the ball does not trump the requirement to maintain control of the ball when he lands.

Can you at least for admit you see there’s a difference here and that you were wrong about the rule changing?

There are no legal repercussions. I assure you.

Although, at this point, maybe there should be.

 

[DanTanna]

The fact of the matter is they made up a rule on national TV. right in front of everybody, to screw us over. Made it up live on TV. Like the Brady tuck rule. ****** rigged POS game.

 

[gimmesix]

You side with the officials when they're right, not when they can't see that the ball clearly hit the ground and replay confirms it did.

You seem to put a lot of trust in the NFL that when it stands by a call it does so because it's right, so I thought I would share this with you from another call that went against Dallas.

http://www.wfaa.com/article/sports/...crucial-penalty-against-cowboys/287-388418547

There are two possibilities here. Either the NFL didn't admit its mistake privately and those who told Lombardi that it did were lying (or Lombardi was), or the NFL privately admitted its mistake but wouldn't admit it publicly. If the second one is true, then why should we believe the NFL would publicly admit that Bryant caught the ball or that it shouldn't have overturned the call because there wasn't indisputable evidence?

I'm not a conspiracy theory. I don't believe the league is out to get us. But I certainly believe that officials rally to defend their own even when they are wrong. It isn't just officials, though, as a journalist, I've seen this happen in multiple professions where there is a lot of public scrutiny. You get an us vs. them mentality that colors your perception. This is how officials can use the standard of a reach in one instance, but when there's a reach (and it's acknowledged since Steratore and Blandino both said Dez reached), change the standard to a lunge.

And if you don't feel that a reach is the standard for an act common to the game, then here's one of the officiating experts you quote saying it is in addressing an indisputable evidence issue and the need to change the catch rule: http://touchdownwire.usatoday.com/2...ls-out-abandoning-clear-and-obvious-standard/

Mike Pereira ✔ @MikePereira

Make it like a catch on an upright receiver. If you get control and two feet or another today body part on the ground and then reach or lunch, you have made a football move, they it should be a catch. Replay can only review the control and two feet. Not the FB move. Credit PFT.

Anyway, this is my last-ditch effort ... really, it is. From now on, I'm going to focus on how I'm happy that the NFL at least is trying to fix this mess of a catch rule to hopefully make it less subjective.

 

[G2]

The glove didn't fit.

 

[Section446]

Yeah, run the ball on 4th and 2.

Eh, but apparently, it should have been catch, either way. I applaud Garrett for growing a pair and calling what he did on that play.

 

[silvrNblue]

Enough... I also heard it from the horse's mouth this morning on NFL radio...."at the time" it should have been ruled complete for both players....suck it up and give it up. Anyone who actually watched it, knew it should have been ruled a "catch". It's old news now, shoulda, coulda, woulda. Bottom line, those of us who argued the stupid pull it out my arse explanation was total BS. It was a catch! But because the NFL is hell bent on making something as simple as catching a football, seem as if it requires genus's to interpret it, they fell on their faces. It's called eating crow in the old days... now, would you like some salt and pepper with that crow?

 

[G2]

Eh, but apparently, it should have been catch, either way. I applaud Garrett for growing a pair and calling what he did on that play.

That's true, it was a gutsy call.

 

[G2]

Enough... I also heard it from the horse's mouth this morning on NFL radio...."at the time" it should have been ruled complete for both players....suck it up and give it up. Anyone who actually watched it, knew it should have been ruled a "catch". It's old news now, shoulda, coulda, woulda. Bottom line, those of us who argued the stupid pull it out my arse explanation was total BS. It was a catch! But because the NFL is hell bent on making something as simple as catching a football, seem as if it requires genus's to interpret it, they fell on their faces. It's called eating crow in the old days... now, would you like some salt and pepper with that crow?

I watched it and thought it would get overturned simply because of how it looked. That's my opinion, I couldn't care less to debate the rule and how it's written. Especially here with so many internet tough guys that refuse to see any other perspective. It does need to be talked about and fixed so there's the least amount of judgement possible.
Sorry, catching a football isn't as simple as you think.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

What good does it do other than stir the pot and dredge up bad history?

What's next?

In 2021, John Mara will say that Ezekiel Elliott should not have been suspended for six games?

That won't happen.