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

[Idgit]

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.

That Butler Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalty nixing a 22 yard pass play and adding 15 penalty yards was a forty yard swing in what was, what, a 7-3 game at the time? In a home playoff game?

I'm not a conspiracy guy either, but that killed what would otherwise probably have been a scoring drive in a game that was 21-3 a few minutes later. It was a back-breaker. Hard to get emotional invested in these games when so much turns on bad calls, and bad calls happen so often.

 

[Aviano90]

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.

Don't give Garrett too much credit. That was Romo. Beasley was option #1 on that play and Romo decided presnap to go to Dez after reading the coverage. He knew he was being blitzed, he knew Dez was 1 on 1 with no safety help over the top for the first time in the game, and he knew he only had time for 1 read. The defense had inside leverage against Beasley and he figured if the defense took Beasley away, he would be sacked. So he decided before the snap, he would bypass the read to Beasley and go straight to Dez.

As it turns out, Romo was right in that he only had time for one read. The defense did not take Beasley's inside route away though so he was open but I don't mind the gamble Romo took knowing his presnap thought process.

 

[silvrNblue]

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.

Horse hockey...QB throws the ball, you either catch it or you do not. If you drop it, or have NO control of it going OOB's or falling to the ground and it hits before you do, that is not a catch! Everything else is just dreamed up garble to make it seem as if the NFL and their official's actually pay attention to s***t. They don't, we all know it, the game is to fast and plays happen to quick, and there aren't enough eyes watching to see it all. IE instant replay. And how you could figure it to be over turned is beyond me... I watched it to many times, over and over and over, and damned if I see any part that says it wasn't a catch. I wonder, did you also think the same thing in that same game about the GB player who rolled up on a "catch", got reviewed and given to them leading to a half time lead over us? I watched that one so many times my eyes got screwed in backwards, and I still say he did NOT catch that football, it was plain as day it hit the ground, but yet they gave it to him. I won't argue any further about it, Dez caught the ball, it was plain as day taking 3 steps lunging forward to the goal line, HAD possession the whole time, and then hit the ground and the ball popped up, in which he CAUGHT it and it never lay on the ground. All I'll say now is, THEY the NFL are now back tracking on it, because they look stupid going forward with some of the ridiculous BS they've added to the already distasteful soup they made for themselves. You have your opinion, and a lot of us have ours on it. Is what it is man...they now call it a catch.

 

[zrinkill]

Are those 3 still trying to say that it was not a catch?

Jeebus ........ no wonder they closed that forum down.

 

[G2]

Are those 3 still trying to say that it was not a catch?

Jeebus ........ no wonder they closed that forum down.

Shut your face, we're having an adult convo.

 

[zrinkill]

an adult convo.

Adult do not cry for two days because a player they hate is being vindicated by the league.

 

[G2]

I couldn't possibly care less what you "think."

 

[khiladi]

The Lions got screwed. The league hates Detroit.

Sure buddy, because favoritism implies absoluteness conditions. I'm pretty sure the devil tells the truth every once in awhile.

Nirvana Fallacy..

 

[Aviano90]

Adult do not cry for two days because a player they hate is being vindicated by the league.

At the very least, adults should be able to comprehend what is being said, regardless of what ones opinion is. YOUR board, that we are unwelcome in, seems to be in short supply of posters who possess reading comprehension skills. Considering you are the "Judger of Stupid Posts", it appears you have done a pretty poor job. A good start to improving would be to quit judging your own posts.

 

[MarcusRock]

They are proof that an act common to the game ends going to the ground. The example part is referencing your lack of understanding that case plays can't be all inclusive. No big surprise you are once again misrepresenting what others have said. And the fact that you choose to believe those directly involved in the overturn as proof, only further damages your case.

What act common to the game do they list as ending going to the ground? In both this case play and 8.12?

I noticed you continue to avoid the proof that the rule was changed in 2015 that Percy supplied as well, so here it is again.

A.R. 15.95 in its 2015 version is almost unrecognizable compared to 2014.

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't wait to here what nonsense you produce to explain that away.

Do you not see the difference here? The 2014 A.R. 15.95 is a lunge (the answer to the question I asked you above) and the 2015 version is a reach. A reach does not end going to the ground the same way "switching the ball" to one hand in A.R. 8.12 does not end going to the ground. What does end going to the ground in each case play listed in 2014 is a lunge, correct? I notice you and percy stay away from A.R. 8.12 because it proves that the only way to interrupt going to the ground is to show that you aren't going to the ground "all in one motion." So you can wave to your mom in the stands while falling but it doesn't interrupt falling. Caseplay A.R. 8.12 appears in BOTH the 2014 and 2015 rules so the rule did not change.

Again, I corrected you once before in this post on both caseplays. You don't address that post because you can't. And don't make me pull your "meltdown" excuse as to why A.R. 8.12 appears in 2014 and 2015. Do you remember what you answered me then?

 

[zrinkill]

At the very least, adults should be able to comprehend what is being said

Most of the board has .......... you three are the ones having the problems

YOUR board, that we are unwelcome in, seems to be in short supply of posters who possess reading comprehension skills.

Hmmm wonder why? Maybe because you immediately start attacking our players and our long time posters ............. but its more likely that you are not being "unwelcomed" and are just acting like a poor poor victim.

"Judger of Stupid Posts", it appears you have done a pretty poor job.

Do not worry ....... I am sure I will get to the rest of your posts eventually.

Now go huddle with your buddies and think of a new way to alienate yourself from the forum ...... oh I know ........ maybe you should make fun of someones kids .......... that would be fun for you guys.

 

[Idgit]

This is a weird topic for people to be coming to internet blows over. Obviously, it was a highly contentious call in a game where the stakes were high. We came out on the short end of the stick.

The definition of a catch in the NFL has been ridiculously overcomplicated for years now, to the detriment of the game. The circumlocutions over what the language is or was is evidence of that.

And the play in question should not have been overturned for not meeting the indisputable evidence standard, anyway. It was called a catch on the field, and the ensuing debate is obviously disputable. End of story.

It doesn't matter, though. As Jason said at the time, we had 56 minutes before that call and 4 minutes after to win the game. We lost. It sucks. It's part of a pattern in the league right now that affects other teams besides the Cowboys. That sucks more. The league needs to sort it out.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

When people want to believe something bad enough they will bend reality to fit that narrative. The popular excuse nowadays for not wanting to accept something is CONSPIRACY! And they claim millennials never want to take responsibility? LOL.

 

[Aviano90]

Most of the board has .......... you three are the ones having the problems


Hmmm wonder why? Maybe because you immediately start attacking our players and our long time posters ............. but its more likely that you are not being "unwelcomed" and are just acting like a poor poor victim.




Do not worry ....... I am sure I will get to the rest of your posts eventually.

Now go huddle with your buddies and think of a new way to alienate yourself from the forum ...... oh I know ........ maybe you should make fun of someones kids .......... that would be fun for you guys.

Yes, I know. I hurt your Dezzie feelings. Wanting him to reduce his mistakes is such a horrible request from a troll fan, right. Too bad if that is too much of a sensitive request for you to handle without being a crybaby.

 

[Elusive6thRing]

It was a catch but there was still over 4 minutes left in the game. It would have put us up 28-26 (or 27-26 if we go for 2 and miss, 29-26 if we go for 2 and convert) no one thinks Aaron bleepin Rodgers couldn't have taken them down to kick a fg?

 

[Aviano90]

It was a catch but there was still over 4 minutes left in the game. It would have put us up 28-26 no one thinks Aaron bleepin Rodgers couldn't have taken them down to kick a fg?

You make a good point. One thing to consider, we would have gone for 2. So it would have either been 27-26 or 29-26 and a FG by GB would have won or tied the game depending upon whether the 2 point conversion was successful.

It is extremely likely GB would have at least kicked a FG considering they got into FG range just trying to milk the clock without attempting to score. My guess is they would have easily scored a TD the next drive and it wouldn't have mattered.

But, take what I say with a grain of salt. Zrinkill judges my posts stupid.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

Blandino was ASKED about a reach by Rich Eisen. Blandino replied that they "looked at that aspect of it" and then proceeded to give an example of what a football move should look like which he did in another video segment using a play Dez himself made earlier that season. Links below. ASKED, didn't state it himself.

When you're looking to hook someone on their words and not the actual black and white rule book, that's pretty telling and leads me to believe you know the argument is dead by the rule book like you all found out in that other thread. So now you want a second bite with an emotional mob in the mix, lol.

https://nfllabor.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/nfl-vice-president-of-officiating-dean-blandino-on-nfl-gameday-final-on-nfl-network/

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00457361/Dean-Blandino-reviews-Bryant-s-catch

 

[G2]

Most of the board has .......... you three are the ones having the problems



Hmmm wonder why? Maybe because you immediately start attacking our players and our long time posters ............. but its more likely that you are not being "unwelcomed" and are just acting like a poor poor victim.




Do not worry ....... I am sure I will get to the rest of your posts eventually.

Now go huddle with your buddies and think of a new way to alienate yourself from the forum ...... oh I know ........ maybe you should make fun of someones kids .......... that would be fun for you guys.

How about you grow up and stop enticing other fans with your BS?

 

[Section446]

Don't give Garrett too much credit. That was Romo. Beasley was option #1 on that play and Romo decided presnap to go to Dez after reading the coverage. He knew he was being blitzed, he knew Dez was 1 on 1 with no safety help over the top for the first time in the game, and he knew he only had time for 1 read. The defense had inside leverage against Beasley and he figured if the defense took Beasley away, he would be sacked. So he decided before the snap, he would bypass the read to Beasley and go straight to Dez.

As it turns out, Romo was right in that he only had time for one read. The defense did not take Beasley's inside route away though so he was open but I don't mind the gamble Romo took knowing his presnap thought process.

Are you saying Romo called the play?

 

[DallasEast]

Let us all discuss (or fuss) about an ancient overturned call only. Or let a select few choose being banned from the thread. And remember! Using PM to say I HATE YOU NO I HATE YOU MORE is always an option here at this wonderful site we all call home... I mean, CowboysZone.