Dez Caught It Game On NFLN Now

[Whirlwin]

I have been a fan of the star, the Dallas Cowboys before Rodger Staubach even became quarterback. In the military overseas all you could get on Sundays was the Cowboys. How could you not love the star and what it represents. I've been through years of torture with Danny White. All the way to Cunningham being the quarterback of the Cowboys. I never would have expected that. Randall Cunningham a cowboy LMAO. Worst quarterback we've ever had was Brandon Weeden in my opinion. And we had like 12 different starters after Troy Aikman before Tony. We're blessed to have Prescott and people don't get it

 

[Idgit]

Uh huh. I wouldn't care either if it riddled my argument full of holes. But I get it.

The on field official was shielded from seeing the ball hit the ground, so if replay shows it did, should they just ignore it and not apply the correct rule? That's what you're saying. Once GTG applies, your football move point is moot. That's what the video I showed you says. So I'd ignore it too if I were you.



And Pereira was there calling the game with Joe and Troy and predicted the reversal before it was even announced. Guess he made the wrong call too.

This is why I said earlier I didn't want to rehash it. There is no hole in my argument. You just don't like it.

I didn't watch the video you provided, so I didn't ignore what it said. I don't care what it said. I based my opinion off of the rules regarding a catch and the rules regarding overturning a call on the field by replay. That's sufficient. I don't care about how the call on the field was disputed because the call was not indisputable, and that's sufficient.

I'm not sure how to say a different way that it's irrelevant what Mike Pereira had to say about the call, so I won't repeat myself.

You take the last word, since neither of us is going to change our opinion here, and I'm not really interested in another explanation of why you're entrenched.

 

[Idgit]

I'm telling you the league has no respect for our coaching staff. If that was Jimmy Johnson on the sidelines that called goes our way I don't like it but I do believe it. I've seen him get calls before intimidating. Twice during the San Francisco Cowboys championship games. Jimmy had calls his way that probably shouldn't have . And I actually don't mind Jason Garrett. But they never should have got us for 12 minutes a huddle during the Green Bay game Jeff heat should have intercepted that ball. Just one example

I think there's a lot to be said about intimidating officials. There's a reason why there are fewer calls in nationally televised games. It's human nature to not want to displease an aggressive coach.

That said, I do appreciate how Garrett takes the officiating questions off the table and puts the onus on the team to overcome the game situation.

And, yes, that Unsportsmanlike Conduct call that reversed a 25 yard pass play and killed the second drive of the game for the home team in a playoff contest absolutely gutted us in 2016. It was maybe worse than the Dez call for me because we were the home team and, honestly, the better team that year. That was a game we should have won, penalty or not, but to have such a bizarre penalty end a possession the way that one did was brutal.

 

[Whirlwin]

I think there's a lot to be said about intimidating officials. There's a reason why there are fewer calls in nationally televised games. It's human nature to not want to displease an aggressive coach.

That said, I do appreciate how Garrett takes the officiating questions off the table and puts the onus on the team to overcome the game situation.

And, yes, that Unsportsmanlike Conduct call that reversed a 25 yard pass play and killed the second drive of the game for the home team in a playoff contest absolutely gutted us in 2016. It was maybe worse than the Dez call for me because we were the home team and, honestly, the better team that year. That was a game we should have won, penalty or not, but to have such a bizarre penalty end a possession the way that one did was brutal.

I've seen so many bad calls throughout the years. Doesn't matter who's playing. I've seen them give the benefit of the doubt to the so-called best coaches. Blatant holding. All the way to Leverage blocking a punt. But you just have to love the game

 

[GMO415]

Well Dallas hasnt had a defense since like 07-08 until last year

Gives me real hope.

 

[StarBoyz83]

Lol. I doubt it but I get your point LOL

Lol I still Dallas wouldve lost but you never know. I was just joking

 

[MarcusRock]

This is why I said earlier I didn't want to rehash it. There is no hole in my argument. You just don't like it.

I didn't watch the video you provided, so I didn't ignore what it said. I don't care what it said. I based my opinion off of the rules regarding a catch and the rules regarding overturning a call on the field by replay. That's sufficient. I don't care about how the call on the field was disputed because the call was not indisputable, and that's sufficient.

I'm not sure how to say a different way that it's irrelevant what Mike Pereira had to say about the call, so I won't repeat myself.

You take the last word, since neither of us is going to change our opinion here, and I'm not really interested in another explanation of why you're entrenched.

You have an opinion about a rule but want to ignore a precise explanation of the rule so you can continue to believe what you believe without challenge because it's convenient. Entrenched you say? Freud would be proud of this clear illustration of projection. Just cry CONSPIRACY! and get it over with, lol.

 

[Whirlwin]

Lol I still Dallas wouldve lost but you never know. I was just joking

I know that's why I put the LOL I'm from the old Cowboys fan forum I had a Landry's hat I miss it. It was a reward for the amount of posts. I had over a hundred thousand post and I never pressed the report button and there were battles. But I'm proud of that. Again I knew you were joking nice meeting you. My old Avatar was Bob Lilly with the torn Jersey I haven't found a way to implement it here yet

 

[Whirlwin]

Gives me real hope.

What happened to XIV

 

[Whirlwin]

You have an opinion about a rule but want to ignore a precise explanation of the rule so you can continue to believe what you believe without challenge because it's convenient. Entrenched you say? Freud would be proud of this clear illustration of projection. Just cry CONSPIRACY! and get it over with, lol.

I don't believe it has anything to do with convenience. I believe it's just a different interpretation. There are many who agree with us you're just as there is many that don't. Personally I believe it wasn't a catch because of the rule. But that was a consistent football move of his. That could have been the deciding overall Factor. That's what we're arguing

 

[MarcusRock]

I don't believe it has anything to do with convenience. I believe it's just a different interpretation. There are many who agree with us you're just as there is many that don't. Personally I believe it wasn't a catch because of the rule. But that was a consistent football move of his. That could have been the deciding overall Factor. That's what we're arguing

No problem with people who want to see it a different way. Fan glasses are going to do that on a play of this magnitude. But when one makes an accusation that is precisely addressed otherwise and you blatantly ignore it solely to not admit you have a flawed take at the very least, that IS willingly being ignorant for the convenience of saving face.

No problem with the woulda couldas. It's good to dream about what could've been sometimes and we'll always wonder what that team might have been able to do if they got past the Packers which would have been really tough even if the catch actually happened and we scored later. So if the discussion stuck to woulda couldas, no problem at all.

But on a message board, why make an accusation and then tap out immediately when evidence to the contrary is presented? That's like saying, "The sky is red. Please don't tell me different. Gotta go." The rule back then worked the same way. A receiver EITHER is upright and a runner OR is deemed going to the ground at which point those particular rules apply INSTEAD. People can talk about football move all they want. Dez took 3 steps and that still wasn't enough, and proof that a football move didn't matter. Why? Because going to the ground overrules the upright conditions of a catch and Dez was falling the whole way as Steratore pointed out.

 

[Idgit]

No problem with people who want to see it a different way. Fan glasses are going to do that on a play of this magnitude. But when one makes an accusation that is precisely addressed otherwise and you blatantly ignore it solely to not admit you have a flawed take at the very least, that IS willingly being ignorant for the convenience of saving face.

No problem with the woulda couldas. It's good to dream about what could've been sometimes and we'll always wonder what that team might have been able to do if they got past the Packers which would have been really tough even if the catch actually happened and we scored later. So if the discussion stuck to woulda couldas, no problem at all.

But on a message board, why make an accusation and then tap out immediately when evidence to the contrary is presented? That's like saying, "The sky is red. Please don't tell me different. Gotta go." The rule back then worked the same way. A receiver EITHER is upright and a runner OR is deemed going to the ground at which point those particular rules apply INSTEAD. People can talk about football move all they want. Dez took 3 steps and that still wasn't enough, and proof that a football move didn't matter. Why? Because going to the ground overrules the upright conditions of a catch and Dez was falling the whole way as Steratore pointed out.

Oh, please. Your 'evidence to the contrary' wasn't relevant to the decision in any way. The only thing that mattered was how the play was called on the field, and that it was reversed on the basis of 'indisputable evidence' despite the evidence obviously being very disputable.

It doesn't matter what Pereira's take on whether or not it should have been ruled a catch was. It was already ruled a catch. What mattered was whether or not the replay evidence was indisputable. Not 'convincing.' Not 'most likely to be the right call.' The standard was 'indisputable.' It clearly was not indisputable, and so should not have been overturned.

 

[MarcusRock]

Oh, please. Your 'evidence to the contrary' wasn't relevant to the decision in any way. The only thing that mattered was how the play was called on the field, and that it was reversed on the basis of 'indisputable evidence' despite the evidence obviously being very disputable.

It doesn't matter what Pereira's take on whether or not it should have been ruled a catch was. It was already ruled a catch. What mattered was whether or not the replay evidence was indisputable. Not 'convincing.' Not 'most likely to be the right call.' The standard was 'indisputable.' It clearly was not indisputable, and so should not have been overturned.

What is not indisputable about the ball clearly hitting the ground and Dez losing grip of the ball? When replay catches what an on-field official missed, should it not be corrected? That's what replay is there for. Did the ball hit the ground and did Dez lose grip of the ball. Yes or no?

 

[percyhoward]

It doesn't matter what Pereira said about it. Here's what Gene Steratore, whose team made the call said:

"Although the receiver possessing the football, he must maintain possession of that football throughout the entire process of the catch. In our judgment, he maintained possession but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game. We deemed that by our judgment to be the full process of the catch, and at the time he lands and the ball hits the ground, it comes loose as it hits the ground, which would make that incomplete; although he repossesses it, it does contact the ground when he reaches so the repossession is irrelevant because it was ruled an incomplete pass when we had the ball hit the ground."
​

Except he did, obviously make multiple 'acts common to the game.' And even if you want to debate whether changing hands, pushing towards the goal line with his next step, and extending were 'acts common to the game,' you're still debating. Which means it obviously wasn't indisputable by definition.

It was a catch, a correct call on the field, and a controversial overturn that should not have happened.

The other thing is that the Jesse James play that he keeps posting was from the period (2015-17) when the receiver had to be "upright long enough" to become a runner. As you correctly stated, in 2014 the only requirement after control and both feet was the act common to the game, which is why Steratore said they were looking for that, instead of whether Dez was upright long enough. The "upright" requirement came along later, after the Dez overturn (and as a reaction to it.)

 

[MarcusRock]

The other thing is that the Jesse James play that he keeps posting was from the period (2015-17) when the receiver had to be "upright long enough" to become a runner. As you correctly stated, in 2014 the only requirement after control and both feet was the act common to the game, which is why Steratore said they were looking for that, instead of whether Dez was upright long enough. The "upright" requirement came along later, after the Dez overturn (and as a reaction to it.)

Then when discussing the Jesse James play, why did Pereira invoke Dez Bryant's name on the same rule? Hint: because the rule didn't change. The same rule for Jesse James was the same rule for Dez Bryant and for Calvin Johnson which is why all those non-catches would be catches today now that they did away with going to the ground trumping the 3-part catch rule.

You keep pushing that "story" that the rule changed from 2014 to 2015 when all they did was clarify language on the exact same rule for the confused masses who didn't understand it. When I ask you to show proof of the change of rule, you can't point to anything printed and just ignore the question. Show links to stories that the rule changed after the 2014 season beyond just clarifying language. You won't because you can't. I can show the opposite though. Why is that?

 

[MarcusRock]

"As with Dez Bryant a couple of years ago ..."

 

[erod]

Great throw. Great catch. Ruined by one of the dumbest rules ever in professional sports.

The game was so damn much better 25 years ago.

 

[DandyDon52]

I have to disagree with everything written here. You have to try for a touchdown every chance you get. Field goals are not guaranteed, nor is hammering the ball in goal line each down and hoping you get it in. Remember, this is the 2010's we're in and not the 1950's ( although there were teams that would sling it even back then ).

Well just imo the smart play was just to catch it secure it and go down.
If they dont take time off the clock they wouldnt have won anyway.

 

[big dog cowboy]

The game was so damn much better 25 years ago.

Quoted for truth!

 

[Whirlwin]

No problem with people who want to see it a different way. Fan glasses are going to do that on a play of this magnitude. But when one makes an accusation that is precisely addressed otherwise and you blatantly ignore it solely to not admit you have a flawed take at the very least, that IS willingly being ignorant for the convenience of saving face.

No problem with the woulda couldas. It's good to dream about what could've been sometimes and we'll always wonder what that team might have been able to do if they got past the Packers which would have been really tough even if the catch actually happened and we scored later. So if the discussion stuck to woulda couldas, no problem at all.

But on a message board, why make an accusation and then tap out immediately when evidence to the contrary is presented? That's like saying, "The sky is red. Please don't tell me different. Gotta go." The rule back then worked the same way. A receiver EITHER is upright and a runner OR is deemed going to the ground at which point those particular rules apply INSTEAD. People can talk about football move all they want. Dez took 3 steps and that still wasn't enough, and proof that a football move didn't matter. Why? Because going to the ground overrules the upright conditions of a catch and Dez was falling the whole way as Steratore pointed out.

Nothing to do with fan glasses. I felt the same with the Pittsburgh non touchdown catch. And I live 25 minutes from Gillette Stadium.