Baltimore Ravens Linebacker Kyle Van Noy Grills NFL For Baffling Decision To Bail Out Dak Prescott

[America's Cowboy]

This may help you stop embarrassing yourself:

https://www.footballzebras.com/2024/09/cowboys-find-a-loophole-to-avoid-safety/

The professionals, you mindlessly throw out, botched it in several ways.

Pathetic. All hearsay. What sources? Refused to name his sources? This is an article written by some wannabe sports writer who thinks he knows more than the professional referees and review booth.

 

[Kevinicus]

Pathetic. All hearsay. What sources? Refused to name his sources? This is an article written by some wannabe sports writer who thinks he knows more than the professional referees and review booth.

Do you care about facts at all?

The rules aren't secret.

What makes it not intentional grounding?

Why was the ball returned to the original line of scrimmage?

At least try to use your brain.

 

[Kevinicus]

Here's what it looks lile when correcrly called...

 

[America's Cowboy]

Do you care about facts at all?

The rules aren't secret.

What makes it not intentional grounding?

Why was the ball returned to the original line of scrimmage?

At least try to use your brain.

The professional referees know more than you.

Try to use your brain.

 

[Kevinicus]

The professional referees know more than you.

Try to use your brain.

Your logical fallacies don't change the fact that you and your professionals are wrong.

Can you answer the questions?

 

[mrmojo]

If not a safety it should have been intentional grounding, still in pocket, no receiver in the area and ball didnt go pass the LOS....

 

[Adreme]

Pathetic. All hearsay. What sources? Refused to name his sources? This is an article written by some wannabe sports writer who thinks he knows more than the professional referees and review booth.

Whats sad is how many officials seem to not know the rulebook. Its very clear that it does not matter if a pass is caught or not for intentional grounding. What matters is whether or not there is an eligible receiver in the area.

 

[8FOR!3]

Bbbbbbbbut the refs are out to get the Cowboys.

Some games it certainly seems they are. The Ravens probably got the worse out of that game though.

 

[America's Cowboy]

Your logical fallacies don't change the fact that you and your professionals are wrong.

Can you answer the questions?

Questions? More like fallacies and rants.

 

[America's Cowboy]

Whats sad is how many officials seem to not know the rulebook. Its very clear that it does not matter if a pass is caught or not for intentional grounding. What matters is whether or not there is an eligible receiver in the area.

They called it correctly.

 

[Kevinicus]

Questions? More like fallacies and rants.

Yes, two specific and clear questions. You do know what a question is don't you (this makes 3)?

 

[StylisticS]

“What call”?

That was intentional grounding, as no eligible receiver was within the vicinity. When you do that in the end zone, it’s a safety.

The explanation that the OL caught it, thus its no intentional grounding is bogus, which is what Mike Pereira says. He says you disregard the touch.

I knew I wasn’t going crazy when I saw that. I thought this very same thing and was amazed that it wasn’t a safety.

 

[Kevinicus]

They called it correctly.

Answer the questions then.

To repeat:

What makes it not intentional grounding?

Why was the ball returned to the original line of scrimmage?

 

[Adreme]

They called it correctly.

The actual rule says they didn’t I’ll be nice and give you the relevant text.

It is a foul for intentional grounding if a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion. A realistic chance of completion is defined as a pass that is thrown in the direction of and lands in the vicinity of an originally eligible receiver.

Note that nowhere in that rule does it specify whether the ball is caught or not only that it be thrown in the area of an eligible receiver.

 

[America's Cowboy]

Answer the questions then.

To repeat:

What makes it not intentional grounding?

Why was the ball returned to the original line of scrimmage?

I already explained it. Look it up.

 

[Bob-Lillys-War]

Dak ?

Nobody can talk about him , you'll get banned .

 

[Kevinicus]

I already explained it. Look it up.

No you didn't.


Everyone else:

Cites the rules. Explains the play and how the rules apply. Shows previous ecamples. Pretty much universal agreement.

AC: Nuh uh, the "professionals" said so!

Even if they were right on the intentional grounding (they were not), tbe spotting of the ball was completely wrong. The pass was not incomplete, and the Ravens declined the penalty. That means the play stood. Smith was tackled at the 4, but they placed it at the 7.

The professionals really botched it all the way around.

And replay refs weren't involved on the play like you think. This was all the morons on the field.

 

[America's Cowboy]

No you didn't.


Everyone else:

Cites the rules. Explains the play and how the rules apply. Shows previous ecamples. Pretty much universal agreement.

AC: Nuh uh, the "professionals" said so!

Even if they were right on the intentional grounding (they were not), tbe spotting of the ball was completely wrong. The pass was not incomplete, and the Ravens declined the penalty. That means the play stood. Smith was tackled at the 4, but they placed it at the 7.

The professionals really botched it all the way around.

And replay refs weren't involved on the play like you think. This was all the morons on the field.

It wasn't intentional grounding. It was an illegal touch. Still not a safety since Dak's knees were still off the ground when he shovel passed (a PASS) the football forward and into the playing field.

The only thing you got right was how the ball should have been placed at the 4 yard line, instead of the 7, but I'm not arguing that at all. I'm stating FACTS......that was not a safety! The referees agreed. The review crew upstairs didn't even review it because they agreed. The Ravens didn't dispute the call because even they realized it was not a safety.

 

[noshame]

I was shocked.
When Dak got paid, he must have made a large donation to the zebra club.

 

[LysleE]

I’m assuming some fans cannot use the referees as an excuse for the loss. The Cowboys were gifted on both the safety non-call and the phantom roughing the passer call.