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

[Blackspider214]

This makes me feel so much better.

 

[Aviano90]

Play the game over. Pick up after the Catch.

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

 

[Cowpolk]

We all already knew he caught it.

Yep

 

[Tangle_Foot]

Man this thing with Dez just will not die, so let's resurrect some past Cowboys wrongs.
SB V Dave Manders recovered it.
SBX III Bennie Barnes did not interfere.
94 NFC championship Deion Sanders did interfere.
Might as well give us old timers something to b**** about.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Right. So where's the direct quote from Mara? All I hear are "summaries." Note the word "appears" in that sentence. Not definitive from where I sit.

If you "appear" to kill someone by witness account and there's no evidence or a "yeah, I killed him" admission from you, should you be convicted and sentenced?

In journalism, there are two ways in which to quote someone. You can use a direct quote or paraphrase. Both are fine as long as proper accreditation is made .

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Thanks for nothing Goodell

 

[ScipioCowboy]

This is what I find hilarious. And there's even a member of staff in on the attempted bully train. That's rich.

Aw, no one is bullying you.

I like the large font. It makes the words seem more important.

Even then, he misses the point. Mara is conceding the poorness of the current language. It’s too vague.

 

[DCowboyz]

I don't care. There will be another rule that will screw us again in the future. It's too late.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

How do they justify overturning the call on the field? I would've loved to see how that game played out if the ruling on the field stood. You can assume the defense would've folded but we'll never know. That is the crime of it all. The NFL can SHOVE whatever they're coming up with now.

 

[MarcusRock]

So why change the wording of the rule? If there was no question that the ruling was correct, why is there a need to change the wording?

The answer is in the quote I highlighted from the ESPN article I gave you.

 

[MarcusRock]

If the rules were sufficient to call them complete at the time why would there be a need to relax the going to the ground requirement now?

Are you trying to be rational in an emotional rant thread? Naughty man.

 

[Corso]

Aw, no one is bullying you.



Even then, he misses the point. Mara is conceding the poorness of the current language. It’s too vague.

But... Large words!

 

[TwoDeep3]

I like the large font. It makes the words seem more important.

Evidently the normal font caused people like you to believe this was overturned by the competition committee and declared a catch.

 

[willia451]

A game based primarily on passing and catching that can't clearly define to its officials or to its fan base what a catch is and is not.

Disgusting.

Welcome to Byzantium. NFL edition.

 

[MarcusRock]

Note the part underlined and in bold. This is an article on the NFL's website. It does NOT say Dez's play should have been ruled a catch, it says that it would be a catch under a possible rule change.

The article is here: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...-others-under-review-of-competition-committee

Members of the Competition Committee, charged with changing the rule, are in the middle of four days of film review and discussions ahead of the NFL Scouting Combine. Their most likely recommendation, according to one person privy to their conversations, is to eliminate the "going to the ground" element of the rule, which requires players maintain control of the ball all the way through when they hit the ground. Eliminating that element would mean that Dez Bryant's famous non-catch would have been a catch, as would the Steelers' Jesse James' touchdown catch against the Patriots that was overturned on review this season. And perhaps most critically, it would go a long way toward satisfying the public's demand for a "know it when I see it" rule and would almost certainly reduce the number of catches that require instant replay review.

We went through this in the other thread when Pereira's article suggesting catch rule changes was being shopped as an admission that he was wrong about the Dez catch being correct at the time, even though he has continued to say it was called correctly as recently as when Jesse James' no-catch had all the attention. But don't try to get in the way of proof of a CONSPIRACY! at work. Lol.

 

[Gator88]

If the rules were sufficient to call them complete at the time why would there be a need to relax the going to the ground requirement now?

Because it is obviously confusing and can be misinterpreted like happened on the Dez play?

 

[MarcusRock]

you are a league office troll. That is the only possibility.

In the other thread, I was accused of being an Eagles fan. At least I'm moving up in the world, lol.

 

[Corso]

Evidently the normal font caused people like you to believe this was overturned by the competition committee and declared a catch.

Obviously...

 

[MarcusRock]

Thanks...I was guilty of just reading the headline.

Join the crowd, dude. Join the freakin' crowd, lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

Man this thing with Dez just will not die, so let's resurrect some past Cowboys wrongs.
SB V Dave Manders recovered it.
SBX III Bennie Barnes did not interfere.
94 NFC championship Deion Sanders did interfere.
Might as well give us old timers something to b**** about.

Butch Johnson was going to the ground, lol. Where's the outrage in Denver?