Discussion in 'Overtime Zone' started by ksg811, Feb 27, 2018.
And like that Romo misses his Super Bowl, I knew he was a SB QB!
Coulda. Woulda. Shoulda. Thanks NFL. Most “real” fans, and I mean real fans, knew it was a catch outside “the world is flat” morons.
We all knew they would eventually do this.
It’s a damn conspiracy, shame.
Hell, I thought 5 minutes on a review was bad.
Do you think the Ertz catch and the Dez play were identical too?
True. That's why I say if there's a rule change, make it something that can be easily determined that still accounts for as many possible situations as they can. Changing it because it's "too hard to understand" is not a good reason, IMO. But a business has to cater to its average consumer so dumb it down, y'all, dumb it down!
Way to go back on what I posted. They are talking about the rule WHEN Dez caught it. You are wrong and its amazing to me you keep trying to prove your point when the competition committee is now telling you that all of your crap and explanations were wrong. And I think they both weren't catches. Regardless of him crossing the plane. Otherwise Megatrons catch should have been one as well. Same as Jesse James. I don't care about the rule at all to be honest. I care about how inconsistently it is called. Let me guess you think the Clement catch was a touchdown too right?
They said he caught it.
Not sure where you got that from what I said. I'm saying the league blew the call in at least two aspects — overturning the ruling on the field without sufficient evidence and Dez reaching for the goal line, constituting a football move — and Blandino rubbed salt in the wound by defending that poor officiating instead of just admitting the mistake that the competition committee is acknowledging now.
But all the Anti-Romo and Anti-Dez trolls said he dropped it ......... heck a troll posted just today that he dropped it.
Great. Then show me a quote from someone among the "they" versus this reporter reporting on what "they" allegedly said.
Direct quote from the committee?
The Clement catch could have been ruled a catch, because by rule:
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
Wow, y'all. Can you actually read that article, not just the freakin' headline, and show me anywhere in that sensationalized piece where the NFL "admitted" they got those calls wrong? Then go back to what I explained in my post and tell me if it isn't happening exactly like I said. Can people not deduce fact from slant? The media counts on this and it's why they'll never be out of business. Ever.
Please stop the name calling and personal attacks.
I understand that many have spent time and an invested interest in your arguments over a period of time on this topic but please remain civil with dealing with others of an opposing view on this topic.
If you find that you cannot do so, please walk away from this thread and or topic before you get yourself in trouble.
This is what I am wondering it too. We're taking a tweet from a person and drawing conclusions. I read the tweet thinking they reviewed the plays again, determined they want to those types of plays to be catches instead of incomplete passes (so they SHOULD BE catches) and now have to modify to rules to ensure they are catches in the future. I don't read the tweet thinking the call was wrong at the time. Of course, I could be wrong but will hold out until further clarification comes along.
Per the article...
The NFL competition committee appears to have unanimous agreement that controversial catch rulings involving Dez Bryant and Calvin Johnson should have been ruled complete, according to Giants owner John Mara. So the committee is working on changing the rule to relax the "going to the ground" requirement.
So I was right it was a catch
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?
I will just happy if they go back to common sense of people watching football, not some made up formula for what a catch is!