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

[aria]

Much better angle but I stand by what I pm’ed you. Good and bad calls go both ways and if that were the other way around people here would still be crying over it. Dez did catch the ball, Dez didn't catch the ball...that was 3 years ago! We’ve had plenty of calls go in our favor and go against us since then, just like EVERY team.

The definition of a catch, among other things (ie PI) in the NFL has always been a grey area and now the competition committee is trying to make it more black and white (I assume) by reviewing some of the more controversial calls but that’s still not good enough for some. Talking about crying over spilled milk, will it ever stop? Can we move on?

 

[Corso]

That's my wife when we play Eldritch Horror, lol. Not at me, but at the game itself.

 

[zrinkill]

Much better angle but I stand by what I pm’ed you. Good and bad calls go both ways and if that were the other way around people here would still be crying over it. Dez did catch the ball, Dez didn't catch the ball...that was 3 years ago! We’ve had plenty of calls go in our favor and go against us since then, just like EVERY team.

The definition of a catch, among other things (ie PI) in the NFL has always been a grey area and now the competition committee is trying to make it more black and white (I assume) by reviewing some of the more controversial calls but that’s still not good enough for some. Talking about crying over spilled milk, will it ever stop? Can we move on?

It was only brought bck up because of the NFL committee ......... go complain to them.

Nobody here put it in the news again.

 

[Ken]

So where are all the resident experts who said it wasn't a catch?

 

[Corso]

So where are all the resident experts who said it wasn't a catch?

There's a couple here right this very second buddy! Enjoy!

 

[Dre11]

Much better angle but I stand by what I pm’ed you. Good and bad calls go both ways and if that were the other way around people here would still be crying over it. Dez did catch the ball, Dez didn't catch the ball...that was 3 years ago! We’ve had plenty of calls go in our favor and go against us since then, just like EVERY team.

The definition of a catch, among other things (ie PI) in the NFL has always been a grey area and now the competition committee is trying to make it more black and white (I assume) by reviewing some of the more controversial calls but that’s still not good enough for some. Talking about crying over spilled milk, will it ever stop? Can we move on?

What is your freaking issue, The NFL competition committee thought it was good to say it. Who cares what's good enough for you.

 

[gimmesix]

No one doubts they changed the "wording" of the rule but the essence of the rule did not change. This is copied and pasted from my post in the other thread. Go through all of these please and let me know whether you think the rule was altered in any way other than just re-wording.

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy
"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rule-and-it-might-actually-be-more-confusing/
"The interesting part here is that Dez Bryant's no-catch, the thing that sparked the rule change, would still be a no-catch under the new rule."

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...anges-and-points-of-emphasis-to-watch-in-2015
"Let's be clear. The rule that disallowed an apparent catch by Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the NFC divisional playoffs, and another by Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2009, remains unchanged in substance. The NFL did modify its wording, however, in hopes of making the rule make more sense to players, fans and media members in cases where a player is falling while in the process of making a catch."​

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?

I'll give you the reason, although you clearly won't believe it or will attempt to explain it away. Stick with me now ... Dez ... made ... a ... football ... move.

They changed the wording because they could not in reality deny that it was a football move because it is a vague term, "act common to the game," which includes extending the ball toward the goal line. What they did was move the goal posts slightly with new wording. Now, receivers had to clearly be runners, which was another vague term, but it in essence removed extending for the goal line from the equation.

 

[zrinkill]

There's a couple here right this very second buddy! Enjoy!

Most of them are playing the victim card at the moment

 

[CWR]

C’mon, look at this. 99.9% of the time this would be called and if it happened to Dez all hell would break loose. You can admit that, it’s ok.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1...l-playoffs-results-analysis-referees-bad-call

It was offensive before hand. People still talk as if we got away with one when the damn TE initiated contact.

 

[CWR]

So where are all the resident experts who said it wasn't a catch?

Lol, they are busy being "unbiased."

 

[zrinkill]

It was offensive before hand. People still talk as if we got away with one when the damn TE initiated contact.

I posted the video and they still refuse to acknowledge it ........ nothing will change their minds.

 

[OmerV]

If the should have been ruled complete why would there be a need to relax the going to the ground requirement?

 

[OmerV]

Should have been complete by the rules in place at the time or would be complete if they vote to change the rule by revising the going to the ground portion of the rule presently? Read for understanding, man, and stop getting caught up in attention-grabbing headlines, lol.

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?

 

[aria]

It was only brought bck up because of the NFL committee ......... go complain to them.

Nobody here put it in the news again.

Did you not see the 100+ page thread already addressing this exact same topic?

 

[aria]

What is your freaking issue, The NFL competition committee thought it was good to say it. Who cares what's good enough for you.

Lol, what is my issue? Where should I start? For starters, that needs to be plural, issue(S).

In reference to my ISSUE with this particular subject, I agree it was good that the competition committee addressed it so what’s your freaking issue?

 

[Teague31]

Screw the NFL. Practically stole the ring of Romo’s finger

 

[Hardline]

Just another stab in the heart for the Cowboys and us fans.
What' next?
The rules committee saying that the Packers guard really did move before the ball was snapped on the game winning touchdown in the ice bowl?

 

[zrinkill]

Did you not see the 100+ page thread already addressing this exact same topic?

The green bay catch? Or the Eagles catch?

 

[OmerV]

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.

 

[zrinkill]

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.

Jeebuss