Dez catch

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Ball on the ground and jarred loose. By the going to the ground rule at the time, that is what made the pass incomplete. He keeps the ball off the ground, he could have bobbled it all the way to the end zone and that would have been a catch. But this is what did him in.

That doesn't show the ball loose

 

[gtb1943]

The going to the ground rule at the time overrides all these. 3 steps wasn't even part of the rule yet. The only thing Dez could have done to get out of the going to the ground rule is to "gather himself" according to the rule and execute a proper lunge. He tried but his foot slipped on his 3rd step so he continued to fall. Going to the ground means you're falling, not running upright, which are the rules you posted. Different situation for Dez which is why the GTTG rules applied.

Which is why rules are subjective

Show me any football coach who does not think that was a catch

 

[MarcusRock]

I thought our 2007 team had a better chance. As a matter of fact, the Giants were asked who their toughest test was during their Super Bowl run and the said without a doubt it was the Cowboys

We had beaten them twice that year. We had homefield advantage throughout.....13 - 3. TO, Glenn and Crayton. Fasano and Witten. Barber and Julius Jones. Ware, Ellis and Spencer as edge rushers. Spears, Hatcher, Ratliff in DT rotation. Forgot who the LBs were. And of course Romo. Tough, tough, tough not to see that team advance

Yeah that was the best chance we've had since the 90s. Crushing, crushing loss.

 

[MarcusRock]

That doesn't show the ball loose

Watch the video of the play. The ball comes out of his grip completely. It only needs to touch the ground and come out of possession. That happened, didn't it?

 

[gtb1943]

Romo said at the time that he did not see a better chance at a completion. Beasley would have required a more risky pass that could have been picked or batted away

Romo trusted Dez.

And in the end that was the way he went

 

[MarcusRock]

As did every fan of every team that I spoke with. No one, no matter their feelings toward the Cowboys thought it was anything but a terrible call.

They didn't know the rules. Just like when the tuck rule came about. At least this one had prior controversy. And folks still didn't know it

 

[MarcusRock]

Incorrect . Once he completed the 3 steps he became a runner by the rules.

3 steps wasn't even part of the rules at the time.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Watch the video of the play. The ball comes out of his grip completely. It only needs to touch the ground and come out of possession. That happened, didn't it?

Only after he crosses the goal line. The ball can touch the ground. He's down at the 1-foot line or whatever.

After the catch is made:

You can't unequivocally say that he wasn't diving and reaching for the goalline.
You can't unequivocally say that he didn't gather/make a football move.
You can't unequivocally say he didn't get 3 steps.
You can't unequivocally say that the ball was out at the moment it hit the ground (he's down).

It doesn't matter what the rule was because the ball isn't out until he slides over the goalline, so you can't overturn it. You also likely can't overturn it if they call it incomplete.

It was b.s. and the Cowboys got hosed. There is no two ways about it.

 

[mrmojo]

Let's talk about Jackie Smith's drop, instead.

Lets talk about Jerry Kramer being offsides

 

[MarcusRock]

His momentum carrying him falling foward after running and jumping isn't a football move.....he didn't maintain control throughout the process of the catch......end of story!

This is it right here. This is why everyone who wants the call to be a catch legislates for Dez to be upright which he wasn't because they know once they have to consider the going to the ground rule they are toast. So they avoid it and just keep repeating that he was upright.

 

[MarcusRock]

Only after he crosses the goal line. The ball can touch the ground.

Doesn't matter where on the field he is. Once the ball touches the ground, it cannot come out of the receiver's possession. It did, right? That's what makes it incomplete then. The rules have changed so it would be a catch now. It wasn't then.

 

[MarcusRock]

/thread

It wasn't even the first time a similar call went against Dez. It happened against the Giants in 2013 or 2012, IIRC. I'll find the clip

That is correct. It was that Giants game where Romo found Beasley on third down to get them in field goal range at the end of the game to kick it for the win. Dez had dropped that pass a few plays prior.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Doesn't matter where on the field he is. Once the ball touches the ground, it cannot come out of the receiver's possession. It did, right? That's what makes it incomplete then. The rules have changed so it would be a catch now. It wasn't then.

I know it doesn't matter where I was just using that as a reference point.

They cannot overturn the initial ruling because they cannot rule that he was going to the ground and not diving to the pilon (a runner). There is no "indisputable evidence" to say that Dez is slipping/falling and not diving.

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

Yeah that was the best chance we've had since the 90s. Crushing, crushing loss.

were Woodson and Roy Williams the Safetys and Newman and Reeves the CBs? I just remember Jacques Reeves getting picked on

 

[WillieBeamen]

It was definitely a low IQ play by Romo

It wasnt.

If the play had the correct result, we arent having this convo

 

[MarcusRock]

I know it doesn't matter where I was just using that as a reference point.

They cannot overturn the initial ruling because they cannot rule that he was going to the ground and not diving to the pilon (a runner). There is no "indisputable evidence" to say that Dez is slipping/falling and not diving.

Yes they can and they did. It's actually their job to. Again, it was the ball touching the ground that did him in. The field ref was shielded from that but if he had seen that he would have called it that way too. But he did the right thing in letting it play out and having replay do its thing. The still shots I posted were taken directly from my video of the game so it was easy to see on a replay.

 

[MarcusRock]

Which is why rules are subjective

Show me any football coach who does not think that was a catch

It's a catch now. Wasn't then. It was correctly called by the rules at the time.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Yes they can and they did. It's actually their job to. Again, it was the ball touching the ground that did him in. The field ref was shielded from that but if he had seen that he would have called it that way too. But he did the right thing in letting it play out and having replay do its thing. The still shots I posted were taken directly from my video of the game so it was easy to see on a replay.

Nope. You cannot rule that he had not become a runner on the overturn, and because the ball does not immediately come out, he is down. It does not matter that the ball came out eventually. The screenshots you posted (which, actually, I forgot about that camera angle) show a runner down - not an incomplete pass.

They could have called it incomplete, sure. But you can't overturn the ruling because you can't make the distinction that he was not a runner diving for the pilon.

 

[TequilaCowboy]

1. Control
2. 2 feet down in bounds
3. Time to make a football move.

That’s the rules at the time of the catch.
By making two moves he demonstrated that the time aspect of the rule has been met.

Exactly, and that’s what pissed me off . He came down with the ball, and now he turned from receiver to runner. So the ball coming loose when he was tackled and hit the ground was irrelevant.

Had he caught the ball and came down and hit the ground with the ball coming loose, then I can agree about no catch.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

The rules of the catch are what they are and I believe it was a catch, even by those rules. But the thing that gets me the most, it was called a catch on the field of play. At that point, there has to be clear evidence that the call on the field was wrong to overturn it. The fact that people are still questioning that call 10 years later tells me there was not clear evidence that it wasn't a catch and thus it should have stood as called on the field. I remember on one of the shows after that play Deno was explaining why it wasn't a catch and he said and this is almost a direct quote "yes it was a football move, but in our opinion, it wasn't enough of a football move"... where is that in the rule book?? It was simply a screw job by NY because of the heat they got the previous week with the picked up flag for PI in the Detroit game. If that didn't happen, that call would not have been over turned in GB.