Dez catch

[MarcusRock]

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.

Show me in the rulebook where they "can't overturn" a ruling of being a runner back in 2014.

And how do you know the on-field official didn't rule he was going to the ground but didn't see the ball touch the ground? If he didn't see the ball touch, then he did call it correctly by his view because if Dez kept the ball off the ground it would have been a catch even with the going to the ground application and the ball coming out of his possession.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

Your second sentence is exactly what happened. Once you were deemed going to the ground, the ball can't touch the ground and come loose. It did. That's why it was incomplete.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Show me in the rulebook where they "can't overturn" a ruling of being a runner back in 2014.

And how do you know the on-field official didn't rule he was going to the ground but didn't see the ball touch the ground? If he didn't see the ball touch, then he did call it correctly by his view because if Dez kept the ball off the ground it would have been a catch even with the going to the ground application and the ball coming out of his possession.

It's not that they can't, it is that there is no "indisputable evidence" of that.

Doesn't matter.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Your second sentence is exactly what happened. Once you were deemed going to the ground, the ball can't touch the ground and come loose. It did. That's why it was incomplete.

Buddy once you turn into a runner it is a completion. You can't be a runner without possession.

 

[darthseinfeld]

It wasnt.

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

We wouldnt be, because Rodgers would have had almost 4 minutes to get into FG range. It was bad situational awareness by Romo

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

You'll have to find that quote by Blandino but the official at the time Gene Steratore said at the press conference right after the game that it was not a football move when directly questioned about it. I remember Howie Long asking Mike Pereira on the air about Dez' elbow moving forward and whether it was a football move and he said no. The questions were all getting at whether a proper lunge was executed which is the only thing in the rulebook that got you out of going to the ground at the time. Dez tried but slipped, so he continued to fall. That's when GTTG applied.

 

[foofighters]

Appreciate this has been talked about many times before but having watched it again just now it must go down as one of the worst reversals I have ever seen.

Surely when Dez touched the ground with his right elbow then he's down having completed the process of a catch (he had made a football move by taking 2-3 steps after securing the ball).

In any event, I haven't seen any clear and unequivocal footage of the ball touching the ground at any point - part of his arm looked to be under the ball when he went to ground so worst case scenario he has caught the ball in the end zone as Shields didn't mark him down by contact.

People say well Rodgers would have just marched down the field any way - great let's see him do it and it's irrelevant to the above call.

It's still annoying all these years on!

Rodger's would have scored. Our defense wasn't going to stop him, but like you said, it's irrelevant because Dez never caught it anyway...

 

[Miller]

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

Ugh! Still haunts my 8 yr old self. What a great game with so many HOFers. Still one where I think may be one of the best ever games despite the loss

 

[MarcusRock]

It's not that they can't, it is that there is no "indisputable evidence" of that.

Doesn't matter.

Oh so now there's nothing in the rules that says they can't change status but you spoke as if there was. So if they did change status what's your point? There's nothing in the rules that says they can't, right?

The indisputable evidence is watching the video on replay. The same video I took a still shot of to show you the ball touched the ground, which you stated you hadn't seen before, right? So if that convinced you, why wouldn't it convince the on-field ref who might have been shielded from seeing it on the field then? That's why it was ruled incomplete by the rules at the time.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Oh so now there's nothing in the rules that says they can't change status but you spoke as if there was. So if they did change status what's your point? There's nothing in the rules that says they can't, right?

The indisputable evidence is watching the video on replay. The same video I took a still shot of to show you the ball touched the ground, which you stated you hadn't seen before, right? So if that convinced you, why wouldn't it convince the on-field ref who might have been shielded from seeing it on the field then? That's why it was ruled incomplete by the rules at the time.

You are arguing the wrong point.

There is no indisputable evidence that he was not diving for the pilon as a runner, rather than going to the ground. It does not matter if the ball came out, because he was a runner. There is nothing in the replay that the on-field official would not have seen, in that regard. You simply cannot overturn the rule to say that he had not become a runner and down by contact once the ball came out.

 

[MarcusRock]

Buddy once you turn into a runner it is a completion. You can't be a runner without possession.

If you're going to the ground and lose possession, they call it incomplete. Whether on the field or via replay, that's what happens. It still happens today!

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

If you're going to the ground and lose possession, they call it incomplete. Whether on the field or via replay, that's what happens. It still happens today!

Not if you are a runner - that is a fumble.

 

[DFWJC]

It was the correct call with the rules that were in place at that time.

Nope
But whatever

a zillion threads on this. Not changing anyone’s mind as this point

 

[MarcusRock]

You are arguing the wrong point.

There is no indisputable evidence that he was not diving for the pilon as a runner, rather than going to the ground. It does not matter if the ball came out, because he was a runner. There is nothing in the replay that the on-field official would not have seen, in that regard. You simply cannot overturn the rule to say that he had not become a runner and down by contact once the ball came out.

It's the video, bro. The process is 1. you rule he was going to the ground. 2. you look to see if the ball touched the ground. 3. you look to see if the ball came out of his possession. If all 3 are present, you rule incomplete. He was falling and did not execute a proper lunge to get out of the GTTG tag. That is the only thing via the rules that gets you out of that. You don't execute, you don't get out. He tried with his 3rd step but slipped as he was coming down and could not push off. Extending your elbow forward is not a lunge. The rules state you "gather yourself" and push forward. You can't do that when you slip. Catching the ball and crashing to the ground while slipping is not a completed catch, so you are not a runner. That's why GTTG was in place and why it was applied.

 

[DFWJC]

I always mention it. That gets lost in the discussion…should’ve rode that run game to the red zone. Too much has to go right for Dak to make that throw.

Because it had bogged down in the 2nd half.
highly i probable they could put togther a sustained drive

They play was there and he took it and MADE the throw Perfectly

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

It's the video, bro. The process is 1. you rule he was going to the ground. 2. you look to see if the ball touched the ground. 3. you look to see if the ball came out of his possession. If all 3 are present, you rule incomplete. He was falling and did not execute a proper lunge to get out of the GTTG tag. That is the only thing via the rules that gets you out of that. You don't execute, you don't get out. He tried with his 3rd step but slipped as he was coming down and could not push off. Extending your elbow forward is not a lunge. The rules state you "gather yourself" and push forward. You can't do that when you slip. Catching the ball and crashing to the ground while slipping is not a completed catch, so you are not a runner. That's why GTTG was in place.

Cool. You can't overturn ruling 1 on the replay.

2 and 3 are irrelevant once it is being reviewed because the initial ruling was a catch and down by contact at the half yardline. If the ref didn't see the ball hit the ground but determined there was no initial possession, he still would have seen it being bobbled and had to rule a touchdown, but he ruled the player down BEFORE the ball was bobbled, meaning he determined that 88 was a runner. GTTG does not matter on this play based on the initial ruling.

 

[MarcusRock]

You can't make ruling 1. on the replay...

So we're back to "show me in the rules where you can't."

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

So we're back to "show me in the rules where you can't."

Because it is not "indisputable." It is subjective whether the player was diving for the pilon or falling.

 

[WillieBeamen]

We wouldnt be, because Rodgers would have had almost 4 minutes to get into FG range. It was bad situational awareness by Romo

Him throwing it to Beasley wasnt a guaranteed completion and to his credit, he made a perfect throw to the best player on the team.

You are speaking as if it was a forgone conclusion that he completes that pass to beasley AND we still end up scoring a Td.

 

[MarcusRock]

Cool. You can't overturn ruling 1 on the replay.

2 and 3 are irrelevant once it is being reviewed because the initial ruling was a catch and down by contact at the half yardline. If the ref didn't see the ball hit the ground but determined there was no initial possession, he still would have seen it being bobbled and had to rule a touchdown, but he ruled the player down BEFORE the ball was bobbled, meaning he determined that 88 was a runner. GTTG does not matter on this play based on the initial ruling.

Did you even see the picture I showed you to convince you the ball touched the ground when you didn't even know before today? How do you even call that a TD when you're down before the goal line and roll over into it?

Again, show me where the official didn't rule going to the ground but didn't see the ball touch the ground. He would have been correct with those optics. But if replay shows the ball hit the ground then you reverse it all under the umbrella of going to the ground. Pretty simple stuff.