Dez catch

[CowboyFrog]

They review calls on whether possession was established all the time.

for sure and when there is 1 step or no steps thats a pretty easy overturn, but when its not clear its suppose to go to the call on the field...

 

[Reid1boys]

Terrible call. But our defense lost that game, not the refs. Almost 5 min left on the clock, not 3 seconds. And our defense could not make any critical stops when we need it. This loss is 80% on the defense, 10% on Murray for fumbling, and 10% on the refs for blowing the call and finding a way to find fault with an obvious TD. Romo was great and deserves little or no blame.

uhm..... yea it was all the defense's fault. Let's just forget about the Murray fumble when he was running through a hole the size of a mac truck that likely would have been a TD.

 

[MarcusRock]

for sure and when there is 1 step or no steps thats a pretty easy overturn, but when its not clear its suppose to go to the call on the field...

Unless the call on the field was that he was going to the ground and survived the ground at the 1. Then on review you see the ball touch the ground (indisputable evidence) and you rule it incomplete. Because that it was could have happened.

 

[Swagger]

Terrible call. But our defense lost that game, not the refs. Almost 5 min left on the clock, not 3 seconds. And our defense could not make any critical stops when we need it. This loss is 80% on the defense, 10% on Murray for fumbling, and 10% on the refs for blowing the call and finding a way to find fault with an obvious TD. Romo was great and deserves little or no blame.

Agree with all that. The defense wasn't good enough and the fumble by Murray was critical as the 'boys had all the momentum and it looked a TD to go up by I think 11 points? That's the game right there.

 

[OmerV]

for sure and when there is 1 step or no steps thats a pretty easy overturn, but when its not clear its suppose to go to the call on the field...

That's my one complaint. I understand what the refs were thinking when they overturned the call, but I felt there was enough of a question that they probably should have let the call stand.

 

[Vtwin]

BS overthought rule be damned. You have to give the receiver the catch on that play. Great football play.

A much better play would have been if Dez just focused on securing the first down and not tried to be the hero.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

In that new rule video I posted earlier they showed the Arizona/Seattle game where the AZ receiver caught the ball, took 4 steps as he was going to the ground and the ball came out. It was ruled a fumble, then changed to GTTG after replay. Same rule, same subjective call reversed. Why could that one be reversed between a completed catch and GTTG applied later but the Dez call could not? You keep trying to create this "they can't review a subjective call" rule with no citation. Do you have one? Where in the rules does it say you can't overturn a subjective call? There's literally an example on a "GTTG or not" play that says otherwise. Same for calling a run a 1st down when it was subjectively spotted short at first and overturned on replay.

What you're ignoring is the on-field ref could have ruled GTTG but didn't see the ball touch the ground where Dez would still be down at the 1 because in that case he had control, was contacted, and survived the ground and rolled over before the ball came out of his hands. If he didn't see it touch, then the player is ruled down where you survived the ground (at the 1). Anything else is post-bounce/slide/rollover YAC including scoring a TD from such. Zero basis in the rules for it unless you have a citation I keep asking for. Have any?

Don't know, don't care. The rule is irrelevant. Again, for Dez, they overturned a subjective call - which does not meet the standard of indisbutable.

He could not make that call because Dez was not touched after that. Being touched before possession doesn't matter. He wouldn't be down by contact, and again, it would be a touchdown.

A player is not down by contact without possession of the ball. I don't know what rule you want me to cite. They can't be down if a ball is still being "bobbled."

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

I said the same, they cant overturn a judgment call it has to be undisputable to be overtunred and judgment calls are not that....they had to really reach to overturn it which is why you have the anger. If it was called a no catch on the field then it would be a diferent story.

Correct. They overturned a subjective call which can't be indisputable.

It is very simple, and it is very simple that they got it wrong.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

Mr State Farm was playing on a bad leg and we couldn’t get to him the whole darm game and with under 2 minutes to go we would have all of a sudden gotten to him. All they needed was a FG to win with TO’s to burn. Not liking our chances.

 

[MarcusRock]

Then they got that one wrong too.

He could not make that call because Dez was not touched after that. Being touched before possession doesn't matter. He wouldn't be down by contact, and again, it would be a touchdown.

A player is not down by contact without possession of the ball. I don't know what rule you want me to cite. They can't be down if a ball is still being "bobbled."

You just said they couldn't overturn a subjective call and I gave you a game example with the exact same rule at play where they switched between the two sets. Where's the claim outside of Cowboys land that those were applied incorrectly by the league's own rules? Clever creation and all but it's nowhere but this thread that that is a rule, lol.

He's down by contact if he survived the ground at the 1. Otherwise he could roll over and then it would be a TD if not touched by Shields.

Possession is surviving the ground under GTTG because the ground completes the catch if you didn't on your feet. If that's the ruling, then he's down at the 1 after being touched. He can't then roll over or bounce into the end zone.

 

[McKDaddy]

That's the point.

One person claims Bryant slipped but another claims he was lunging for the pylon i.e., making a football move and possession of the ball had already been established at that point.

I don't see how anyone could say Dez fell. He jumped straight up & landed on both feet in a very vertical position. At this point his body was actually angled back toward the line of scrimmage. If his momentum and pulled him in the direction he had been running, he would have fallen backwards toward the sideline at an angle. The fact that he ended up stomach down with the ball cradled at or very near the goal line should be proof enough to anyone that he had control of his body & did not fall as part of making the catch.

 

[MarcusRock]

Don't know, don't care. The rule is irrelevant. Again, for Dez, they overturned a subjective call - which does not meet the standard of indisbutable.

I'd try not to care either if I created a rule out of thin air that is debunked by actual NFL play.

The indisputable part was the ball hitting the ground. Something that was shown indisputable to you just today.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

I'd try not to care either if I created a rule out of thin air that is debunked by actual NFL play.

The indisputable part was the ball hitting the ground. Something that was shown indisputable to you just today.

Yea, but it is also an irrelevant part.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

You just said they couldn't overturn a subjective call and I gave you a game example with the exact same rule at play where they switched between the two sets. Where's the claim outside of Cowboys land that those were applied incorrectly by the league's own rules? Clever creation and all but it's nowhere but this thread that that is a rule, lol.

He's down by contact if he survived the ground at the 1. Otherwise he could roll over and then it would be a TD if not touched by Shields.

Possession is surviving the ground under GTTG because the ground completes the catch if you didn't on your feet. If that's the ruling, then he's down at the 1 after being touched. He can't then roll over or bounce into the end zone.

It wasn't the same because the ARZ player wasn't contacted. If it is the same, then they got it wrong twice. What they changed the rule to the next year has no bearing.

Yes, I've been saying if he isn't down by contact and the ref does not see the ball hit the ground - as you have said - it is a TD.

No. It is possession and then down by contact at the 1 because he is ruled to be diving towards the pilon to the ground as a runner, and the act of completing the catch is over. You are ignoring this part. Again, you cannot irrefutably prove that the player was falling in the act of completing the catch and not diving as a runner with already established possession. It is very simple.

I know your whole schtick is to say that the Cowboys don't get bad calls or that they don't matter, but you are wrong.

 

[BleedSilverandBlue]

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!

This call was traumatizing.

That team would have won the Super Bowl that year.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

I'd try not to care either if I created a rule out of thin air that is debunked by actual NFL play.

The indisputable part was the ball hitting the ground. Something that was shown indisputable to you just today.

I didn't create a rule lol. Possession is not determined until a catch is completed. There is nothing to say that a player can't "Bobble" the ball all the way down the field. If a receiver tips a ball to himself and then gets tackled, you don't bring the spot back to the original contact point lol. Like what are you even talking about?

Yea, but it is also the irrelevant part. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE BALL HIT THE GROUND BECAUSE THE REF RULED THAT THE RECEIVER ESTABLISHED POSSESSION BEFORE THEN.

 

[Swagger]

Unless the call on the field was that he was going to the ground and survived the ground at the 1. Then on review you see the ball touch the ground (indisputable evidence) and you rule it incomplete. Because that it was could have happened.

The point where we differ is the ball touching the ground is irrelevant because the catch had already been completed.

You don't agree that's the case fair enough but I and others do based on the previous reasons given.

 

[MarcusRock]

It wasn't the same because the ARZ player wasn't contacted. If it is the same, then they got it wrong twice. What they changed the rule to the next year has no bearing.

Not the point I was making. You said they couldn't reverse a subjective call. There's an actual game where they did, swapping the exact same catch rules. Nothing to do with contact. Your escape hatch reason is they got it wrong in both cases. Yeah, okay. Your claim was invented.

Yes, I've been saying if he isn't down by contact and the ref does not see the ball hit the ground - as you have said - it is a TD.

If he wasn't touched, yes. He was, so in both cases he is down at the one whether deemed a runner or deemed surviving the ground with the ball not seen. With the ball seen on replay, it's reversed and called no catch. Simple.

No. It is possession and then down by contact at the 1 because he is ruled to be diving towards the pilon to the ground as a runner, and the act of completing the catch is over. You are ignoring this part. Again, you cannot irrefutably prove that the player was falling in the act of completing the catch and not diving as a runner with already established possession. It is very simple.

What if he was ruled to be GTTG and survived the ground after being touched, ball not seen on the ground? He is down at h 1 all the same. You are ignoring this part and left it out of your possibilities earlier. So you don't have to irrefutably prove he was falling if he was deemed to be falling. You DO have to prove whether the ball touches the ground. That was shown on replay and that was the reason for the overturn. Simple, I agree.

I know your whole schtick is to say that the Cowboys don't get bad calls or that they don't matter, but you are wrong.

Nothing to do with schtick. It's saying what the rules actually were when people try to cry "we wuz robbed" / cheated victimhood when they don't even know the rules they're railing against but need a crutch for a loss.

 

[MarcusRock]

I didn't create a rule lol. Possession is not determined until a catch is completed. There is nothing to say that a player can't "Bobble" the ball all the way down the field. If a receiver tips a ball to himself and then gets tackled, you don't bring the spot back to the original contact point lol. Like what are you even talking about?

Your invention was the "can't reverse a subjective call" even though it happens regularly. You can indeed bobble a ball all the way down the field .... if you aren't touched and fall to the ground and replay shows the ball hit the ground too. You most especially can't if you're deemed going to the ground with those optics.

Yea, but it is also the irrelevant part. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE BALL HIT THE GROUND BECAUSE THE REF RULED THAT THE RECEIVER ESTABLISHED POSSESSION BEFORE THEN.

Unless the ref ruled that we went to ground but kept the ball off the ground, not seeing it hit. Because that's a possibility too, right? And even if not, they can take ruled catches and say that the receiver was going to the ground and look for those rules to be met as happened in the AZ/SEA game (no expose said they were wrong to, just your feeling). And if they said Dez scored with GTTG as you say, all scores are reviewable and they'd see the ball hit the ground and was incomplete.

 

[goshann]

What I want to know is why Romo threw a low percentage bomb on 4th and 1 when they needed to run off more clock before scoring.

That’s never mentioned.

Burn another two minutes, make GB use their TOs, and just maybe….maybe…you stop Rodgers from getting a FG.

Edit….in real time I thought it would be overturned. His arm wasn’t under the ball, although that didn’t stop me from heaving my phone across the room and smashing it once the ruling came down lol.

Lol it's been mentioned plenty of times.
I remember staying up all night on Cowboyszone talking about that point (and also the whole next week).