Dez Caught It Game On NFLN Now

[Whirlwin]

Not as far as the unbiased are concerned. It was textbook, honestly. Mike Pereira made the call on the broadcast before it was announced by the official Steratore. He knew the rule. The common football fan didn't and the controversies caused them to get rid of the GTG part.

I agree that was the rule that season. Pittsburgh got burned twice by it. It could have gone either way though. It was a classic Dez Bryant football move in my opinion

 

[MarcusRock]

I agree that was the rule that season. Pittsburgh got burned twice by it. It could have gone either way though. It was a classic Dez Bryant football move in my opinion

A full extension would have been a classic lunge. This is what Blandino highlighted when he explained the call in this video on 2 separate Dez lunges:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00457361/Dean-Blandino-reviews-Bryant-s-catch

 

[StarBoyz83]

Dez did not catch the ball.

Dez scored a TD (after catching the ball).

Saints fans know your pain.

Not really the saints wouldve won the game Dallas not so much

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Aaron Rodgers gets the ball with 4 minutes to go in a season he won mvp.

Looked like what should be recognized as a catch, but the rule was worded poorly.

Official called it right, but that shouldn’t have been what was considered right.

 

[Whirlwin]

Not really the saints wouldve won the game Dallas not so much

Speculation Saints may not have won that game

 

[Idgit]

Not as far as the unbiased are concerned. It was textbook, honestly. Mike Pereira made the call on the broadcast before it was announced by the official Steratore. He knew the rule. The common football fan didn't and the controversies caused them to get rid of the GTG part.

Really not interested in rehashing it, but the key language that obviated the 'going to the ground' interpretation that was in place at the time was that there was 'act common to the game' that should have applied. Dez changed hands with the football and extended for the goal line. Both pretty clearly 'football acts common to the game.'

And you also have to remember what the requirement for overturning a call via replay is. Once called in Dallas' favor on the field, the evidence that no football move was made had to be indisputable. It clearly isn't.

This was a blown call, by any objective standard.

 

[MarcusRock]

Really not interested in rehashing it, but the key language that obviated the 'going to the ground' interpretation that was in place at the time was that there was 'act common to the game' that should have applied. Dez changed hands with the football and extended for the goal line. Both pretty clearly 'football acts common to the game.'

And you also have to remember what the requirement for overturning a call via replay is. Once called in Dallas' favor on the field, the evidence that no football move was made had to be indisputable. It clearly isn't.

This was a blown call, by any objective standard.

Again, you miss the part where GTG trumps all of that. Maybe you'll believe it if you hear Pereira say it. Watch from :24 onward. "As with Dez Bryant a couple of years ago ..."



Replay showed the ball hit the ground and the ball came out of Dez Bryant's possession for a millisecond. That wasn't indisputable?

 

[Idgit]

Again, you miss the part where GTG trumps all of that. Maybe you'll believe it if you hear Pereira say it. Watch from :24 onward. "As with Dez Bryant a couple of years ago ..."



Replay showed the ball hit the ground and the ball came out of Dez Bryant's possession for a millisecond. That wasn't indisputable?

It doesn't matter what Pereira said about it. Here's what Gene Steratore, whose team made the call said:

"Although the receiver possessing the football, he must maintain possession of that football throughout the entire process of the catch. In our judgment, he maintained possession but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game. We deemed that by our judgment to be the full process of the catch, and at the time he lands and the ball hits the ground, it comes loose as it hits the ground, which would make that incomplete; although he repossesses it, it does contact the ground when he reaches so the repossession is irrelevant because it was ruled an incomplete pass when we had the ball hit the ground."
​

Except he did, obviously make multiple 'acts common to the game.' And even if you want to debate whether changing hands, pushing towards the goal line with his next step, and extending were 'acts common to the game,' you're still debating. Which means it obviously wasn't indisputable by definition.

It was a catch, a correct call on the field, and a controversial overturn that should not have happened.

 

[StarBoyz83]

Speculation Saints may not have won that game

No they for sure win without that call. Barring some crazy miracle

 

[MarcusRock]

It doesn't matter what Pereira said about it. Here's what Gene Steratore, whose team made the call said:

"Although the receiver possessing the football, he must maintain possession of that football throughout the entire process of the catch. In our judgment, he maintained possession but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game. We deemed that by our judgment to be the full process of the catch, and at the time he lands and the ball hits the ground, it comes loose as it hits the ground, which would make that incomplete; although he repossesses it, it does contact the ground when he reaches so the repossession is irrelevant because it was ruled an incomplete pass when we had the ball hit the ground."
​

Except he did, obviously make multiple 'acts common to the game.' And even if you want to debate whether changing hands, pushing towards the goal line with his next step, and extending were 'acts common to the game,' you're still debating. Which means it obviously wasn't indisputable by definition.

It was a catch, a correct call on the field, and a controversial overturn that should not have happened.

So now Steratore is a liar and doesn't know what an act common to the game is? Riiiiiiight.

You're getting it twisted. All Steratore is saying here is that "continuing to fall" means he was "going to the ground" so that rule applies. Back to the Pereira video where he breaks it down clearly, all that stuff you speak of is for a receiver who is "upright." Steratore is simply explaining why the "going to the ground" rule applied here, but because the average football fan doesn't understand the separation of the rules, it becomes a league-wide conspiracy.

I could pull the rulebook and show where a lunge gets a receiver out of going to the ground which Steratore could also be referring to but if you don't want to accept the plain, clear explanation of Pereira, you don't want to see anything other than "We Wuz Robbed." So do you think Pereira knowingly mentioned Dez in that video knowing full well it was an incorrect call? Who else in the media besides Cowboys fans has fact-checked him or uncovered his "lie?" There was enough written on this controversy that someone surely showed where the NFL was wrong by its own rulebook. Where is that expose article out there? I haven't seen it.

 

[sideon]

At worst it should've been a fumble recovery by Dez at the 1. The fact that he caught it and took 3 steps before it came out and it was overturned is just ridiculous.

 

[Idgit]

So now Steratore is a liar and doesn't know what an act common to the game is? Riiiiiiight.

You're getting it twisted. All Steratore is saying here is that "continuing to fall" means he was "going to the ground" so that rule applies. Back to the Pereira video where he breaks it down clearly, all that stuff you speak of is for a receiver who is "upright." Steratore is simply explaining why the "going to the ground" rule applied here, but because the average football fan doesn't understand the separation of the rules, it becomes a league-wide conspiracy.

I could pull the rulebook and show where a lunge gets a receiver out of going to the ground which Steratore could also be referring to but if you don't want to accept the plain, clear explanation of Pereira, you don't want to see anything other than "We Wuz Robbed." So do you think Pereira knowingly mentioned Dez in that video knowing full well it was an incorrect call? Who else in the media besides Cowboys fans has fact-checked him or uncovered his "lie?" There was enough written on this controversy that someone surely showed where the NFL was wrong by its own rulebook. Where is that expose article out there? I haven't seen it.

Steratore's not a liar. He just made the wrong call. It was an act common to the game, and, even if it's not, it's very clearly disputable whether or not it was an act common to the game. And that was the standard for review on that play.

I don't care what Pereira thought about it. It's irrelevant.

 

[MarcusRock]

Steratore's not a liar. He just made the wrong call. It was an act common to the game, and, even if it's not, it's very clearly disputable whether or not it was an act common to the game. And that was the standard for review on that play.

I don't care what Pereira thought about it. It's irrelevant.

Uh huh. I wouldn't care either if it riddled my argument full of holes. But I get it.

The on field official was shielded from seeing the ball hit the ground, so if replay shows it did, should they just ignore it and not apply the correct rule? That's what you're saying. Once GTG applies, your football move point is moot. That's what the video I showed you says. So I'd ignore it too if I were you.





And Pereira was there calling the game with Joe and Troy and predicted the reversal before it was even announced. Guess he made the wrong call too.

 

[Whirlwin]

No they for sure win without that call. Barring some crazy miracle[/ I can almost guarantee they don't win that game even with that call. Drew Brees was playing horrible. And there was plenty of time left. For the Rams to have the ball last

 

[Whirlwin]

Really not interested in rehashing it, but the key language that obviated the 'going to the ground' interpretation that was in place at the time was that there was 'act common to the game' that should have applied. Dez changed hands with the football and extended for the goal line. Both pretty clearly 'football acts common to the game.'

And you also have to remember what the requirement for overturning a call via replay is. Once called in Dallas' favor on the field, the evidence that no football move was made had to be indisputable. It clearly isn't.

This was a blown call, by any objective standard.

I'm telling you the league has no respect for our coaching staff. If that was Jimmy Johnson on the sidelines that called goes our way I don't like it but I do believe it. I've seen him get calls before intimidating. Twice during the San Francisco Cowboys championship games. Jimmy had calls his way that probably shouldn't have . And I actually don't mind Jason Garrett. But they never should have got us for 12 minutes a huddle during the Green Bay game Jeff heat should have intercepted that ball. Just one example

 

[StarBoyz83]

They had 1 timeout saints run out the clock and kick a last second fg. Now if that is missed or blocked than ya.

 

[Whirlwin]

They had 1 timeout saints run out the clock and kick a last second fg. Now if that is missed or blocked than ya.

If I have learned anything about football. It's never over until it's over. They could sack the quarterback Aaron Donald was playing lights out. So many scenarios

 

[Whirlwin]

Sean Payton was an embarrassment. The Dez Bryant catch Jason Garrett handled it with total class. Whether you like him or not

 

[StarBoyz83]

If I have learned anything about football. It's never over until it's over. They could sack the quarterback Aaron Donald was playing lights out. So many scenarios

Except the Dallas game wouldve still be a loss if they gave dez they catch

 

[Whirlwin]

Except the Dallas game wouldve still be a loss if they gave dez they catch

Lol. I doubt it but I get your point LOL