Did the Refs Rob the Commanders of a Gutsy Road Win?

[Whiskey Cowboy]

I hear you...but sometimes...comments here can show your life outlook. Not always...I know.

But sometimes in life one thing can be devastating. I was only trying to show that happens in a football game too.

I do agree I do not like excuses. Like Dak not winning because he never had a defense. Well...he HAS...and it's an excuse.

From a philosophical standpoint I agree. Life has a way of humbling us. How we respond is what defines us. Sometimes all we can do is pick ourselves up, shake it off, and keep moving forward. I've been there. I'd venture to guess that most of us have. I just don't think it applies to the scenario given in this thread. If anything, Daniels going down was far more consequential to the outcome, but even that can be compensated for when going against a leaky defense. Bad things happen sometimes. That's the game, that's life. Sometimes we just have to figure out how to overcome them.

 

[ChuckA1]

I don't remember when that wasn't the rule...if ever.

I've been a fan since 1962. Not sure it was a rule that far back. I remember the Cole Beasley catch, a catch he and the back judge didn't realize was a catch for several minutes. I was just curious if anyone remembered if that was always the case, or added later.

 

[Tommy]

I know what a catch is. After explaining it to you all over the years, you know what a catch is. Apparently, this ref crew (and replay crew) don’t know what a catch is. Was the fix in here? This play changed the whole complexion of the game. Dak, who was looking pretty shaky, seemed to settle in once he knew the game was in the bag (wink, wink). I mean, congrats to him on the All-Time Cowboys TD record but will he be able to sleep tonight knowing how he got it? Probably. He has a Sleep Number bed afterall.

Here’s the video. Look at the assuredness of the Commanders fan here, only to be disappointed moments later and watch his innocence go down the drain along with the Commanders' chances. I’m sure he doesn’t believe in anything anymore after this highway robbery.

The posted video is useless. Do you understand the receiver must maintain possession throughout the process of contacting the ground. This video doesn’t even show half of that process. It cuts off early for some reason.

If you watch this play from the less often seen side view you can clearly see the receiver lose control of the football after hitting the ground while out of bounds making this an incomplete pass. That view was obviously seen by the replay officials who confirmed it was incomplete.

 

[Runwildboys]

I've been a fan since 1962. Not sure it was a rule that far back. I remember the Cole Beasley catch, a catch he and the back judge didn't realize was a catch for several minutes. I was just curious if anyone remembered if that was always the case, or added later.

The NFL never passed a specific rule stating "one knee equals two feet"; rather, the phrase describes a foundational, long-standing principle in the NFL Rule Book where any part of the body other than a hand or foot touching the ground inbounds completes a catch. [1, 2]

* The Core Rule: A receiver must control the ball and touch the ground inbounds with both feet OR any other single body part (such as a knee, shin, elbow, or hip).
* The Origin: The famous maxim "One knee equals two feet" was popularized (and turned into a 1986 book title) by legendary coach and broadcaster [John Madden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Madden) to explain this balance in the rulebook.
* The Logic: The rule traces back to the historic "down by contact" definition—if a body part other than your hands or feet hits the turf, the play is dead, meaning that single point of contact is legally sufficient to establish a grounded catch simultaneously. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

If you're curious about specific catch rulings or recent boundary controversies, let me know what play you're thinking of!

[1] [https://www.threads.com](https://www.threads.com/@andrew_galvin/post/DB2UTN1xPt_)
[2] [https://www.threads.com](https://www.threads.com/@andrew_galvin/post/DB2UTN1xPt_)
[3] [https://www.reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/NFLNoobs/comments/1gh3ogd/why_does_a_catch_require_2_feet_vs_only_1_shin/)
[4] [https://fansided.com](https://fansided.com/sports-terms/football/structure/)
[5] [https://www.nytimes.com](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/3497983/2025/04/23/bears-steve-mcmichae
l-obituary/)

 

[JayFord]

They lose 37-27

They had 1 million self inflicted wounds…..wounds that even Dallas wouldnt commit and thats saying something because ive seen Dallas do everything except try to ram a football in their rear end

 

[kskboys]

They lose 37-27

They had 1 million self inflicted wounds…..wounds that even Dallas wouldnt commit and thats saying something because ive seen Dallas do everything except try to ram a football in their rear end

Just cuz you haven't seen it.............................

 

[kskboys]

The posted video is useless. Do you understand the receiver must maintain possession throughout the process of contacting the ground. This video doesn’t even show half of that process. It cuts off early for some reason.

If you watch this play from the less often seen side view you can clearly see the receiver lose control of the football after hitting the ground while out of bounds making this an incomplete pass. That view was obviously seen by the replay officials who confirmed it was incomplete.

This thread shouldn't have been more than a page or two. Dude juggled the ball. Discussion over.

 

[Paperbag]

Are you referring to when Pickens was grasping the shoulder pad of someone who might have tackled the RB going by? If so, yeah, that was a legit hold.

Didn’t look like it to me but after reading the rule it did look as if his right hand was outside the shoulder pad , so I stand corrected
But if the called that , then where was the half of dozen calls on Washington with there entire arm was wrapped around our Dline ?

 

[DarkVader33]

That was a catch IMO. Washington had a few bad breaks yesterday. Dak played really well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that a game-tying TD means the Commanders would have gone on to win that game though

It was clear Dak was having zero issues exploiting the Washington secondary

You must not have seen the angle that showed he momentarily let go of the ball. I saw it live on TV. So I’m not sure if there is a video on the internet that shows it.

 

[Relayer]

That's not the angle to look at. The other one shows him still bobbling it I thought.

It's also edited out. Tells you everything you need to know.

 

[Relayer]

You must not have seen the angle that showed he momentarily let go of the ball. I saw it live on TV. So I’m not sure if there is a video on the internet that shows it.

Considering controversy is so valuable to TV I doubt they'll show it.

 

[Relayer]

The ball moved… went from his chest to his stomach …. When he had control he was out of bounds.

Plus the change in the rules was specifically designed to eliminate the "control for a fraction of a second equals catch".

 

[Relayer]

You can't reference "other calls" as a basis on a completely independent call. The rulebook is the standard in every case. Slight movement but was controlled the whole way. If the ball left his hands, a la Dez, then sure. But here he had a hold of it the whole way.

The rule has changed because of the Dez catch. Today Dez would have caught it.

 

[Relayer]

So if a ref clearly fails to call a facemask, should we use that as an evidence standard that another called facemask actually shouldn't have been called because it was allowed previously? The standard is the rulebook on this play, here and now, no matter what someone else called in a game 2 years ago.

It's called precedent.

 

[Relayer]

So when there's a booth review by the replay officials, do they go back into the NFL Films catalog to see what similar plays were called in that situation before giving a ruling or do they look to make the call according to what's in the rulebook?

They are expected to have good prior knowledge.

 

[Relayer]

To say Dak was shaky until he had it the bag is disingenuous at best.

I'm not one who gives Dak praise for nothing. But he played pretty good.

 

[Relayer]

catch rule, PI, roughing the passer, unnecessary roughness. whether they are clearly written or not, the big ones are clearly called "subjectively". two most obvious reasons for that are A) ability to influence outcomes B) keep conversations like this one going so the fans & media have more to talk about.

any sport that "wanted" rules to be written & enforced clearer, could.

Trying to be all inclusive over complicates them. KISS.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

You must not have seen the angle that showed he momentarily let go of the ball. I saw it live on TV. So I’m not sure if there is a video on the internet that shows it.

Fox only showed it once, but yeah I saw the ball move when he hit the grond

 

[MarcusRock]

And therein lies the problem. I think a case could be made that he did execute a lunge. Poorly executed? Sure. Executed however? Yes.

Neither of us are changing the other's mind on this. My point was only to ask you if you could see the very reasonable way in which it could be legitimately viewed as if a football move was made.

Not sure referencing the comments of two former officials as the end all be all is all that objective.

The fact that the call had to be overturned, and that it took forever to make the final call, and that the call has been debated ad nauseum since, and that the league changed the rule as a result of the call seems to speak to the fact that there was room for interpretation in making the call.

Yesterday's call fits the same pattern.

It's a judgement call like anything else but by wording of the rule it states a player has to "gather himself" and lunge. That's what I meant by a player being "under control" instead of just continuing to fall to the ground. That "under control" just didn't happen. Of course I get why anyone here would say he definitely did, or any casual fan who thought they saw a good play happen, but it was what it was. And as I explained about the overturn, if the ref was obstructed by Dez' hand as that camera angle showed it almost exactly from his point of view and didn't clearly see the ball hit the ground, that's a catch and easy to see why he might have called it as such. Not sure what length of time on the call (Fox turned it into one of the mandated commercial breaks) or people who really, really wanted it to be a catch and won't let it go (overwhelmingly just Cowboys fans) has to do with it being less than concretely called by the rules.

 

[DarkVader33]

Fox only showed it once, but yeah I saw the ball move when he hit the grond

It wasn’t the movement. He actually let it go. It was only a split second but he did