DMN: NFL VP of Officiating: It’s not unreasonable to watch everything Dez did and think

[5Stars]

It doesn't matter if he was falling, or even which direction he was falling. What matters is that he had established himself as a runner, and runners fall all the time. The NFL has already said that if Dez had "extended the ball toward the goal line, or reached with two hands," then it would have been a catch.

Which of course, makes no sense, because extending his arm would not have gotten the ball any closer to the goal line (he was falling more toward the sideline than the goal line), and taking one hand off the ball indicated that he had controlled it and wasn't still trying to catch it. There's also the fact that you don't have to reach with two hands to break the plane anyway.

You got that right. The football is the only thing that has to cross the goal line. Dez tried to do that...his coaches teach that.

 

[EMMITTnROY]

The thing that upsets me so much is that the Packers were the only team I was afraid of. The Seattle D wasn't going to be able to stop our running game and their offense was so simple that even our ragtag defense could stop them. The Patriots run D was terrible, we would have gashed them and their offense was all Brady and Gronk. I felt it was easy sailing once we got past GB. So if that's correctly called a catch, I felt like we were one stop away from adding a 6th ring. A leap? Maybe. But a logical leap.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Trouble is he was not falling until after he landed on two feet and turned, he fell when he was tripped by the defender on the third step. And the ball did pop up, off of his arm, it never hit the ground.

And the contact made by the defender, as you just stated, which was a trip, is the same move as a tackle, and thus the

So lets say you're a rb out of the backfield. You catch a short dumpoff and are hit as you catch the ball and start to stumble forward. But since you are coming out of the backfield there is a lot of green grass in front of you and you stumble forward for another 10 yards and as you hit the ground the ball pops up but you jump back on it.

That's an incomplete pass to you? Because you were falling forward? And it doesn't matter how many steps you take?

Let's pretend that didn't happen.
But let's deal with what did.

Dez goes up and brings in the pass. His first foot touched down clean.

The second foot comes down but is touched by the defender, which tripped him at that point. This constitutes contact. So anything after that requires the ball to be secured.

Now look at the video I have posted from the angle of the sidelines.

The ball moves when he hits the ground, and that is a non-catch.

All the other arguments are moot at this point.

 

[TwoDeep3]

It doesn't matter if he was falling, or even which direction he was falling. What matters is that he had established himself as a runner, and runners fall all the time. The NFL has already said that if Dez had "extended the ball toward the goal line, or reached with two hands," then it would have been a catch.

Which of course, makes no sense, because extending his arm would not have gotten the ball any closer to the goal line (he was falling more toward the sideline than the goal line), and taking one hand off the ball indicated that he had controlled it and wasn't still trying to catch it. There's also the fact that you don't have to reach with two hands to break the plane anyway.

Not when contact was made which caused the fall and that was the second step.

I hare it Percy.

But I have to be honest, and if a Green Bay receiver did this to Dallas, I would be furious.

In the Lions game, the questionable call was correct. Fact is, it could have been offensive pass interference because the receiver was pulling on the defender.

This play was clear. No digging with his third step overrules his being tripped by his second, and thus controlled needs to be maintained to the ground.

The rule is far too arbitrary, and the league likes it like this or they would have changed it.

 

[blindzebra]

And the contact made by the defender, as you just stated, which was a trip, is the same move as a tackle, and thus the


Let's pretend that didn't happen.
But let's deal with what did.

Dez goes up and brings in the pass. His first foot touched down clean.

The second foot comes down but is touched by the defender, which tripped him at that point. This constitutes contact. So anything after that requires the ball to be secured.

Now look at the video I have posted from the angle of the sidelines.

The ball moves when he hits the ground, and that is a non-catch.

All the other arguments are moot at this point.

He was not falling, that is the point, he caught the ball landed and turned that is control, 2 feet inbounds, and a move common to football...what occurred after that becomes down by contact. Contact does not make it falling, the rule states with or without contact. Dez completed every aspect of the catch rule BEFORE he started to fall.

 

[nathanlt]

Some are saying they feel it was not a catch. This is not about feelings, it IS about rules. And the rules DO NOT support overturning the catch, because they do not define an ending to the process besides DOWN BY CONTACT. That alone is enough. Blandino tries to explain it to those who haven't bothered to read the rule. And he's good enough at coming up with goofy explanations that it appeals to people who don't read the rules.

He gets even some Dallas fans to think, "I'm impartial, because I can see the other side of this, therefore, I'm only being fair here" Well, he's only cheating, in public, with a convincing but baseless explanation. He thinks if he calls something consistent, (despite inconsistent enforcement of a rule written in gibberish), he'll convince some. He has regrettably succeeded in his baseless explanation. He knows there's enough Dallas haters, that he'll get away with it.

And Rogah, you can publish volumes of why Dez's catch should have been taken away, it doesn't matter. You've lost the argument, and the injustice continues for now.

To every other Dallas fan, if Romo and Witten never see a ring, I will point to this TAMPERING by the VP, as a lost opportunity. I cannot rest without defending Dez's catch, at least until Romo and Witten get their ring. They deserve it, in my opinion, and I hope they do get it!

 

[TwoDeep3]

He was not falling, that is the point, he caught the ball landed and turned that is control, 2 feet inbounds, and a move common to football...what occurred after that becomes down by contact. Contact does not make it falling, the rule states with or without contact. Dez completed every aspect of the catch rule BEFORE he started to fall.

Video don't lie.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Some are saying they feel it was not a catch. This is not about feelings, it IS about rules. And the rules DO NOT support overturning the catch, because they do not define an ending to the process besides DOWN BY CONTACT. That alone is enough. Blandino tries to explain it to those who haven't bothered to read the rule. And he's good enough at coming up with goofy explanations that it appeals to people who don't read the rules.

He gets even some Dallas fans to think, "I'm impartial, because I can see the other side of this, therefore, I'm only being fair here" Well, he's only cheating, in public, with a convincing but baseless explanation. He thinks if he calls something consistent, (despite inconsistent enforcement of a rule written in gibberish), he'll convince some. He has regrettably succeeded in his baseless explanation. He knows there's enough Dallas haters, that he'll get away with it.

And Rogah, you can publish volumes of why Dez's catch should have been taken away, it doesn't matter. You've lost the argument, and the injustice continues for now.

To every other Dallas fan, if Romo and Witten never see a ring, I will point to this TAMPERING by the VP, as a lost opportunity. I cannot rest without defending Dez's catch, at least until Romo and Witten get their ring. They deserve it, in my opinion, and I hope they do get it!

He was falling, and that is the rules.

 

[plymkr]

I'm over it finally....................I think!

I'm not over it, I don't think I'll ever get over that one. that one hurt. I also am not over the defense letting Green Bay march down the field after the non catch as well. Just a bitter ending to a great season

 

[JDSmith]

If Dez didn't try to get cute and extend his arm out instead of possessing the ball into his body this would be a mute discussion.

If you knew the difference between moot and mute we'd all stop laughing and pointing.

No, we really wouldn't.

 

[DallasEast]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3676950/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t39

wow.

 

[big dog cowboy]

http://www.***BANNED-URL***/incoming/20150718-football_injury_44645175.jpg.ece/BINARY/w940/FOOTBALL_INJURY_44645175.JPG

I'll admit it...I'm an idiot.

 

[BAT]

And the contact made by the defender, as you just stated, which was a trip, is the same move as a tackle, and thus the


Let's pretend that didn't happen.
But let's deal with what did.

Dez goes up and brings in the pass. His first foot touched down clean.

The second foot comes down but is touched by the defender, which tripped him at that point. This constitutes contact. So anything after that requires the ball to be secured.

Now look at the video I have posted from the angle of the sidelines.

The ball moves when he hits the ground, and that is a non-catch.

All the other arguments are moot at this point.

But Dez was making a football move by extending the ball towards the goal line before the ground causes the ball to pop out. It was a catch. THAT was the call on the field. The overturn was made based on the subjective reason that Dez was not making enough of a football move as he fell/stretched forward AFTER he made the catch. That Dez caught the ball is indisputable, no matter how many times Blandino tries to circumvent this very important point.

But the point is moot, the catch was overturned and the Cowboys lost the game. There is no changing that.

 

[blindzebra]

Video don't lie.

But people watching it that have no concept of the rule do.

 

[TwoDeep3]

But people watching it that have no concept of the rule do.

Yep. They do.

 

[DejectedFan1996]

Without getting into the argument in regard to the catch again, I actually would have been fine if it was initially ruled an incomplete pass; we challenge and then lost the challenge. The fact that it was ruled a catch and they stated "there was much deliberation over whether it was a catch or not" completely contradicts the rule that says a call can ONLY be overturned if there is 100% INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE. The fact that there is deliberation means it was disputable, this the call should have been upheld.

The irony of all this is that I was at the game and seen this first hand and when they overturned I wasn't even really that upset. As the season draws closer, it's now starting to really bother me. You'd think I'd have been upset from Januaey-May and not June-July *scratches head*

 

[black label]

http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***/files/2015/03/BLANDY.jpg

 

[Toruk_Makto]

And the contact made by the defender, as you just stated, which was a trip, is the same move as a tackle, and thus the


Let's pretend that didn't happen.
But let's deal with what did.

Dez goes up and brings in the pass. His first foot touched down clean.

The second foot comes down but is touched by the defender, which tripped him at that point. This constitutes contact. So anything after that requires the ball to be secured.

Now look at the video I have posted from the angle of the sidelines.

The ball moves when he hits the ground, and that is a non-catch.

All the other arguments are moot at this point.

Read me the process of a catch.

 

[AsthmaField]

And the contact made by the defender, as you just stated, which was a trip, is the same move as a tackle, and thus the


Let's pretend that didn't happen.
But let's deal with what did.

Dez goes up and brings in the pass. His first foot touched down clean.

The second foot comes down but is touched by the defender, which tripped him at that point. This constitutes contact. So anything after that requires the ball to be secured.

Now look at the video I have posted from the angle of the sidelines.

The ball moves when he hits the ground, and that is a non-catch.

All the other arguments are moot at this point.

You seem pretty sure...

Have you ever been wrong before?

 

[nathanlt]

Not when contact was made which caused the fall and that was the second step.

I hare it Percy.

But I have to be honest, and if a Green Bay receiver did this to Dallas, I would be furious.

In the Lions game, the questionable call was correct. Fact is, it could have been offensive pass interference because the receiver was pulling on the defender.

This play was clear. No digging with his third step overrules his being tripped by his second, and thus controlled needs to be maintained to the ground.

The rule is far too arbitrary, and the league likes it like this or they would have changed it.

discuss your definition of "control needs to be maintained to the ground." When a player's elbow hits the ground, does that count?