Done with the NFLs officiating

[mahoneybill]

The only thing that ticked me off about the officials was the no call on Clay Matthews. That hit on Romo was very late and he went for Romo's knees. It was ridiculous for there not to be a call on that play.

Definite cheap shot

 

[hairic]

The late hit by Matthews is just another one of those 0.6+ second after the pass is out of his hand hits. What's worse about the one Romo got today is Matthews followed through with it and was still tackling the QB 1.37 seconds after the ball was out. That's a personal best for Romo's career (worst for the refs in terms of not calling it). The previous was 1 full second against Minnesota with no flag, some DL did a WWE type wrestling move dive on him when he was on the ground years ago.

 

[DogFace]

How come Dez isnt penalized for coming onto the field with no helmet? Why is he different than everyone esle

The opposite reason why you were selected for

Had the Cowboys not botched a few plays earlier in the game it may not have come down to that review. The Cowboys had plenty of opportunities to win this game.

"The Cowboys" is the key to this idiot option's worth.

 

[MissouriCowboy]

Matthews is so overratted

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I understand. And I was hesitant to say anything. I'm not blaming Dez. I just think the whole "just put it over the goal" has infested the mentality of players and they attempt to stick the ball out when they shouldn't in some cases.

But it's a minor point. Dez is who he is, the same guy who made a spectacular catch that in any other era would have been a game changer.

I'm with you on the ball breaking the goal line. I hate it. And I hate it because it's a counter rule to the rest of the scores.

If all the ball has to do is break the plane of the endzone, on something like that or a run, it makes no sense that you then tell me a player has to get both feet in bounds and all that on a catch in the endzone.

I get why they're doing it (Going by possession) but it's a rule that is stupid and makes zero sense. To me if the player isn't in the endzone, or at least the upper part of them with the ball, then they didn't score. It makes no sense that all they have to do is stick the ball out over the plane and I agree it has led to too many players being very loose with how they hold the ball trying to reach out for those types of plays.

 

[31smackdown]

From the head of officials explanation of the call they decided that all of Dez's catch and fall was part of momentum and the reach was not significant enough to show that it was not part of his momentum therefore they did not count a football move prior to the balls tip pointing up, which apparently is some type of signal that the ball hit the ground.

So there is the issue, the refs reviewing the play concluded no football move was made which I think most people feel there was since he changed hands and could have pulled it into his body but chose to extend it instead.

 

[KJJ]

Had Dez concentrated on just making the catch and not attempted to lung to put the ball over the goal line we probably wouldn't be having this debate. It was the lung with the ball in one hand that caused the ball to touch the ground and come loose which under the current rule is not completing the process of the catch. I'm not faulting Dez it's a natural instinct for him to reach for the goal line just wish he would have made the catch not allowing the ball to make contact with the ground. The Cowboys could have easily punched the ball in from the one or two yard line.

 

[ConstantReboot]

The process of the catch isn't complete until after the receiver hits the ground and if the ball comes loose at any point immediately after hitting the ground the pass is deemed incomplete. I've been very thourogh on my opinion and what the rule states. This discussion is over between us and if you want to keep arguing it be my guest!

Your not being factual. He did not hit the ground immediately. Bryant took 3 steps, showed that he controlled it, then moved the ball into a position to stretch it over the goal line. You maybe thorough in your argument. But its flawed since Bryant actually moved the ball towards the goal line which indicates possession. Possession means control of the ball and thus doesn't warrant an incomplete pass.

As with Calvin, we all know he took two steps then palmed the ball down. Bryant had about 3 steps and showed that he controlled it by trying to move the ball across the goal post which would indicate a completion.

 

[ConstantReboot]

From the head of officials explanation of the call they decided that all of Dez's catch and fall was part of momentum and the reach was not significant enough to show that it was not part of his momentum therefore they did not count a football move prior to the balls tip pointing up, which apparently is some type of signal that the ball hit the ground.

So there is the issue, the refs reviewing the play concluded no football move was made which I think most people feel there was since he changed hands and could have pulled it into his body but chose to extend it instead.

However, you look at it, it still was not enough to overturn the call. Cowboys got cheated.

 

[percyhoward]

He went to the ground as part of the catch...

No, he went to the ground after making the catch. That's why Shields' trip matters. It's what sent Dez to the ground.

If Dez falling is part of the catch, then the field judge rules that an incomplete pass. He didn't

 

[Toruk_Makto]

[quote="Naruto, post: 5931155, member: 4554"He may have had control of the ball but he didn't have control of his body. The rule is crystal clear in this regards.[/quote]

Read that sentence again.

 

[kevm3]

Ok, since we're going 'by the rules', someone explain to me how the Cobb catch was legit then?
Oh wait, we'll here something like, "Well that was inconclusive" or somehow he magically had his hands under the ball when the ball clearly bounces on the ground.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Not so read the rule it's the same whether a receiver is in the endzone or out of the endzone.


"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery."

Pereria said he had control of the ball. Like all of America saw he had control of the ball.

 

[Nightman]

Ok, since we're going 'by the rules', someone explain to me how the Cobb catch was legit then?
Oh wait, we'll here something like, "Well that was inconclusive" or somehow he magically had his hands under the ball when the ball clearly bounces on the ground.

Not only did the ball bounce off of the ground on Cobb's trap, they gave GB a free timeout when they reviewed it.

 

[KJJ]

Pereria said he had control of the ball. Like all of America saw he had control of the ball.

I agree he had control of the ball but as he was going to the ground the ball touched the ground and came loose/oscillated which under the rule isn't completing the process of the catch. The NFL needs to treat this like the rule that states the ground can't cause a fumble. If a receiver clearly makes a catch but loses control of the ball due to contact with the ground as they're going down it still should be ruled a catch.

 

[KJJ]

Your not being factual. He did not hit the ground immediately. Bryant took 3 steps, showed that he controlled it, then moved the ball into a position to stretch it over the goal line. You maybe thorough in your argument. But its flawed since Bryant actually moved the ball towards the goal line which indicates possession. Possession means control of the ball and thus doesn't warrant an incomplete pass.

As with Calvin, we all know he took two steps then palmed the ball down. Bryant had about 3 steps and showed that he controlled it by trying to move the ball across the goal post which would indicate a completion.

I am being factual you're just looking for an argument. Dez caught the ball but in the process of going to the ground the ball made contact with the ground as he lunged to put the ball over the goal line causing the ball to oscillate and come loose which under the rule isn't completing the process of the catch. Why is it so hard for you to understand that? With Johnson he also made the catch with control but in the process of going down the ball made contact with the ground causing him to lose it which under the rule is not completing the process of the catch. Unless you can come up with something we haven't already argued I'm not wasting anymore time with you on this.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I agree he had control of the ball but as he was going to the ground the ball touched the ground and came loose/oscillated which under the rule isn't completing the process of the catch. The NFL needs to treat this like the rule that states the ground can't cause a fumble. If a receiver clearly makes a catch but loses control of the ball due to contact with the ground as they're going down it still should be ruled a catch.

So he had control of the ball. Lunges for the endzone. It's either a fumble or down at point of contact.

You'd need to argue that he was going to the ground as part of the catch. Good luck with that.

 

[ConstantReboot]

I am being factual you're just looking for an argument. Dez caught the ball but in the process of going to the ground the ball made contact with the ground as he lunged to put the ball over the goal line causing the ball to oscillate and come loose which under the rule isn't completing the process of the catch. Why is it so hard for you to understand that? With Johnson he also made the catch with control but in the process of going down the ball made contact with the ground causing him to lose it which under the rule is not completing the process of the catch.

Not arguing with you but you keep missing the point. You keep missing the point that Dez took 3 steps and had control of the ball. He had it with two hands while he was going down and he moved the ball to get it into position to move it across the goal post. Thus it should have been ruled a catch at the one yard line.

I know its fun for you to be playing devils advocate. But your wrong on this one. I watched that play over 30 times today. There was inconclusive evidence that that was NOT a catch. Thus the play should have stayed as is with the ball at the 1 yard line.

Cowboys got robbed.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I am being factual you're just looking for an argument. Dez caught the ball but in the process of going to the ground the ball made contact with the ground as he lunged to put the ball over the goal line causing the ball to oscillate and come loose which under the rule isn't completing the process of the catch. Why is it so hard for you to understand that? With Johnson he also made the catch with control but in the process of going down the ball made contact with the ground causing him to lose it which under the rule is not completing the process of the catch. Unless you can come up with something we haven't already argued I'm not wasting anymore time with you on this.

Johnson was in the endzone. Dez was not. He wasn't going down in the process of making the catch. He caught the ball. And went down while trying to extend the ball past the pylon.

 

[KJJ]

Not arguing with you but you keep missing the point. You keep missing the point that Dez took 3 steps and had control of the ball. He had it with two hands while he was going down and he moved the ball to get it into position to move it across the goal post. Thus it should have been ruled a catch at the one yard line.

I know its fun for you to be playing devils advocate. But your wrong on this one. I watched that play over 30 times today. There was inconclusive evidence that that was NOT a catch. Thus the play should have stayed as is with the ball at the 1 yard line.

Cowboys got robbed.

You are arguing with me and you're the one missing the point. You're claiming the Cowboys got robbed on a call that was reviewed by 2 sets of expert eyes the ref and Dean Blandino in NY. You're playing referee explaining where the ball should have been placed. LOL Many experts who know more about this than you, I or anyone else on this board said it was the correct call based on the rule. If you think the Cowboys got robbed go air out your grievances to Mike Pereira and Dean Blandino who both agreed with that call and have Twitter accounts. Once again any receiver "going to the ground" must hold onto the ball throughout the entire process of contacting the ground and Dez didn't. I'm done arguing this with you.