Twitter: Eight years ago today, "Dez Caught It"

[JustChip]

That was a catch by any reasonable measure. However, by the language of the catch rule, whether it was a catch or not was completely subjective. As with anything subjective, opinions and rulings will vary. That’s the way virtually everything is. The Supreme Court rules based on each Justices interpretation of a law. It’s the reason the Court has an odd number of justices.

By the way, I knew it would be overturned the moment I saw the replay. That play DID NOT cost the Cowboys the Super Bowl.

 

[rags747]

Poor Romo, pulls a rabbit out of the hat on 4th and 2 with all the stakes on the line and yet we were still snake bit. He has certainly had a blessed life but boy has he had some low points too. Love what he brought to the team when we were not all that!

 

[McKDaddy]

He did the right thing the refs are morons thinking reaching for the pylon isn't a football move.

Preach! Plus the fact, he clearly had possession while being entangled with the defender and turning his body back upfield. But none of that was obvious to rules professionals.
I had a discussion with some guys I golf with about a week after the game. One of them was arguing it wasn't a catch so I asked him if the defender had hit the ball as Dez was lunging and GB recovered would they have ruled it a fumble? He agreed they would have and thus the BS interpretation.

 

[McKDaddy]

The problem was the interpretation of the rule. The devil is in the details. The rule was meant to cover catches where a WR catches the ball and is going to the ground in one motion. But, where do you draw the line?

If I offered you 50 bucks to jump in the lake, you walk over and stand in 2 inches of water at the lake's edge and jump. do I owe you 50 bucks? Apparently many refs and some fans believe I do. That wasn't what I meant.

The rule was removed for a reason. That reason is because the refs were interpreting it incorrectly. Or better yet, not for its intended purpose.

Yep, completely misinterpreted

 

[WillieBeamen]

Rodgers was MVP in 2014. You think he's still MVP-caliber today? Again from that game, he drove them into FG range trying to kill the clock and we couldn't stop him. Not the same comparison from 8 years ago.

I can bring up several other games from his prime in which he choked

He was the MVP last year and choked against SF

 

[MarcusRock]

I can bring up several other games from his prime in which he choked

He was the MVP last year and choked against SF

Still doesn't explain away a better nearly a decade ago Rodgers versus who he is now. You called Rodgers a front runner. Well, we led that game 21-13 late in the 3rd and Rodgers rattled off 13 straight points for the win. Could have had more if they needed it at the end of the game. Again, he drove into FG range not needing any more points and trying to run out the clock. Got 2 first downs, including converting the second of those despite a false start penalty.

 

[Gator88]

It's silly to see people still defending the refs overturning this call when they let a far worse catch stand for GB earlier in the game.

 

[catiii]

The NFL is rigged. That play changed my opinion of NFL football - I no longer care.

 

[Cowboys5217]

Now compare that to Cobb's "catch" earlier in the same game.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Marcus Rock says it was not a catch due to proper interpretation of the rule at the time

I laugh at that; you look at all the other catches in other games rule OK and they were often MUCH MORE QUESTIONABLE than this

The officials blew the call; and the League admitted it years later

Yeah, there was a thread where I argued that it was a catch even according to the rule. The NFL decided who was winning that day and then interpreted the rules in the most twisted way to decide it in the way they wanted it to be. The official on the field at the goal line watched the entire thing and ruled it was catch. Then the NFL mafia monopoly intervened and called Blandino and told him to overturn it.

 

[BoysForLife]

I'm not following Weller's comment in that tweet

He might have had Bease on a slant.
Witten was bracketed with a LB in front of him and a safety behind.

if Romo would have thrown to Witten on this play it was at best an incompletion and probably 75% odds of being picked.

I think the guy meant to say Beasley on a slant.

 

[sacase]

There was no clear evidence the ball ever touched the ground. You can assume it did, but there is nothing to prove that it did. The rule is there has to be clear evidence. That's why the call was so bogus.

 

[Zekeats]

Is that Bobbys Dad?

 

[MarcusRock]

There was no clear evidence the ball ever touched the ground. You can assume it did, but there is nothing to prove that it did. The rule is there has to be clear evidence. That's why the call was so bogus.

So here are 2 separate frames from video. Ball is clearly on the ground, hence the overturn.

 

[Cowpolk]

It was a catch in any game but that one honest

 

[Cowpolk]

Is that Bobbys Dad?

Nah my dad dint look anything like that

 

[BoysForLife]

So here are 2 separate frames from video. Ball is clearly on the ground, hence the overturn.

You remember a couple weeks ago when I defended you saying even though you and I are on opposite sides of an argument, I respect your remarkable consistency?

Well in this case, I have to respectfully call you out.
Weren't you the guy in a thread a couple weeks back about some call, who was saying that "still photos never tell the story and that's why we have to depend on the video rather than stills?"

if that wasn't you, I apologize but I'm 99% certain it was. and if so, I'll be honest, this seems like a bit of a double dip on your part....

thoughts?

 

[Zekeats]

So here are 2 separate frames from video. Ball is clearly on the ground, hence the overturn.

Football move lunging for end zone puts to bed ball touching the ground. NFL admits it was a catch now.

 

[SultanOfSix]

There was no clear evidence the ball ever touched the ground. You can assume it did, but there is nothing to prove that it did. The rule is there has to be clear evidence. That's why the call was so bogus.

Even if the ball touches the ground it doesn’t necessarily mean there is a loss of possession. Players can cup the ball underneath it while falling to the ground and the nose of the ball will touch the ground and it’s irrelevant because they had enough of the ball to have possessed it.

 

[MarcusRock]

You remember a couple weeks ago when I defended you saying even though you and I are on opposite sides of an argument, I respect your remarkable consistency?

Well in this case, I have to respectfully call you out.
Weren't you the guy in a thread a couple weeks back about some call, who was saying that "still photos never tell the story and that's why we have to depend on the video rather than stills?"

if that wasn't you, I apologize but I'm 99% certain it was. and if so, I'll be honest, this seems like a bit of a double dip on your part....

thoughts?

Nope, that was me. You can't show a still and call something holding or PI because it's a motion penalty. You have to see motion to tell if the rule was violated or not. That's the context I talk about still shots. A hand on a receiver's shoulder is not PI. You have to see restriction. Can't tell that with a still pic. A ball touching the ground or the out of bounds line is something definitive. You don't need motion to tell that fact unless you're trying to prove it struck someplace first like in bounds and then out of bounds. Here, no lines are in question. It's an either/or ball on the ground or not. You need only show it touched the ground per the rule. It's a did or did not. Motion not necessary.