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

[TwoDeep3]

How is leaping forward to the goal line not a football move?

The common mistake by fans is seeing his movements as independent. But the contact with the Green Bay Packer defender, which came before these supposed football moves, tripped him. His steps after do not override him falling toward the ground.

Then, when he stretches out - still falling forward - the ball hits the ground and rolls out of his control. When it pops up, regardless if he then makes a move to catch it, it is an incomplete pass because he did not maintain possession and allowed the ground to influence the ball out of his grasp.

I watched the game. I watched the replays as they waited to call the results. But I knew it would be overturned. I'm not even certain, had he captured the ball and fell without touching the defender, if the rest of the play went as seen, he still would have been overruled.

The critical part is at 2:11.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Again, you'd have to know the ins and outs of the rules to know why it was overturned but no one is willing to examine that, for obvious reasons, while others blatantly ignore or misrepresent what the rules do say to shoehorn conspiracy. And there ain't no maybe. The ball is on the ground. Would love to read the exposé about how the NFL didn't follow their own rules on the play, but outside of Cowboysland that doesn't seem to exist. Why is that? But I get it. Disappointment makes people do interesting things to not accept results and besides denial people can be very creative so that's entertaining at least.

I disagree. The rules didn’t have the language to anticipate or interpret what dez did athletically. To catch it land and lunge all in one act. Why would he lunge for a touchdown if he wasn’t already possessing the ball?

Only thing you need to do is ask your wife or your mother in law her interpretation of the play. She’ll say he caught it why are you asking me this

 

[SultanOfSix]

The common mistake by fans is seeing his movements as independent. But the contact with the Green Bay Packer defender, which came before these supposed football moves, tripped him. His steps after do not override him falling toward the ground.

Then, when he stretches out - still falling forward - the ball hits the ground and rolls out of his control. When it pops up, regardless if he then makes a move to catch it, it is an incomplete pass because he did not maintain possession and allowed the ground to influence the ball out of his grasp.

I watched the game. I watched the replays as they waited to call the results. But I knew it would be overturned. I'm not even certain, had he captured the ball and fell without touching the defender, if the rest of the play went as seen, he still would have been overruled.

The critical part is at 2:11.

LOLWUT.

You’re interpolating a bunch of terms and a scenario that has no relevance into the rule.

I’m not going to repeat what I wrote last post because it states the rule’s scenarios in my own words (about possessing, losing it, and repossessing while going to ground) and stands on it last own.

 

[MarcusRock]

I disagree. The rules didn’t have the language to anticipate or interpret what dez did athletically. To catch it land and lunge all in one act. Why would he lunge for a touchdown if he wasn’t already possessing the ball?

Only thing you need to do is ask your wife or your mother in law her interpretation of the play. She’ll say he caught it why are you asking me this

Again, you didn't know this but a lunge is actually in the rules on a going to the ground play but none of you even make it that far into debates before the denial strategy takes over so there's no need even presenting it. Do you see what I mean? If you don't know the actual rules you can't effectively argue them. So people just go with conspiracy because it hides the fact that they don't actually know anything. Former officials have talked about the play, I've shown the Pereira video in this thread twice explaining how the rule is structured but none of you want to address it, probably because you don't even know how to attack it. One can't attack what they don't know. Others ignore it because they know it kills their case on the spot. And that's why this play is solely an annual gripefest.

 

[DenCWBY]

The common mistake by fans is seeing his movements as independent. But the contact with the Green Bay Packer defender, which came before these supposed football moves, tripped him. His steps after do not override him falling toward the ground.

Then, when he stretches out - still falling forward - the ball hits the ground and rolls out of his control. When it pops up, regardless if he then makes a move to catch it, it is an incomplete pass because he did not maintain possession and allowed the ground to influence the ball out of his grasp.

I watched the game. I watched the replays as they waited to call the results. But I knew it would be overturned. I'm not even certain, had he captured the ball and fell without touching the defender, if the rest of the play went as seen, he still would have been overruled.

The critical part is at 2:11.

Agreed. Hate the rule but it was the rule. Still mad a Dez for not cradling the ball with 2 hands as he's coming down leaving no doubt for a challenge. We had 3 plays to run it in from there and who knows?

 

[BoyzBlaster]

Explain Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc? YouTube is in line with them.

Respectfully I think the batman tights may be too tight and cutting off circulation to your brain if you think Google is participating in an anti-Cowboys conspiracy.

 

[MarcusRock]

Respectfully I think the batman tights may be too tight and cutting off circulation to your brain if you think Google is participating in an anti-Cowboys conspiracy.

They are and the resistance will be led from these here message boards! Organize, my pretties! Organize!

 

[FrankM]

If it was ruled a catch and the Cowboys score a td on that drive, they probably still lose the game. I’m quite sure Rodgers would have drove the Packers right down the field for a game winning fog.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

The common mistake by fans is seeing his movements as independent. But the contact with the Green Bay Packer defender, which came before these supposed football moves, tripped him. His steps after do not override him falling toward the ground.

Then, when he stretches out - still falling forward - the ball hits the ground and rolls out of his control. When it pops up, regardless if he then makes a move to catch it, it is an incomplete pass because he did not maintain possession and allowed the ground to influence the ball out of his grasp.

I watched the game. I watched the replays as they waited to call the results. But I knew it would be overturned. I'm not even certain, had he captured the ball and fell without touching the defender, if the rest of the play went as seen, he still would have been overruled.

The critical part is at 2:11.

Again, you didn't know this but a lunge is actually in the rules on a going to the ground play but none of you even make it that far into debates before the denial strategy takes over so there's no need even presenting it. Do you see what I mean? If you don't know the actual rules you can't effectively argue them. So people just go with conspiracy because it hides the fact that they don't actually know anything. Former officials have talked about the play, I've shown the Pereira video in this thread twice explaining how the rule is structured but none of you want to address it, probably because you don't even know how to attack it. One can't attack what they don't know. Others ignore it because they know it kills their case on the spot. And that's why this play is solely an annual gripefest.

I disagree he leaped or hurdled more than a lunge.

 

[MarcusRock]

I disagree he leaped or hurdled more than a lunge.

Yes, this looks just like a hurdle. Lol. You don't hurdle falling flat on your face. Morphing story notwithstanding, it was going to the ground, bro. The whole way. Can't get around it.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Yes, this looks just like a hurdle. Lol. You don't hurdle falling flat on your face. Morphing story notwithstanding, it was going to the ground, bro. The whole way. Can't get around it.

Disagree. He basically caught it turned upfield and broke the plane of the end zone and the ball didn’t 100% hit the ground anyways. And he recovered the alleged fumble anyways.

TOuch down. Go for 2. Packers ball.

 

[BoyzBlaster]

Yes, this looks just like a hurdle. Lol. You don't hurdle falling flat on your face. Morphing story notwithstanding, it was going to the ground, bro. The whole way. Can't get around it.

What do you mean his form looks just like Edwin Moses? Edit to Add - I mean Edwin Moses if he was going through the hurdle face first.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Here you go. I have looked for this angle for a while. Found it.

This video shows the play from three different angles.

At the 2:00 mark you will see slow motion, with the camera facing Dez. Watch the ball move. The point of the ball toward the crook of his arm ends up pointing straight up, and then the ball flies up in the air for him to snag.

The Ball Moved because of the ground. When he lost control of the ball, which caused the ball to fly out of his hands, that negates all the arguments.

And all of this is predicated because he and the defender bumped legs, and Dez went to the ground. Intentions mean nothing. He was going to the ground and lost control of the ball.

 

[Cowboys5217]

If it was ruled a catch and the Cowboys score a td on that drive, they probably still lose the game. I’m quite sure Rodgers would have drove the Packers right down the field for a game winning fog.

I'm amazed that his bargaining cope is still being toss out there to somehow justify the replay refs screwing the Cowboys in that game twice with a blatant double standard on the Cobb and Dez plays. That game was crooked thanks to that. No way it was unintentional.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Here you go. I have looked for this angle for a while. Found it.

This video shows the play from three different angles.

At the 2:00 mark you will see slow motion, with the camera facing Dez. Watch the ball move. The point of the ball toward the crook of his arm ends up pointing straight up, and then the ball flies up in the air for him to snag.

The Ball Moved because of the ground. When he lost control of the ball, which caused the ball to fly out of his hands, that negates all the arguments.

And all of this is predicated because he and the defender bumped legs, and Dez went to the ground. Intentions mean nothing. He was going to the ground and lost control of the ball.

If he bumped legs with the defender that means down by contact because he possessed the ball as soon as his arm touched the ground, and the ground can’t cause a fumble. What you want to do is override this with the notion that he was going to the ground because the ball came loose when his arm hit the ground reaching for the goal line. Just like you want to override the football move of being able to switch from two hands to one and cradle it while attempting to reach the goal line as non-existent when he’s going to the ground. But all of these interpretations violate the rule itself because Dez never lost possession while going to the ground until his arm his the ground and the ball came up into the air onto his, arm shoulder, where he repossessed it in the end zone without it touching the ground again.

 

[America's Cowboy]

YouTube is censoring videos that throw shade at Romo?

For the sake of those around you, Get help. Seriously. If you honestly believe this, you're not well

Look it up, jerk.

 

[America's Cowboy]

Respectfully I think the batman tights may be too tight and cutting off circulation to your brain if you think Google is participating in an anti-Cowboys conspiracy.

You don't get it. I never said anti-Cowboys. I used them as social media sites who censor certain people. That's a fact.

 

[BoysForLife]

Look it up, jerk.

Get help.
Prick.

 

[America's Cowboy]

Get help.
Prick.

Wannabe tough guy on the internet. Guaranteed you wouldn't in person. All talk little hater.

 

[BoysForLife]

You don't get it. I never said anti-Cowboys. I used them as social media sites who censor certain people. That's a fact.

Agreed but their pattern of censorship has nothing to do with football

If you were thinking logically you'd realize Romo is a Christian family man, near as I can tell

If anything that's the type of guy they would love to humiliate. Not shelter