On This Day 10 Years Ago: The Dez Catch That Wasn't

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clearly a catch. Even according to an interpretation of the rules. Completely antithetical to the “spirit” of the rule and why it was setup in the first place. Called on the field as a catch. Nothing conclusive to overturn it. Straight up hosed.
 
Only thing good that came from that blown call was it robbed JJ of his chance at a SB.
 
I think about this and the 2014 season pretty often. That was as close as we've been to a Super Bowl since the 90s and since we feel robbed of that play, a lot of us feel like we should've gone all the way as we felt the Packers were pretty much the best team we'd face in the playoffs.
The 07 team had a shot. Granted they would have had to play the Undefeated Patriots. Crayton!!!
 
The 07 team had a shot. Granted they would have had to play the Undefeated Patriots. Crayton!!!
Yeah.
Our D was good, but they weren't ever going-to hold that Pats offense to 13 points like the Giants did.
 
The Dez catch overturn is a dark day for most of us, but this is pure porn for this guy.
He SO loves it.
His favorite topic in this forum….by far
Maybe it wouldn't be so dark for half of you if y'all actually knew the rule you rail against and realize it was just an unlucky play. I can separate what I wanted to happen from the truth of what did happen and when you all lie about what happened, I merely correct you because I stand for truth, inconvenient and all. You're free to lie to yourselves if you wish and I'm free to torpedo your lies with truth You mad because people won't lie alongside you to make you feel better? Lol.
 
That's because like this play, there are rules that govern that situation when it happens. The same "keeping possession of the ball through the ground" requirement applies there as it did here. The going to the ground rule is a subset rule must be followed in the event a regular, upright can't can't be made. Sideline catches have their own sunset rules.
How weird that one holds onto / embraces this no-catch fallacy that was so detrimental to the team that one professes to support? Some kind of weird self-loathing or inner tension with the inability to process the clearly biased NY overstep must be afoot, whatever the reason, it must be corrosive to the soul.
 
How weird that one holds onto / embraces this no-catch fallacy that was so detrimental to the team that one professes to support? Some kind of weird self-loathing or inner tension with the inability to process the clearly biased NY overstep must be afoot, whatever the reason, it must be corrosive to the soul.
In other words, "Why won't you lie alongside me? That's part of fandom, you know?" Not mine, sorry.
 
Disagree.
Well the rules disagree with you and others. Would love to see folks actually use them to show how they weren't properly followed instead of just saying "nah" but I think it's quite telling why that doesn't happen. Where are the article exposes that show the NFL acted improperly? I haven't seen those. On the clip I posted in the OP, Pereira called it incomplete even before it was officially announced.
 
On the clip I posted in the OP, Pereira called it incomplete even before it was officially announced.
Heard that voice as well. In regard to officials these guys use in the booth, I’ve always thought Mike was by far the best and there wasn’t hesitation or uncertainty in his voice. That’s enough for me.
 
Well the rules disagree with you and others. Would love to see folks actually use them to show how they weren't properly followed instead of just saying "nah" but I think it's quite telling why that doesn't happen. Where are the article exposes that show the NFL acted improperly? I haven't seen those. On the clip I posted in the OP, Pereira called it incomplete even before it was officially announced.
This horse has been beaten to dust. You and I have had a couple previous back and forths on this. I, and others, have explained the reasoning behind our opinion many times. There is no point in doing it again.

I think there are a couple things that are quite telling. One is just how much and how hard you regularly, even ten years down the road, resurrect this horse to be beaten some more, and two, how you seem to flat out ignore the subjective aspect to the rule that leaves the play wide open to interpretation. Your entire argument hinges on a subjective interpretation of the play as applied to a poorly thought out rule. which leaves the outcome wide open to that subjective interpretation.

You see it one way, fine. However, it goes beyond arrogant to imply that the arguments of those that see it differently are completely based on emotion/homerism/conspiracy.
 
The real tragedy is the Cowboys have not been to an NFC Championship Game since 1995.

It has been 29 years since Dallas beat Green Bay and went on to win the Steelers in the SB.
 
This horse has been beaten to dust. You and I have had a couple previous back and forths on this. I, and others, have explained the reasoning behind our opinion many times. There is no point in doing it again.

I think there are a couple things that are quite telling. One is just how much and how hard you regularly, even ten years down the road, resurrect this horse to be beaten some more, and two, how you seem to flat out ignore the subjective aspect to the rule that leaves the play wide open to interpretation. Your entire argument hinges on a subjective interpretation of the play as applied to a poorly thought out rule. which leaves the outcome wide open to that subjective interpretation.

You see it one way, fine. However, it goes beyond arrogant to imply that the arguments of those that see it differently are completely based on emotion/homerism/conspiracy.
He probably works for NFL officiating. ;)

Dez clearly made multiple obvious objective football moves: taking two steps, switching the ball to one hand, and lunging for the goal line.

What the refs of the “rigged” NFL subjectively and negatively over-interpreted to overturn the call on the field was his “going to the ground” and maintaining possession of the ball through its process. And still it was not clear on camera that the ground alone caused the ball to pop up and back into his arms in the end zone, or simply the momentum of his arm hitting the ground while the ball was cradled in his forearm when he lunged with the ball.
 
The only question was did he make a football move. I believe he caught the ball and took two steps and held the ball out towards the goal line and the ground jarred the ball loose and he caught it again. The real blame should be on Dez and why didn't he just pull the ball in and secure it. It would of been first and goal at the 1yard line.
 
Romo knew exactly who he was going to soon as the ball was snapped
There is a video where Romo explains the play & how the Packers were focused on taking Witten & the quick short throws away. So yes, he knew he had man coverage on Dez and felt that was his only option given the pre-snap alignments.
 
We've beaten this horse for years. I'm 1000% on board that it was a catch.

If it was ruled a catch & we had scored, even if we lost wouldn't the whole feeling about the game & the players been different?

I mean, it hurts but if I feel like my team did everything they could & the other team somehow comes out on top, I can live with that & keep my chin up.

This was stolen from us and very much felt like the league wouldn't let us win no matter what we did. How can you have hope after that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

  • Sarge
    Red, White and Brew...

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,035
Messages
13,785,239
Members
23,771
Latest member
LandryHat
Back
Top