That still was a catch! **merge**

[T-RO]

Unless you have an agenda...you ABSOLUTELY review that call. There is no discussion on this point.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

one bad football team beat another bad football team....that about sums it up!

Lions sure would've loved to have beat their "bad team" today....

 

[ConstantReboot]

The rule is dumb and is nothing more than another rule they have instituted to take good plays away. Like instant reply anymore. It was instituted to correct bad calls. Because almost everything is automatically reviewed anymore instant replay more often than not isn't being used to correct bad calls but rather refute good plays. The net effect is that every single turnover or score is reviewed and often times they come off the board based on some minute detail that nobody even saw while the play happened. Coaches, players, announcers and fans are all scrutinizing every single frame of instant replay trying to find some shred of a reason as to why a play shouldn't stand. Imagine how many games would have been altered if those were automatic reviews since instant replay was first put in, and not just additions over the past 2 to 3 seasons. I think they need to do away with automatic reviews and force coaches to choose when they want to review a play. I can support giving coaches the chance to correct a mistake but this whole system is just geared towards taking away good plays based on the flimsiest of evidence.

I can't stand rules like this because they punish good plays. Megatron's TD last year (maybe year before) was taken away on this very rule and it's just pathetic. He caught the ball, landed with 2 feet, fell on his but and only after turning over to get back up did the ball come out.

It's a dumb rule and I'm growing to hate all the little intricate prerequisites that have to be met before a good play stands. I think I hate instant replay even more.

That said, the rule looks to have been enforced appropriately on this play. Sand to say but they called it as it is written. The defender made contact after his first foot hit the ground which means that he didn't have time to establish possession prior to contact. Also, the contact took him to the ground which requires that he complete the "entire process". I'm not sure what the "entire process" is for the NFL but it appears to mean that you have to have control until you are no longer moving around on the ground and the whistle has been blown.

I was shocked that they didn't even review it but I guess if you're looking at it from that perspective reviewing the play was unnecessary. The ball came out. Once the ball has come out all they have to do is determine if he established possession prior to the contact that was made by the defender. There wasn't enough time for that to happen so I guess they feel there's no need to review it.

Don't like the rule one bit but those officials are probably getting pats on the back for that call, which is just disgusting to think about.

Sorry but I totally disagree. Bryant already had two to three steps when he caught the ball and then landed. If he had trapped it and dropped it then the refs have a point. That was a catch pure and simple. Bryant already had position, got tackled and the ground caused the ball to pop out after when he had already took 2-3 steps.

 

[T-RO]

Blows my mind under 2:00 minutes the booth should review, the officials are ruining the game

That decision came from higher up.

I read referee Tim Donaghy's insider book about the complete corruption of the NBA. And with the billions of gambling revenue pivoting around the sport, I'd be shocked if some games aren't influenced by outside dollars. At times it may be just to shave a few points to protect a line.

This game smelled like some ACTIVITY to me. And it was at a higher level than a single ref. You simply MUST review that play. The catch = the win. You MUST review that play.

I smell dirty dead fish.

I stopped watching the NBA. Is the NFL next?

 

[hairic]

This is a catch. He has control at the high point of the pass (it's practically immediate control). He hasn't taken a step yet and the ball is clearly his. Two feet hit the ground, a third foot/knee, and then his body. He makes a football move by ducking away from an incoming defender. Then the ball comes out after he's been on the ground for a while. He was down by contact for .5 seconds before he lost the ball. In total, he had control of the ball for 1.25 seconds before losing control.

Control: Yes. Immediate.
Two feet: Yes. Was actually enough body parts for 5 or more catches (two feet down, knee, both forearms, torso)
Football move: Yes. He ducked the incoming safety while controlling the ball/sticks his arm towards the safety for cushion.

Album:
Image 1-3: Ball with motion blur/not caught.
Image 4: Ball without motion blur/suddenly shiny (caught).
Image 5: First foot down.
Image 6: Second foot down.
Image 7: Third foot down + football move (ducking safety).
Image 8: Down by contact (knee).
Image 9: Forearm/ball contact with ground.
Image 10: Final frame of control.
Image 11: Ball out.



BTW, Romo has a chance at a touchdown if he goes to Austin. Not sure if he catches it or not, but look at him in the album. It's a corner route with only the single high safety back there (defenders caught in play action).

 

[joseephuss]

The question I asked is why doesn't Garrett just throw the flag? That was another BS call and Garrett just stand there like a beaten wife.

Are you just trolling?

 

[joseephuss]

Same here. I'm in SoCal and the Fox early game being shown was Carolina and Miami. After their game was over Fox switched to some bonus coverage of the Vikes and Pack. The Cowboys game had already started yet we were forced to watch the entirety of the OT?!! Crazy.

Here in Austin, TX the local FOX affiliate did not switch over to the Cowboys game until after the Vikings/Packers game had ended.

 

[joseephuss]

This is a catch. He has control at the high point of the pass (it's practically immediate control). He hasn't taken a step yet and the ball is clearly his. Two feet hit the ground, a third foot/knee, and then his body. He makes a football move by ducking away from an incoming defender. Then the ball comes out after he's been on the ground for a while. He was down by contact for .5 seconds before he lost the ball. In total, he had control of the ball for 1.25 seconds before losing control.

Control: Yes. Immediate.
Two feet: Yes. Was actually enough body parts for 5 or more catches (two feet down, knee, both forearms, torso)
Football move: Yes. He ducked the incoming safety while controlling the ball/sticks his arm towards the safety for cushion.



BTW, Romo has a chance at a touchdown if he goes to Austin. Not sure if he catches it or not, but look at him in the album. It's a corner route with only the single high safety back there (defenders caught in play action).

It didn't make a football move. He was contacted by the defender immediately and was going to the ground. He squeezed in a few steps, but they weren't controlled steps. It is a convoluted rule, but it did apply in this instance.

 

[Risen Star]

Under the new rules, that was an incomplete pass. Under the new rules, Butch Johnson's Super Bowl TD catch would have been an incomplete pass.

Fortunately, it didn't cost us the game.

Agreed. We all know he caught the ball but under these lame rules it was incomplete.

 

[Hook'em#11]

Catch. Down by contact. BS call, glad Romo and Beasley were on board to spoil the refs outright bias for this team. Suprised they called that roughing the QB on the Giants.. I have seen Romo get decked a lot worse than that. As have all of you.. I still didn't like that call and really didn't like the call that involved Murray and Rolle .. But, it helped the Cowboys. Course, I don't know why Rolle even hit Murray so close, or out of bounds. Murray would just run out of bounds on his own. Didn't like that either. But, I understand why.

 

[Doomsay]

Besides the bad calls against the team, there have been a number of within 2 minute "non-reviews" of catches, goal line plays etc. which seems almost inconceivable to me. I wonder if the team is saying anything to the reffing committees during the week following these "missed reviews"?

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I thought it was a catch and this is the biggest reason why. I know all about that stupid *** going to the ground rule and all that junk. To me however the moment his knee hit the ground the play was over. It's done. It's a catch. Period. The fact that they didn't review that and realise that is just another reason the NFL is becoming such garbage with all their stupid rules.

 

[DogFace]

That could've potentially been a game changer, but thankfully it didn't effect the outcome for us. Terrible officiating on the refs, not just for Dallas, but for both sides.

Which calls went against New York were wrong in your opinion?

 

[CATCH17]

I'm still heated about this today.

That had conspiracy written all over it.

I was upset with the Cowboys for letting the Giants back in the game but i'm letting them off the hook today because the officials completely stole all my attention.

They were obviously trying to keep the Giants in the game with that call and no review.

 

[DogFace]

Well you won my vote for the dumbest post today.

Are you sure? There are some really dumb ones?
Never mind. You're right

 

[Dhragon]

The question I asked is why doesn't Garrett just throw the flag? That was another BS call and Garrett just stand there like a beaten wife.

This happened in another game before. A coach threw a flag during the last 2 minutes. When a coach does that then the play cannot be reviewed by rule and I believe you also get penalized if I remember correctly. So if Red would have thrown a challenge flag then, he would have hurt us, not helped us.

 

[Don Corleone]

What? So you don't like parity?

 

[Gadfly22]

1. I don't know how that play doesn't get reviewed. That was just weird.

2. I think it's the same stupid rule applied when you see a catch made by the sideline, the receiver steps out of bounds falls and the ball THEN pops out. To my mind, the stepping out of bounds or (in Dez's case, his knee touching after contact) ends the play, pass complete. But I don't think that's the rule, and the only rationale for it that I can come up with is that the NFL decided on an anti-pass rule in order to compensate for all the pro-pass rules that have evolved over the years. Much like the rule that changed the "two feet would have been in" rule for sideline catches.

 

[Nation]

No, the new rule is only for when the receiver catches the ball and goes down making the catch. In this case he took steps showing possession.

When going to the ground they hold you to a higher standard beyond the steps. In the Pittsburgh game last year we would have had a forced fumble as one of their receivers took steps and then had the ball stripped as he went to the ground. However, because he was still going to the ground they declared he was still in the process of securing the catch and called it incomplete. Like I said, I don't like it, but they eliminated the judgment call aspect for the refs and made the burden of proof incredibly large.

 

[Smith22]

It was not a catch, no matter how much you guys want it to be. You have to control the ball all the way through the process unless you made a "football move" and secured posession before hitting the ground (which he did not)

He caught it at the 10 and went down at the 5, so I think he made a football move to gain 5 yards.