The Calvin Johnson Rule Does Not Apply

[JoeKing]

This is exactly how I saw the play Sunday, and it's still how I see it now. But since there is still grey area, the officials should have let the original call- completed pass down at the one- stand.

But, I strongly believe the guys in stripes achieved what they set out to do after the missed calls against Dallas in the wild card round. In the NFL, two wrongs do make a right.

Just my opinion... someone in the office in NY made a make up call for the wild card round. In the NFL, two wrongs do make a perceived right.

 

[percyhoward]

The trip is more than the leg sweep. It starts from before his 2nd step hits the ground. Dez's knee hits the DB's *** in midair, stopping that step short. If there is no DB there at all, Dez's 2nd step would be further up the field with more inward rotation and he wouldn't have lost his balance.

This is the leg to leg down by contact point:

Great view of it there. I was hoping you would get to the contact, because that's the whole thing really.

The explanations since the overturn have made no mention of the call on the field, or of the contact the call was based on. They're in a fantasyland, treating it like he just fell down on his own, and the field judge must have been hallucinating. All this talk about "football moves," "was it or wasn't it a reach," "the ball touching/not touching the ground" is just scenery for the public. They talk about those other things so that they can control the discussion and keep the attention away from the contact. The central issue in the play is the contact, and the central issue in the discussion of the overturn is the fact that they're ignoring it.

 

[tyke1doe]

The main catch rule says that control of the ball with two feet in bounds and advancing the ball is a catch. How does Dez not meet all those requirements?

Because there are also addendums that further elaborate on what is or isn't a catch. It sucks for us, and it hurts. But the rule addresses the Dez situation. And as much as I don't like it, I understand the call based on how it has been applied in many other similar situations.

 

[loublue22]

Because there are also addendums that further elaborate on what is or isn't a catch. It sucks for us, and it hurts. But the rule addresses the Dez situation. And as much as I don't like it, I understand the call based on how it has been applied in many other similar situations.

find me one other play where a receiver took steps and reached with the ball and it was called incomplete and I'll shut up about this forever

 

[BigStar]

your logic fails when a receiver is tapping his feet and falling out of bounds anywhere on the field. He must maintain possession.

Its clear that Dez took three steps, but it is also clear that he was falling while taking those steps. Which overrules the other...the steps or the fall

Where does it state that "that" over rules the other? You got evidence and junk?If your receiver makes the catch (3 steps for cripes sake), and then extends? I know it was quick for older eyes, but everyone else( NE fans) knows we got slighted as some sort of regret story? Really, everyone in the stadium KNEW evidently but some. That is what is most disconcerting. The "owner" of a local casino also likes his bets clean

TBH We didn't play playoff football...our running game sucked in the playoffs and weren't ready to make DEZ a focal point until the absolute last play of desperation? That should be the talk, not conspiracies...you could have thrown to this kid ALL game? What ARE YOU DOING? Talk about a player that was READY to make a difference? No, Witten for 7 is just as good. Glad the stats look good...

 

[speedkilz88]

http://www.dallascowboys.com/galleries/2015/01/11/controversial-dez-play-sequence#266491

 

[JoeBoBBY]

Because there are also addendums that further elaborate on what is or isn't a catch. It sucks for us, and it hurts. But the rule addresses the Dez situation. And as much as I don't like it, I understand the call based on how it has been applied in many other similar situations.

As the rule is written and applied right now. i understand the challenge flag and review by replay.

what i cant understand and never will.....and i think i 90 99 percent of others....cant understand it either. How could they come to the determination that they had enough to overturn the call on field??

100% no doubt. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!

 

[slogriff]

I haven't looked at all 20 pages so I hope I'm not redundant on my point and someone can tell me where Im going wrong.

Everyone defending the overturning of the call reiterates Dez momentum/falling requires him to maintain control of the ball if it hits the ground. However, I've never heard anyone address WHY he is actually falling.

He falls because the defender leg whips Dez' right leg right after it hit the ground. It's like they don't even acknowledge the defender had a part in this play. Without that contact/tackle I contend Dez' could/would have taken that ball into the end zone standing. He controlled the ball, both feet hit the ground and the defender's contact took his leg out from underneath him and would have readily caused caused anyone to fall. Thus, a completed catch and no need to have to complete the process.

To overturn the call would require you to speculate Dez' momentum would have taken him to the ground. The contact is KNOWN wether he would have otherwise fallen is pure speculation. How can you overturn the known on indisputable speculation? You can't. (Or shouldn't)

 

[JoeBoBBY]

I haven't looked at all 20 pages so I hope I'm not redundant on my point and someone can tell me where Im going wrong.

Everyone defending the overturning of the call reiterates Dez momentum/falling requires him to maintain control of the ball if it hits the ground. However, I've never heard anyone address WHY he is actually falling.

He falls because the defender leg whips Dez' right leg right after it hit the ground. It's like they don't even acknowledge the defender had a part in this play. Without that contact/tackle I contend Dez' could/would have taken that ball into the end zone standing. He controlled the ball, both feet hit the ground and the defender's contact took his leg out from underneath him and would have readily caused caused anyone to fall. Thus, a completed catch and no need to have to complete the process.

To overturn the call would require you to speculate Dez' momentum would have taken him to the ground. The contact is KNOWN wether he would have otherwise fallen is pure speculation. How can you overturn the known on indisputable speculation? You can't. (Or shouldn't)

that sums it up nicely.

 

[DogFace]

So is it going to help Mike Pereira understand the rule? Look, Cowboys fans are upset and feel the call was incorrect. And just like arm-chair lawyers do, they read laws and codes and then by reading them, that makes them understand the law as well as an actual lawyer. So too, fans read the rules and put their twist and understanding on what they believe to be the rule and try to argue exceptions.

We've already done that. The call is not going to be overturned. And those who hold the authority in this matter, and with that authority, the interpretation of the rules, say that Dez did not maintain possession when he hit the ground. Based on the way the rule is written it wasn't a catch.

Do I think it should have been a catch? Of course. But the way the authority who made the rule interpreted the rule, and based on almost all other cases where a similar play occurred and the ball touched the ground, the catch was invalidated because the ball hit the ground. I'm sure anyone can find an example or two that proves inconsistency. That shouldn't be surprising because part of being human is committing mistakes and errors. But also part of being human is growing in one's understanding of the rules as well as bias from fans who simply don't want to see anything other than their favorite team got jobbed.

We're all arguing matters of interpretation. But, really, none of our opinions matter because we aren't referees, and we don't supervise NFL referees.

So we're left with our anger and getting mad (not saying you're doing this so please don't take this personally) at others who don't join us in our opinions that Dez made that catch and shouldn't have had it invalidated.

And around and around we go.

No.
Please give me some of these "almost all other cases with similar plays". The only example I've seen shows a blatant and egregious double standard to what constitutes a catch.

 

[tyke1doe]

find me one other play where a receiver took steps and reached with the ball and it was called incomplete and I'll shut up about this forever

I really don't care if you shut up forever or continue. The rule is when a receiver catches the ball he must maintain possession all the way to the ground. If he doesn't, it's an incomplete pass. And I don't have a video catalogue, but I have seen the Dez call made in similar situations.

 

[tyke1doe]

As the rule is written and applied right now. i understand the challenge flag and review by replay.

what i cant understand and never will.....and i think i 90 99 percent of others....cant understand it either. How could they come to the determination that they had enough to overturn the call on field??

100% no doubt. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!

Look, I don't like the call either. It's one that is destined to go down in Cowboy lore along with the phantom pass interference against Bennie Barnes and the Hail Mary. I can't even look at the Rewind of the Cowboys-Packers game playing on NFL Network.

 

[tyke1doe]

No.
Please give me some of these "almost all other cases with similar plays". The only example I've seen shows a blatant and egregious double standard to what constitutes a catch.

I don't have a video catalogue. But in almost every game there's a call where a receiver catches the ball then it touches the ground, and the pass is ruled incomplete.

And I find it interesting that you ask me to give you an example and yet you can only recall one example which shows "blatant ...." Maybe the reason why you're so angry - aside from the fact that our favorite team didn't benefit form a call - is that these calls don't stand out enough to warrant concern or outrage, or maybe because it happens to another team, we really don't care. We only care when it happens to the Cowboys. But, I've seen it in many other games too. Sorry, I can't recall when because it's simply routine for me - or maybe I don't argue about it when it happens in other situations so it's not as pronounced.

 

[DogFace]

I don't have a video catalogue. But in almost every game there's a call where a receiver catches the ball then it touches the ground, and the pass is ruled incomplete.

And I find it interesting that you ask me to give you an example and yet you can only recall one example which shows "blatant ...." Maybe the reason why you're so angry - aside from the fact that our favorite team didn't benefit form a call - is that these calls don't stand out enough to warrant concern or outrage, or maybe because it happens to another team, we really don't care. We only care when it happens to the Cowboys. But, I've seen it in many other games too. Sorry, I can't recall when because it's simply routine for me - or maybe I don't argue about it when it happens in other situations so it's not as pronounced.

For you to compare this play with any routine play shows that you really don't have the ability to understand the facts of this play.
The reason there is one example is the reason this was so unjustified. It was a very rare play. You won't see another play like it. Only one that was similar except it wasn't as close.
The fact that you haven't even commented in either thread about the facts and similarities of both plays shows me you don't have an answer. You like to antagonize over the internet. That's cute. You can't come up with any examples. I'm surprised. You seem to have a non answer for everything.

Again in one play Blandino said Gresham dropping the ball immediately when he hit the ground but after 3 steps and a lunge on the last step while moving the ball to one hand was part of the catch.

Please don't put your poor attempt at psychoanalysis up as a reason why we all think it was a catch. That's weak and typical projection by someone who does have this weakness in critical thinking and judgment.

 

[tyke1doe]

For you to compare this play with any routine play shows that you really don't have the ability to understand the facts of this play.
The reason there is one example is the reason this was so unjustified. It was a very rare play. You won't see another play like it. Only one that was similar except it wasn't as close.
The fact that you haven't even commented in either thread about the facts and similarities of both plays shows me you don't have an answer. You like to antagonize over the internet. That's cute. You can't come up with any examples. I'm surprised. You seem to have a non answer for everything.

Again in one play Blandino said Gresham dropping the ball immediately when he hit the ground but after 3 steps and a lunge on the last step while moving the ball to one hand was part of the catch.

Please don't put your poor attempt at psychoanalysis up as a reason why we all think it was a catch. That's weak and typical projection by someone who does have this weakness in critical thinking and judgment.

You're simply upset, which is why you think I'm "antagonizing." Only those who have axes to grind think people are "antagonizing them.
And I remind you that YOU continue to respond to my posts. If you think I'm antagonizing you, then simply ignore my post. If you think I'm engaging in psychobabble, then you can ignore me. But the fact you CAN'T suggests either I've struck a nerve or you argument is bankrupt, and you're compelled to argue it because you're trying to convince yourself. Either way, the call still stands as incomplete, and the Cowboys are out of the playoffs.

Second, almost every referee or former referee who has commented on this situation has said almost the same thing - according to the rules Dez did not catch the ball. So instead of listening to their expert opinion, you and others have found some example of hypocrisy. How convenient.
Again, the people who are the guardians and the authority in interpreting the rules say Dez dropped the ball, according to the rules. But whenever people don't want to accept facts, they have to question the source or question authority. That's a pretty typical pattern, and it is being exhibited here by you and others.

Again, the bottom line is the play was called incomplete. The refs have reviewed the play and have verified it was the right call. You'll simply have to deal with it.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

You're simply upset, which is why you think I'm "antagonizing." Only those who have axes to grind think people are "antagonizing them.
And I remind you that YOU continue to respond to my posts. If you think I'm antagonizing you, then simply ignore my post. If you think I'm engaging in psychobabble, then you can ignore me. But the fact you CAN'T suggests either I've struck a nerve or you argument is bankrupt, and you're compelled to argue it because you're trying to convince yourself. Either way, the call still stands as incomplete, and the Cowboys are out of the playoffs.

Second, almost every referee or former referee who has commented on this situation has said almost the same thing - according to the rules Dez did not catch the ball. So instead of listening to their expert opinion, you and others have found some example of hypocrisy. How convenient.
Again, the people who are the guardians and the authority in interpreting the rules say Dez dropped the ball, according to the rules. But whenever people don't want to accept facts, they have to question the source or question authority. That's a pretty typical pattern, and it is being exhibited here by you and others.

Again, the bottom line is the play was called incomplete. The refs have reviewed the play and have verified it was the right call. You'll simply have to deal with it.

First: His argument is dead on. Spot on.

second. No offense, but you come off as smug and think you are more intelligent when it comes to OTHER human beings thought process, emotions, motivations, concerning...............themselves!!!! , etc etc. some advice. Stop doing that.

I suspect you have a lot to learn.....and not just about football. We all have a lot to learn, thats part of life, and it never stops. But i guarantee most people, especially older, see right through you. They have been you....

And this is untrue --- . "almost every referee or former referee who has commented on this situation has said almost the same thing - according to the rules Dez did not catch the ball.". ------------ simply BS, for a lack of a better term. A lot of these people, are "towing a line" and have to say it.....

Now i will concede there is a lot of that sentiment out there... "according to the rules Dez did not catch the ball.", But what it fails to mention, or what is lost in all of this, most of these guys have about 100 other priorities , they use this play as a way to get their name out there and face on TV, they follow the crowd and what the crowd says, and has looked at the play from a distance for maybe 20 minutes(not all, but most...thats my guess). I see it time and time again, in the articles I read in sports sections of newspaper, major sports media outlets and the like.. People are just trying to make the "question and answer" as short and inconvenient as possible in order to get to some other agenda....

And make no mistake. Its been proven by others on this forum. The NFL is in full blown CYA MODE.

And, this: "But whenever people don't want to accept facts, they have to question the source or question authority." --- There was a time when people, schools, governments taught other people to do EXACTLY THAT. "Question", and i think we need to get back to it, That is EXACTLY what people are suppose to do. Even if they think the authority figure is right("lord have mercy whats happened to this country").

And if you do that. If you "question" the call and authority making the call, and go over it. You will understand ....THE FACTS, that you speak of, are clear alright. It was a catch. It was a catch without these screwy rules. And it was a catch "WITH" these screwy rules. And , at the very least, after that being said, ........................................there wasn't enough to over turn the call on the field!!! no way no how

Sorry to get personal , and "preachy". But , I feel you took it to that level. And i felt compelled to post.

 

[tyke1doe]

First: His argument is dead on. Spot on.

Of course, you would say so because you agree with him.

second. No offense, but you come off as smug and think you are more intelligent when it comes to OTHER human beings thought process, emotions, motivations, concerning...............themselves!!!! , etc etc. some advice. Stop doing that.

Or, maybe you're being overly sensitive. If you've read the thread carefully, you'll notice the progression of the conversation. I'm not the one that got offensive and overly sensitive.
Second, you have no power to tell me what to do. You only have control over yourself. If you don't like what I say or you don't like my tone, then don't respond. It's simple as that.

I suspect you have a lot to learn.....and not just about football. We all have a lot to learn, thats part of life, and it never stops. But i guarantee most people, especially older, see right through you. They have been you....

I'm always learning. I hope you are too.

And this is untrue --- . "almost every referee or former referee who has commented on this situation has said almost the same thing - according to the rules Dez did not catch the ball.". ------------ simply BS, for a lack of a better term. A lot of these people, are "towing a line" and have to say it.....

So let me get this straight. You say that my comment is BS. Then you say a lot of them are "towing a line". Hhhhhmmm. So wouldn't that make my statement true? If a lot of them are towing the line, doesn't that also mean that I'm correct in saying they supported the call as it finally was rendered?

Second, it's interesting that you lecture me about trying to understand someone else's thought processes and then you say that the people who agreed Dez didn't catch the ball are "towing the line."

Uh, you're doing THE SAME THING. You are making an ASSUMPTION that because they agree with the call that they have a particular motivation for doing so.

See, this is why I say you guys are merely arguing to be arguing. You don't even apply your own logic to your own conclusions.

Now i will concede there is a lot of that sentiment out there... "according to the rules Dez did not catch the ball.", But what it fails to mention, or what is lost in all of this, most of these guys have about 100 other priorities , they use this play as a way to get their name out there and face on TV, they follow the crowd and what the crowd says, and has looked at the play from a distance for maybe 20 minutes(not all, but most...thats my guess). I see it time and time again, in the articles I read in sports sections of newspaper, major sports media outlets and the like.. People are just trying to make the "question and answer" as short and inconvenient as possible in order to get to some other agenda....

Yawn. So guys who are already on television are supporting the call because they want to get their names known? So they have 100 other priorities (and you would know this how?) and they're just following the crowd.
And then we have your expert opinion about people's motives based on your filmsy evaluation that you've seen it "time and time again."
Have you ever worked on television? Written for a newspaper? Played in the NFL? Coached in the NFL? Have you ever been an official of any sport? Professional level?
You apparently have no idea how the world works, which is why you're so taken aback by my comments and my perspective.
Pulease.

And make no mistake. Its been proven by others on this forum. The NFL is in full blown CYA MODE.

Really? Who proved this? Do they have anyone saying they are trying to cover up the call? You can't make a statement like that without proof of motive. You do understand that a component of a crime is motive? Just because things APPEAR to be one way doesn't mean they are. You have to establish motive. So what motive do the refs have against the Cowboys?

Please, your arguments are elementary in nature and conspiratorial at best. The only proof is that which exists in your Kool-aid drunken mind.

And, this: "But whenever people don't want to accept facts, they have to question the source or question authority." --- There was a time when people, schools, governments taught other people to do EXACTLY THAT. "Question", and i think we need to get back to it, That is EXACTLY what people are suppose to do. Even if they think the authority figure is right("lord have mercy whats happened to this country").

And that's also the reason why our nation is as divided as it is. That is also the reason why people don't respect authority. Yes, indeed, what has happened to this country.

And if you do that. If you "question" the call and authority making the call, and go over it. You will understand ....THE FACTS, that you speak of, are clear alright. It was a catch. It was a catch without these screwy rules. And it was a catch "WITH" these screwy rules. And , at the very least, after that being said, ........................................there wasn't enough to over turn the call on the field!!! no way no how

If it was a catch, then the Cowboys would have received the ball at the one yard line. But the Cowboys didn't. Therefore, it wasn't a catch. Your opinion doesn't matter. The opinion of those who referee the game and upheld the call is the only thing that matters. Sorry.

Sorry to get personal , and "preachy". But , I feel you took it to that level. And i felt compelled to post.

I don't take things personally. I can take it and dish it. I just think you're mad because I don't acquiesce. Really, that's the heart of the issue here. You and those like you want everyone to view the call as incorrect and join the groupthink that the refs are out to get us.

I don't subscribe to that. Furthermore, you want me to be quiet. You want me to go away. You don't like it that I have an alternative opinion and that I can articulate my opinion. And because I'm stubborn and you're stubborn, you got personal. I didn't get personal - well, at least not first. I was merely articulating dynamics, i.e., why I didn't think the refs were being bias and the ref in question hypocritical. And because I speak and write articulately, you guys think I'm trying to "talk down" on others. Well, that's not my problem. Maybe you guys need to pick up more books and read and expand your vocabulary. I am who I am, and you are who you are. I'm not responsible for your feelings of inadequacies.

Now we can continue this conversation or let sleeping dogs lie. It's up to you. I've not nearly exhausted the reservoir of my words.

 

[DogFace]

You're simply upset, which is why you think I'm "antagonizing." Only those who have axes to grind think people are "antagonizing them.
And I remind you that YOU continue to respond to my posts. If you think I'm antagonizing you, then simply ignore my post. If you think I'm engaging in psychobabble, then you can ignore me. But the fact you CAN'T suggests either I've struck a nerve or you argument is bankrupt, and you're compelled to argue it because you're trying to convince yourself. Either way, the call still stands as incomplete, and the Cowboys are out of the playoffs.

Second, almost every referee or former referee who has commented on this situation has said almost the same thing - according to the rules Dez did not catch the ball. So instead of listening to their expert opinion, you and others have found some example of hypocrisy. How convenient.
Again, the people who are the guardians and the authority in interpreting the rules say Dez dropped the ball, according to the rules. But whenever people don't want to accept facts, they have to question the source or question authority. That's a pretty typical pattern, and it is being exhibited here by you and others.

Again, the bottom line is the play was called incomplete. The refs have reviewed the play and have verified it was the right call. You'll simply have to deal with it.

Again, you won't comment on the identical plays being called differently. I love playing games like this with people like you.

 

[DogFace]

Of course, you would say so because you agree with him.



Or, maybe you're being overly sensitive. If you've read the thread carefully, you'll notice the progression of the conversation. I'm not the one that got offensive and overly sensitive.
Second, you have no power to tell me what to do. You only have control over yourself. If you don't like what I say or you don't like my tone, then don't respond. It's simple as that.



I'm always learning. I hope you are too.



So let me get this straight. You say that my comment is BS. Then you say a lot of them are "towing a line". Hhhhhmmm. So wouldn't that make my statement true? If a lot of them are towing the line, doesn't that also mean that I'm correct in saying they supported the call as it finally was rendered?

Second, it's interesting that you lecture me about trying to understand someone else's thought processes and then you say that the people who agreed Dez didn't catch the ball are "towing the line."

Uh, you're doing THE SAME THING. You are making an ASSUMPTION that because they agree with the call that they have a particular motivation for doing so.

See, this is why I say you guys are merely arguing to be arguing. You don't even apply your own logic to your own conclusions.



Yawn. So guys who are already on television are supporting the call because they want to get their names known? So they have 100 other priorities (and you would know this how?) and they're just following the crowd.
And then we have your expert opinion about people's motives based on your filmsy evaluation that you've seen it "time and time again."
Have you ever worked on television? Written for a newspaper? Played in the NFL? Coached in the NFL? Have you ever been an official of any sport? Professional level?
You apparently have no idea how the world works, which is why you're so taken aback by my comments and my perspective.
Pulease.



Really? Who proved this? Do they have anyone saying they are trying to cover up the call? You can't make a statement like that without proof of motive. You do understand that a component of a crime is motive? Just because things APPEAR to be one way doesn't mean they are. You have to establish motive. So what motive do the refs have against the Cowboys?

Please, your arguments are elementary in nature and conspiratorial at best. The only proof is that which exists in your Kool-aid drunken mind.



And that's also the reason why our nation is as divided as it is. That is also the reason why people don't respect authority. Yes, indeed, what has happened to this country.



If it was a catch, then the Cowboys would have received the ball at the one yard line. But the Cowboys didn't. Therefore, it wasn't a catch. Your opinion doesn't matter. The opinion of those who referee the game and upheld the call is the only thing that matters. Sorry.



I don't take things personally. I can take it and dish it. I just think you're mad because I don't acquiesce. Really, that's the heart of the issue here. You and those like you want everyone to view the call as incorrect and join the groupthink that the refs are out to get us.

I don't subscribe to that. Furthermore, you want me to be quiet. You want me to go away. You don't like it that I have an alternative opinion and that I can articulate my opinion. And because I'm stubborn and you're stubborn, you got personal. I didn't get personal - well, at least not first. I was merely articulating dynamics, i.e., why I didn't think the refs were being bias and the ref in question hypocritical. And because I speak and write articulately, you guys think I'm trying to "talk down" on others. Well, that's not my problem. Maybe you guys need to pick up more books and read and expand your vocabulary. I am who I am, and you are who you are. I'm not responsible for your feelings of inadequacies.

Now we can continue this conversation or let sleeping dogs lie. It's up to you. I've not nearly exhausted the reservoir of my words.

I love when people like you try to act smart. Is comical.
The call wasnt "upheld". It was over turned. Your attempt at symantics is lame and your understanding even of the basics of this play is wrong.

 

[tyke1doe]

Again, you won't comment on the identical plays being called differently. I love playing games like this with people like you.

Because unlike you, I won't render an opinion until I have all the facts. Why would I comment on the two plays if I didn't view the Bengals play? That doesn't really make much sense. But since you're droned on and on about it, I'll check it out when I get home. It seems ssssoooo important to you that I comment on a play I haven't seen. If it means that much to you, I'll watch you and give you my opinion later.