***The Second Call/NonCall good/bad conspiracy etc thread***merged**

[gimmesix]

Aside from lunging or not lunging, his feet hit the ground as Left-Right-Left. If he took 10 steps and then hit the ground in the same manner it would obviously have been a catch. How many steps is a catch and how many is not a catch?

The more I look at it, the more I see the lunge. When reviewing it yesterday, I did not see any real effort to lunge, but it is definitely there.

 

[gimmesix]

This is not true. He was not going to the ground until AFTER he had 2 feet down.

At what point had he established that he wasn't falling before he went to the ground? I don't see that point.

 

[Miller]

I know this might be unpopular but after watching the replay 20 times in a row on Mike & Mike a minute ago I think its very debatable about him extending the ball as a football move. I see the catch and it in his left hand but it truly looks like a land, stumble forward and the arm out is just part of the fall. When I saw it from the reverse angle and saw how Bryant's head was almost looking back into his chest as he landed, it made me think it was a stumble down all the way....thus needing to maintain possession, like pulling it to his chest.

 

[percyhoward]

Aside from lunging or not lunging, his feet hit the ground as Left-Right-Left. If he took 10 steps and then hit the ground in the same manner it would obviously have been a catch. How many steps is a catch and how many is not a catch?

He took two steps before he was ever contacted, and was then tripped. Otherwise, he scores.

 

[ohiocowboysfan25]

So bspn and some other media people said that Dez's best move would have been to just catch it and go to the ground and live for another down because it would have been a catch. I don't understand how it would be a catch if he just goes down but since he lunged it's not a catch. Am I missing something or is the rule just that messed up?

 

[gimmesix]

The question is whether he is falling down as part of the process of making the catch. For that to have been the case, either...

1) Dez would have had to be falling down on his own, or...

2) Dez would have had to be contacted while still in the air.

Neither of those things happened, which is why the field judge called it a catch. It was only upon the reversal that "catch, then two feet down, then contact" became "falling down as part of making the catch." That was where the idea came in of having to maintain control all the way to and after hitting the ground, when the field judge wasn't even concerned with that question.

OK. I think I see what is being said. The idea posited is that he leapt for the catch, came down under control with two feet down then was tripped up and fell/lunged for the goal line.

That's a close call because I'm not sure that at any point Dez established that he wasn't falling as a result of going high into the air to get the ball, whether there was contact or not.

 

[percyhoward]

I know this might be unpopular but after watching the replay 20 times in a row on Mike & Mike a minute ago I think its very debatable about him extending the ball as a football move. I see the catch and it in his left hand but it truly looks like a land, stumble forward and the arm out is just part of the fall. When I saw it from the reverse angle and saw how Bryant's head was almost looking back into his chest as he landed, it made me think it was a stumble down all the way.

It wasn't. His left foot comes down, then he takes a full stride with his right leg. At this point, he's basically upright and leaning slightly toward the end zone. That's when he's tripped, causing him to take less than a half-stride with the left leg as he goes down almost immediately. He was totally under control and headed into the end zone before the trip occurred.

 

[dupree89]

Very surprising. Mike Francesa, on WFAN and Fox Sports, is one of the biggest Dallas haters you can find...he just said he thinks it was a bad call. Like many of you have said, he was just saying its not about the rule, its about the interpretation of the rule. His take was like most...Dez caught the ball, had possession, took 2 steps, took the ball and reached out to the goal line, lost possession and then recovered it. Man, a major Cowboy hater says it should've been a fumble and a Dez recovery.

 

[gimmesix]

It wasn't. His left foot comes down, then he takes a full stride with his right leg. At this point, he's basically upright and leaning slightly toward the end zone. That's when he's tripped, causing him to take less than a half-stride with the left leg as he goes down almost immediately. He was totally under control and headed into the end zone before the trip occurred.

I guess that's where I side with the officials. It looks to me like he's in the act of falling the entire time.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

OK. I think I see what is being said. The idea posited is that he leapt for the catch, came down under control with two feet down then was tripped up and fell/lunged for the goal line.

That's a close call because I'm not sure that at any point Dez established that he wasn't falling as a result of going high into the air to get the ball, whether there was contact or not.

No doubt what so ever. Its close. whatever way you look at it, its close.

So, my point is: There has to be "Irrefutable Evidence"....... On something this close, and although I think it was a clear football move, that play was a close one; However, because its so close, you cant come to an Irrefutable Evidence stand and over turn that call. The dude that made this call, simply believed in himself and his mind reading capabilities, a little "too much". This guy is full of himself. or maybe he had an agenda??? whatever the case may be, it was a bad, bad ...bad call.

and if you put the rule together with the bad , bad............bad freaking call. Then the game looks like it was "doctored" or "fixed" or like its just "fake". --- who knows? maybe it is?

Lots of money going on with these plays. And one thing is for sure in life. where there is lots of money, there are lots of people willing do to whatever they got to do to ...get some of that money. Corruption. Thats a fact jack.

 

[percyhoward]

OK. I think I see what is being said. The idea posited is that he leapt for the catch, came down under control with two feet down then was tripped up and fell/lunged for the goal line.

That's what I'm saying, yes. I'm also convinced that this is what the field judge saw. There's no other explanation for the way he reacted to the play.

That's a close call because I'm not sure that at any point Dez established that he wasn't falling as a result of going high into the air to get the ball, whether there was contact or not.

Dez went up high, but he did not even come close to laying out for the ball. He was vertical, and got both feet down solidly. Look at Dez at the 4-yard line, and tell me it looks like he's falling down short of the goal line.

 

[dupree89]

I don't think there was an agenda against us, but it has crossed my mind that the NFL thought twice about awarding a close call our way after what went down last week.

exactly how I feel. After last week, the chances of Dallas getting any important 50-50 calls just was not going to happen. I do not think the NFL or the officials care who wins a game...but these officials are human. They read media reports from last week. In the back of their minds, and maybe not even intentional, there was that thought that a close, critical call can not goes Dallas' way this week.

 

[gimmesix]

No doubt what so ever. Its close. whatever way you look at it, its close.

So, my point is: There has to be "Irrefutable Evidence"....... On something this close, and although I think it was a clear football move, it was a close one, you can come to an Irrefutable Evidence stand and over turn that call. The dude that made this call, simply believed in himself and his mind reading capabilities, a little "too much". This guy is full of himself. or maybe he had an agenda??? whatever the case may be, it was a bad, bad ...bad call.

and if you put the rule together with the bad , bad............bad freaking call. Then the game looks like it was "doctored" or "fixed" or like its just "fake". --- who knows? maybe it is?

Lots of money going on with these plays. And one thing is for sure in life. where there is lots of money, there are lots of people willing do to whatever they got to do to ...get some of that money. Corruption. Thats a fact jack.

If the argument is irrefutable evidence, then I have to agree. Like I said, I saw it the way the officials called it. The more I look at it, the more I see Dez lunging for the end zone, making a "football move."

The best call would have been that there simply was not enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. I do believe by interpretation, though, the replay official called it within the guidelines of the rule: Player was going to the ground, ball made contact with the ground and moved, no indisputable football move. Since there was a question about that, though, it should have stood.

 

[percyhoward]

At what point had he established that he wasn't falling before he went to the ground? I don't see that point.

The field judge marked the ball dead inside the 1-yard line.

Ask yourself this question: What did the field judge see?

 

[gimmesix]

That's what I'm saying, yes. I'm also convinced that this is what the field judge saw. There's no other explanation for the way he reacted to the play.

[quote="gimmesix, post: 5934638, member: 1279"That's a close call because I'm not sure that at any point Dez established that he wasn't falling as a result of going high into the air to get the ball, whether there was contact or not.

Dez went up high, but he did not even come close to laying out for the ball. He was vertical, and got both feet down solidly. Look at Dez at the 4-yard line, and tell me it looks like he's falling down short of the goal line.

[/quote]

Body lean is forward and both players look like they might be stumbling. I hate taking a still shot and concentrating on it because the entire process here was what was under review.

I do agree that the field judge must have seen it as you describe. I can only assume that when it was viewed on replay, the officials believe he was in the act of falling the entire time.

 

[gimmesix]

The field judge marked the ball dead inside the 1-yard line.

Ask yourself this question: What did the field judge see?

He saw a player catch the ball, take multiple steps and fall to the ground. Possibly he also saw the lunge. That doesn't mean he was correct because he's making a split-second judgment, but as I've said, I do believe on further review that Dez lunged for the goal line, but I don't think it was so clear-cut that it couldn't have been considered a part of going to the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

I do agree that the field judge must have seen it as you describe. I can only assume that when it was viewed on replay, the officials believe he was in the act of falling the entire time.

And I agree that just because the field judge saw it that way, that doesn't mean he was right. But I think what happened is that the field judge saw the trip, and the replay official did not.

That trip is very easy to miss, unless you look at it from about the same angle the field judge had. And even then, if you've already decided that it's all about whether he maintained control throughout, then you're just watching the ball, and not looking for the trip anyway.

 

[Miller]

It wasn't. His left foot comes down, then he takes a full stride with his right leg. At this point, he's basically upright and leaning slightly toward the end zone. That's when he's tripped, causing him to take less than a half-stride with the left leg as he goes down almost immediately. He was totally under control and headed into the end zone before the trip occurred.

Watch this. There is no trip, they just are going down together. After he gets ball at highest point it is one motion of taking the steps and to the ground. Believe me, its a stupid rule and he had possession in air and on his feet but if they are doing this by the letter of the law then it is him going to the ground. The only way for it to be ruled a catch was for him to just put it to his chest or not have it bounce up once he hits. I definitely don't think he is stretching it out vs it being part of his momentum. I think the other angle from sideline is even better

 

[JoeBoBBY]

Dez went up high, but he did not even come close to laying out for the ball. He was vertical, and got both feet down solidly. Look at Dez at the 4-yard line, and tell me it looks like he's falling down short of the goal line.

Body lean is forward and both players look like they might be stumbling. I hate taking a still shot and concentrating on it because the entire process here was what was under review.

I do agree that the field judge must have seen it as you describe. I can only assume that when it was viewed on replay, the officials believe he was in the act of falling the entire time.

In that pic. Right about at that point, Dez sees the endzone, switches the freaking ball into another hand and start to attempt a leap twoards the endzone....

how many football moves need to be proven?

and for a professional referee, who is , i guess, trained to review these types of plays. To NOT see all of that, is ....inexcusable.... foul; he should be fired!!!

 

[links18]

Anyone catch how Steratore announced the reversal? "It has been determined that......." Determined by whom?