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

[tyke1doe]

The question is how do you tweak the rule? My understanding is it was put in place expressly to reduce the amount of opinion involved in decided if a catch was completed or not.

Seems to me the only solution is to make it less procedural and more of a judgement call.

And you'll still get arguments and controversies.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Sigh.

The particulars are different: no catch vs. pass interference.
The scenario is exactly the same: The Cowboys fans think they were jobbed. The Lions fans think they were jobbed. The Cowboys fans think the fix was in for their team. The Lions fans think the fix was in for their team.

Sigh.

The scenarios were far different.

Detroit was LEADING by 3 points. It was also on THIRD down. Had the penalty been called, it puts the ball on the Dallas *30* yard line. And there is still *8* minutes to go. The play is NOT a reviewable play.

Dallas was TRAILING by 5 points. It was on FOURTH down. Had the catch been called, it puts the ball on the Green Bay *1/2* yard line. And there is ONLY about 4 minutes to go. And this play WAS reviewed.

And everybody talks about the Lions play, but the fact was that before that play, Dallas got screwed on not 1, but 2 calls in that Lions game (Williams offensive PI that turned a 3rd down conversion into a 3rd and 12 and a Murray TD that got called back due to a bogus holding call which the NFL later admitted was bogus). The difference was that Dallas overcame those penalties and the Lions couldn't overcome a penalty that just wasn't very punishing (still had the ball 4th and 1 on the Dallas 40 yard line).

In the Green Bay game, the only call I can think of that was not a good call that went against the Packers was the PI on the corner on a Terrance Williams route. Although you could clearly see what the ref saw...the defender hooked Williams a little and then Williams fell to the ground. Other than that, nothing really happened to the Packers in a negative fashion. They somehow called a catch before the half for the Packers on a pass where the point of the ball not only hit the ground once, but twice.

The real difference here is that Cowboys fans are not expecting the Packers to apologize for their victory. The Lions fans and the media wanted Dallas to apologize for their victory even though when you look at the circumstances, the non-catch was not only far more egregious of an error (it's a reviewable play) it had a far more punishing outcome.

And Lions fans act like the game was won if they got the call. My observation is that Cowboys fans realize that the game wasn't over because all the Packers had to do was score a FG to either win the game or tie it up. We just would have liked to have gotten the chance to see if we could have stopped them.




YR

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Spare me, Ken. He held and interfered on the same play.

No pi. He didn't interfere . Contact doesn't mean interference. You cam post a pic of his Hand placed on his shoulder but common physics tell you zero illegal interference.

Hold and facemask both ways yes.





If the end zone wasn't there dez doesn't dive for it. Thus he had possession and was a runner Advancing the ball. Forward progress and all that. Another permutation: if he was hit at that point and the ball was dislodged would that not be a fumble?

 

[Staubacher]

I can discuss whatever I want. And so can you. That's the beauty of a board that appreciates free speech.

Yes you can. Yet you have added nothing of substance to what I originally posted on this thread, the fact that the call was overturned improperly and the guy who is defending that overturn made the exact opposite argument a year ago on a similar play.

You can keep making your same point about fans. But I created this thread and will not let you hijack it like you keep trying to do.

There is free speech and there is respect. You have shown no respect or the maturity you claim to have in this thread. I presented facts and evidence and left it to discussion. You keep stomping your feet and saying "quit talking about it".

 

[khiladi]

The league is also going to 'review' whether the NFL referees afforded adequate communication to the Ravens to adjust to the ineligible receiver of the Patriots on those plays. I'm sure they will make changes after the fact as well..

 

[CowboyChris]

If I was the owner, I would use all my resources to get rid of this Blandino guy from the NFL, I would call that idiot commisioner first, and give him a nice profane earful, and so on down the line.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I didn't say it did. The point was 'what if'. You can beat yourself to death with what ifs. Not gonna change the outcome. .02

That's true. Some people get over things more easily, but I think some of us still have to vent.

 

[tyke1doe]

No, it would not have made a difference. That's basically the Calvin Johnson move. CJ was in the end zone already. He catches the ball and his momentum takes his arm to the ground as the ball touches it.
Because Dez catches the ball, but his momentum is taking him towards the ground, he would have had to maintain possession all the way to the ground even if he had gotten into the end zone.

 

[tyke1doe]

Sigh.

The scenarios were far different.

Detroit was LEADING by 3 points. It was also on THIRD down. Had the penalty been called, it puts the ball on the Dallas *30* yard line. And there is still *8* minutes to go. The play is NOT a reviewable play.

Dallas was TRAILING by 5 points. It was on FOURTH down. Had the catch been called, it puts the ball on the Green Bay *1/2* yard line. And there is ONLY about 4 minutes to go. And this play WAS reviewed.

And everybody talks about the Lions play, but the fact was that before that play, Dallas got screwed on not 1, but 2 calls in that Lions game (Williams offensive PI that turned a 3rd down conversion into a 3rd and 12 and a Murray TD that got called back due to a bogus holding call which the NFL later admitted was bogus). The difference was that Dallas overcame those penalties and the Lions couldn't overcome a penalty that just wasn't very punishing (still had the ball 4th and 1 on the Dallas 40 yard line).

In the Green Bay game, the only call I can think of that was not a good call that went against the Packers was the PI on the corner on a Terrance Williams route. Although you could clearly see what the ref saw...the defender hooked Williams a little and then Williams fell to the ground. Other than that, nothing really happened to the Packers in a negative fashion. They somehow called a catch before the half for the Packers on a pass where the point of the ball not only hit the ground once, but twice.

The real difference here is that Cowboys fans are not expecting the Packers to apologize for their victory. The Lions fans and the media wanted Dallas to apologize for their victory even though when you look at the circumstances, the non-catch was not only far more egregious of an error (it's a reviewable play) it had a far more punishing outcome.

And Lions fans act like the game was won if they got the call. My observation is that Cowboys fans realize that the game wasn't over because all the Packers had to do was score a FG to either win the game or tie it up. We just would have liked to have gotten the chance to see if we could have stopped them.

YR

I basically addressed all that.

 

[khiladi]

It's not even an issue about reviewing the ball. The NFL has already declared minimum there was controversy in interpreting whether it was part of the process. What's the most egregious part about it, is replay overturned what was a catch, which the referees declared, only to overturn it on grounds on what at minimum they know is disputable.

No other case people give as an analogy includes this, from what I know.

We were robbed, plain and simple.

 

[Risen Star]

By who's measure? The NFL said that he did not interfere but holding could have been called. I highly question even the hold because he did not impede the receivers progress.

The only problem with that play was how it was called on the field without confering with all of the officials before announcing it and moving the ball. It should have been no call because both players were hand 'checking'.

That is the fact of the matter....

The NFL said the contact could have been called either way. To me it was clear cut PI. After a glaring hold.

The problem with that play is the Lions got screwed on it.

No fan spin. No homeristic nonsense. Just the facts.

 

[khiladi]

We win... That challenge was an act of desperation.

 

[JS22]

I guess i didnt take the loss/catch as bad as i usually would, low expectations for the season, etc. I find myself getting madder the more i think about it and watch the play.
Who knows, we could have failed the 2 points and rodgers had plenty of time for a td, much less a fg.

As far as jerry, what purpose would it serve?

I was pretty pissed when it was overturned. An hour or so later I calmed down, realized they had a surprising season, and looked forward to seeing what they'd do with the defense in the offseason.

But the more and more I watch the replay, the more disappointed I get. I could even accept the "Calvin Johnson rule" if it was called incomplete in the first place. But the fact that it was ruled a catch and then overturned just sucks. There is NO WAY it was conclusive. Therefore, you do not overturn.

Blandino's "he didn't make "enough of a football move"" supports this. There cannot be any grey area when overturning a call. He either made the move or he didn't. And if you're not sure, the call stands. The next day he goes into damage control mode and changes his opinion.

Do I think GB would have scored? I'd say probably. But we'll never get a chance to find out.

Oh well. On to next year. Add some pieces to the defense and pray Romo stays upright.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

They don't feel like crying over spilled milk?

Whether they complain about it so the whole world hears it, complains about it behind the scenes with the NFL or never say a word about it ...it does not change the fact that the game is over, the packers advance and cowboys season is over.

Maybe if they complain about it behind the scenes, they might get the rule changed for the future.

Either way, complaining about it in the open, like fans are doing, is not going to magically put us back into the game with the seahawks and make the packers sit home just like if the lions brass complained about it the would have changed the results and let the lions play the packers.

It's over, nothing can do to change that the cowboys season is over.

 

[Risen Star]

Particularly a fan of another team that has been conspicuously absent throughout this 12-4 season.

Remember when they were around here every day telling us RG3 and that dumbed down offense was the wave of the future?

Good times.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yes you can. Yet you have added nothing of substance to what I originally posted on this thread, the fact that the call was overturned improperly and the guy who is defending that overturn made the exact opposite argument a year ago on a similar play.

You can keep making your same point about fans. But I created this thread and will not let you hijack it like you keep trying to do.

There is free speech and there is respect. You have shown no respect or the maturity you claim to have in this thread. I presented facts and evidence and left it to discussion. You keep stomping your feet and saying "quit talking about it".

First, I appreciate you starting a thread and provoking discussion. But this is not your forum exclusively.

Second, I offered an opinion. You and others didn't like the opinion. Instead of dismissing it or ignoring it, you and others continue to respond to my comments. And I keep responding. Apparently, people think enough of my point that they're moved to discuss it. If they weren't, then they would have ignored my comments, and my point would have died a quick death - which would have been okay with me. But I like to discuss and hammer my point of view just as you like to hammer and discuss yours.

Third, I never said you should quit talking about it. I'm merely adding perspective, particularly when Cowboys fans think somehow the league is out to get them. And what I said is that the Lions fans were saying the same thing last week. I'm not the one trying to argue to the nth degree why somehow we have a legitimate reason to be upset and the Lions fans don't.

 

[Doomsday101]

Let's say, for discussion purposes, that the Dez play isn't overturned and the Cowboys score on the next play (highly likely).

I assume the Cowboys go for 2 at that point to make it a 3 point game. Anybody know the average conversion rate on 2 pt conversions. How about the Cowboys conversion percentage for the season.

At that point the Packers have the ball with 3:30 - 4:00 minutes left and 0 time-outs.

What scenarios play out?

The one I think is most likely is the Packers drive down and end up kicking a field goal with maybe 1 minute left and the Cowboys have maybe a minute or so to try to the same.

I suspect the game goes into overtime.

Has anybody used the game outcome calculator to see what the odds of the Cowboys and/or Packers win is based on the outcome of the over-turned call. I ready somewhere that either way the Packers had a greater likelihood of winning, however, that seems odd to me since the Cowboys would have the lead in the scenario where Dez is given that catch.

I don't know, the defense over the course of the season feed off the momentum, coming up with several big plays and turnovers in these situation even vs team who had moved the ball earlier in the game. How would this game have played out? We will never know

 

[superonyx]

It's called perspective. It's called understanding that we might ourselves be biased. It's called understanding that other people in the world can make the same gripe about perceived slights and wrongs. It's called understanding that the world is not out to get you. It's called being aware of issues and dynamics that impact everyone so you're not thrown off course because you think the world and everyone in it is against you. It's, again, called perspective.



But the arguments here are there's a difference. That "even if" is huge.



And why are you so concerned about those you call trolls? Why can't you simply ignore them?
See how that works?
And just as you can be upset and vent, I can offer perspective. This forum is inclusive enough for that too, you know.

It's your version of perspective. Who are you to assume that someone who feels like they were screwed out of that game somehow believes the world is out to get them? You make many assumptions.

Why do you feel that your "perspective" is so valuable that you continue to force it on people again and again and again for 6 pages in this thread? It sounds like you are one of those last word fighters that somehow feels like people agree with you once they get tired of your act.

And to answer your question, I am not so concerned about a troll as you want me to be. I am not the one that keeps going on over and over with the same tired " perspective " for 6 pages. Your views and thoughts are not that impressive.

So keep replying and keep saying the same thing until everyone else has moved on and turned a deaf ear to you. After all you have that free speech right.

 

[JS22]

Owners don't get mad. At the end of the day they are sleeping on top of rolls of 100's. And us suckers care too much sleep on the couch for yelling at the tv and enraging wifey....lol

I guarantee you behind the scenes he is furious. I give Jerry credit, he always wants to win. But as an owner you simply do not vent in public.

 

[JohnsKey19]

You make the in-game dialogue between the refs at the game and the NFL office in NY(Blandino & co.) public to AT LEAST the 2 teams that are playing that actual game. The 2 teams would have the chance to review all dialogue after the game is played. The NFL needs to do something to boost the perception of integrity of the officiating and this would be a good start.