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

[Swanny]

Not saying they shouldn't have let the call stand, but the video evidence shows the ball hitting the ground and then the ball moving, what made it move at that point is irrelevant because it moved after hitting the ground. That evidence is indisputable. We can say the shoulder pad caused it to move, but because the ball hit the ground and then moved, no official is going to agree with that.

So it comes down to was he in the process of going to the ground or had he made a football move/was he making a football move? I believe from what I see that he was going to the ground, but made a lunge for the goal line. I also believe there was not enough indisputable evidence to say that he wasn't making a football move, so the call should have not been overturned ... but the problem is that determining what constitutes a football move is at the discretion of the officials.

This is exactly right.... with the call on the field as a completed catch I don't understand how the ref is 100 percent sure Dez didn't make a football move. If the call on the field was incomplete pass the play should have stayed incomplete because... well I don't have to go over that we all know why

 

[tideh20heel]

Not saying they shouldn't have let the call stand, but the video evidence shows the ball hitting the ground and then the ball moving, what made it move at that point is irrelevant because it moved after hitting the ground. That evidence is indisputable. We can say the shoulder pad caused it to move, but because the ball hit the ground and then moved, no official is going to agree with that.

So it comes down to was he in the process of going to the ground or had he made a football move/was he making a football move? I believe from what I see that he was going to the ground, but made a lunge for the goal line. I also believe there was not enough indisputable evidence to say that he wasn't making a football move, so the call should have not been overturned ... but the problem is that determining what constitutes a football move is at the discretion of the officials.

It was determined a football move by the official on the field as evidenced by spot of down by contact. Nothing in the video was conclusive that it wasn't. They had no business over turning this the call should have stood. They were determined to apply that rule and they did.

 

[gimmesix]

I don't know how you do that because even if you simplify the rule, you still will have refs trying to determine what a catch is. Does a guy catching the ball, taking two steps on his way to the ground because of his momentum, qualify as a catch? You still have the same situation.

I think you remove the silly going to the ground part of the equation. If the receiver has the ball in his hands and gets two feet down, it's a catch. That takes having to make a judgment call out of it.

 

[tyke1doe]

I think you remove the silly going to the ground part of the equation. If the receiver has the ball in his hands and gets two feet down, it's a catch. That takes having to make a judgment call out of it.

I hate to use this example, and maybe I read it here, but someone said they may have to move to a definition of a "catch" similar to the legal definition of "porn," i.e., you can't describe it, but you know it when you see it. I think it's clear Dez caught the ball. I don't think the fact that he continues to the ground, and the ball touches the ground should negate the catch any more than it should have negated Calvin Johnson's catch.

 

[jobberone]

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.

I would get rid of it. The ground shouldn't cause a fumble or incompletion. JMO.

 

[Hook'em#11]

Good god, it's over.. Let it go.. It was a catch.. This is known.. However, the rule is the damn rule.. And, should be changed..

Dallas got away with a call against them against Detroit. Dallas got a break.

This week, it was Green Bay's turn. Dallas had plenty of opportunities to put the game away , they didn't. Just like Detroit still could of made some plays. They didn't..

Stop being like Lions fans.

 

[gimmesix]

It was determined a football move by the official on the field as evidenced by spot of down by contact. Nothing in the video was conclusive that it wasn't. They had no business over turning this the call should have stood. They were determined to apply that rule and they did.

I don't have an issue with anything you're saying here, other than saying they were determined to apply that rule. I do think they went into the replay specifically looking at whether the ball hit the ground and came out, which caused them to fail to consider if there was indisputable evidence that he did not make a football move. Of course, with the subjective nature of the rule, they could have looked at the replay and simply decided nothing Dez did was a football move.

That's very questionable at best, especially the lunge, but the nature of the rule is allowing officials to decide that, which leaves one more thing up to the officials' discretion.

I think it was a poor choice, but I don't think we can say it was one officials were determined to make. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they were trying their best to make sure they made the right call, however it turned out.

 

[DFWJC]

What if the flag isn't picked up against Detroit?

Or if they had actually thrown the flag on the 7 plays they said they missed on Detroit. Two on actual Detroit scoring plays.
Guess we'll never know.

 

[gimmesix]

I hate to use this example, and maybe I read it here, but someone said they may have to move to a definition of a "catch" similar to the legal definition of "porn," i.e., you can't describe it, but you know it when you see it. I think it's clear Dez caught the ball. I don't think the fact that he continues to the ground, and the ball touches the ground should negate the catch any more than it should have negated Calvin Johnson's catch.

I agree with this, but I don't think you can use such a open definition. I think you have to say if the player has the ball secured at the point at which he has two feet down, it's a catch. If the receiver is bobbling the ball at that point, it is not a catch until it is grasped. That will result in more plays being called fumbles because of defenders knocking the ball loose after that point, but I have no problem with that.

 

[tideh20heel]

clear control+ two feet down= catch. These idiots don't need to be given anything else to think about it only confuses them. Also get rid of the hood crap. That dog and pony show only slows things down.

 

[Rockport]

After that throw and catch the defense would've been pumped up and just maybe played over their head enough to stop them 4 and out. Sure would've been nice to see how it would've played out.

 

[Frozen700]

I hate this argument.
Guess what? We were in the situation. Guess what? So were the Packers.

Good for them. They won. We didn't. So don't get put in the situation. Get it?

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Good god, it's over.. Let it go..

I still haven't got over them flagging Benny Barnes for PI in SB 8, so I doubt I'll let this go any time soon. I hope it sticks in everyone's craw, eats at us and makes us angry, especially the team. I want it to motivate them. I want the team to come back angry and mean next season, and ready to kick some behind. The fans too, be loud and rowdy for the Boys next year.

 

[Miguelitomama]

I hate to say it but even before they overturned it, I knew we had a steep climb. Somehow the defense couldn't figure out the Packers in the 4th quarter. I don't know if they were setting up differently or if Rodgers is the god that Joe Buck seems to say.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

Good for them. They won. We didn't. So don't get put in the situation. Get it?

The greatest teams and coaches ever assembled routinely get put in that position.....
You know, there is another Team out there too....

nice pic.

 

[sbark]

A thousand different possibilities from that point on...............maybe another very controversial call on top of the other 2 (Cobb/Dez). That is football, but I'd rather lose with Rogers taking it the length of the field that have basically a bureaucratic process inject an opinion and determine the outcome.

 

[Nightman]

WR catches a pass, gets 2 feet in bounds and is hit by DB as he goes out of bounds.

If he stays on his feet and loses the ball it's a catch

If he goes to the ground and loses the ball it's not a catch

That is how confusing and stupid the rule is

 

[LittleLexodus]

It makes the loss easier to cope with by saying Rodgers would have marched them straight down the field for a GW FG or TD, but somehow deep down....I know we could've made a stop/turnover to win the game.

This will sting forever.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

If the call was correctly made, then we probably score on the next play and that leaves the Packers with about 3:40 left on the clock with no timeouts. We would then have to go for 2 to put us up by 3 points.

I would assume they would get the ball back on the kickoff to about the 25 to 30 yard line.

They would probably need to get Crosby to the Dallas 35 yard line to get him comfortably within his range. So they basically have to go 40-45 yards with the 2 minute warning left.

I think the defense plays soft with the safeties and the linebackers and tight with the corners.

The big thing would be to look out for a pick by Carter. When he doesn't have to worry about the run, he's really freaking good at not biting on fakes and not getting fooled by the positioning of the QB's helmet. He is more focused on diagnosing the play correctly and knowing where he needs to be.

Not having a timeout is very difficult for an offense because one tackle in bounds wastes a lot of time off the clock.

Would have been nice to have seen because even if we ended up losing, we could say that the better team actually won the game instead of the officials leaving it in doubt.




YR

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

What % of football fans are Cowboys fans? Isnt it about 11-12%?

How ironic that last week we get the flag picked up and the RIGHT call made instead of letting the wrong call stand and we have close to 90% of football fans screaming. This week we have the right call made and then its changed to the WRONG call and those same 90% are celebrating and defending it.