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

[Direwolf63]

Not a big fan of the NFLN by any means but if we did get the catch and eventual TD I am guessing the odds were pretty high that Rodgers would have marched them right down the field and won on a last second FG. If we had TCOB the silly call wouldn't have mattered.
So sick of hearing about this.........

Give me the TD and I'll take my chances.

But we never got the chance to try to hold the lead. And that is a disgrace.

 

[dwreck27]

You shouldnt be surprised that the Station that is owned and operated by the entity who is doing damage control is prbly enforcing on their employees to agree with the league

 

[Boyzmamacita]

They spent a whole week saying we got away with one against Detroit. Now they're spending a whole week saying we weren't screwed against Green Bay. In both cases, Cowboy Nation is just wrong. How convenient.

 

[LittleLexodus]

Not a big fan of the NFLN by any means but if we did get the catch and eventual TD I am guessing the odds were pretty high that Rodgers would have marched them right down the field and won on a last second FG. If we had TCOB the silly call wouldn't have mattered.
So sick of hearing about this.........

I am in full agreement with this actually and it makes the overturn sting less.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

You shouldnt be surprised that the Station that is owned and operated by the entity who is doing damage control is prbly enforcing on their employees to agree with the league

Why didn't they do damage control with the Detroit call? They said they were wrong about that one. We get screwed and they say they were right. Figures.

 

[Idgit]

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but since I didn't see this posted elsewhere....

 

[Beast_from_East]

32 pages........................wow.........................I think its time to let it go guys, nothing can be said that has not already been said.

Yea, I think we got robbed by a very bad interpretation of the Calvin Johnson rule that was influenced by the bad press the league received from the picked up flag in the Detroit game.

But that's sports, sometimes you lose a game off a bad call............it happens in virtually every sport...........but you got to move on and put it behind you because nothing can or will be done to change the outcome of the game.

 

[DogFace]

First, I didn't see the Cincinnati play so I can't comment on it.
Second, I thought it was a catch.
Third, as it was explained to me, the fact that Dez caught the ball and in one continuous motion goes to the ground (whether he intended to or not), if the ball makes contact with the ground, it's an incomplete pass.
Fourth, just because a ref calls it one way in one game and not in another doesn't necessarily mean bias. Refs are human. I'm a baseball umpire. Sometimes my strike zone is high, sometimes it's low. I'm not trying to be bias. I try to be consistent, but because I'm human, I don't always get it right.

You really don't need to see the play. The refs comment about it are in this thread.
When one ref makes two different rulings on nearly identical plays that means something. By nearly I mean they both involved a player catching the ball and falling. In the Bengals catch he said once his second foot landed the process of the catch was over. We know what he said about the Dez catch.
There were quotes from the same official reguarding both plays. They were a complete contradiction to each other.

I don't know if that's a bias, which to some is out of the relm of possibility, or stupidity or overcompensation for making the right call against Detroit but feeling the pressure from the media or whoever. Either way it's crap. To put it nicely.

 

[tyke1doe]

You really don't need to see the play. The refs comment about it are in this thread.
When one ref makes two different rulings on nearly identical plays that means something.

So what are you saying it means? Bias? Intentionally trying to rule against the Cowboys?
I'm a baseball umpire. I've called plays differently. Sometimes, that's a product of growth and understanding my craft and the rules. Sometimes, it's based on other variables such as the players, the fact they're not swinging at balls they should be, the height of the player, whether they're standing too close to the base, etc.

I just don't see this conspiracy against the Cowboys. And if one is suggesting there is (not saying you are but some are saying that), then it's going to take more than surface similarities.

By nearly I mean they both involved a player catching the ball and falling. In the Bengals catch he said once his second foot landed the process of the catch was over. We know what he said about the Dez catch.
There were quotes from the same official reguarding both plays. They were a complete contradiction to each other.

Did you see the play? You say not seeing the play doesn't matter. I'd have to see the play to see the context of his comments.

I don't know if that's a bias, which to some is out of the relm of possibility, or stupidity or overcompensation for making the right call against Detroit but feeling the pressure from the media or whoever. Either way it's crap. To put it nicely.

Bias occurs. It's not out of the realm of possibility. However, if you're going to claim bias, then I want more than what's being presented now.

 

[DogFace]

So what are you saying it means? Bias? Intentionally trying to rule against the Cowboys?
I'm a baseball umpire. I've called plays differently. Sometimes, that's a product of growth and understanding my craft and the rules. Sometimes, it's based on other variables such as the players, the fact they're not swinging at balls they should be, the height of the player, whether they're standing too close to the base, etc.

I just don't see this conspiracy against the Cowboys. And if one is suggesting there is (not saying you are but some are saying that), then it's going to take more than surface similarities.



Did you see the play? You say not seeing the play doesn't matter. I'd have to see the play to see the context of his comments.



Bias occurs. It's not out of the realm of possibility. However, if you're going to claim bias, then I want more than what's being presented now.

I have no way of knowing Blandino's motivation. It could be overcompensation for the wrongly perceived correct call in Detriot. The media asking him everyday for a week while acting like it was a robbery didn't help keep his mind unbiased. I don't know. He may just be stupid and that often leads to poor judgment. It would be nice for someone in the sports media to remind him of this quote about this play so he can see the complete inconsistent double talk.

Yes. I watched the play live. I didn't think it would be upheld as a catch because as soon as he hit the ground he lost the ball. It's what he says that makes his latest ruling seem almost like cheating. He says once the receivers second foot is down it's a catch and the fall and subsequent drop of the ball doesn't matter because it is no longer part of the catch.
Then the Dez play you can see he had the ball longer, switched hands, and lunged for the end zone but that was all part of the catch.

So what I'm saying is the Dez play was so much more of a catch than that play that a reasonable person would have trouble believing he could call one a catch that was close to a drop then one a drop that wasn't nearly as close. Or close at all.

 

[tyke1doe]

I have no way of knowing Blandino's motivation. It could be overcompensation for the wrongly perceived correct call in Detriot. The media asking him everyday for a week while acting like it was a robbery didn't help keep his mind unbiased. I don't know. He may just be stupid and that often leads to poor judgment. It would be nice for someone in the sports media to remind him of this quote about this play so he can see the complete inconsistent double talk.

Yes. I watched the play live. I didn't think it would be upheld as a catch because as soon as he hit the ground he lost the ball. It's what he says that makes his latest ruling seem almost like cheating. He says once the receivers second foot is down it's a catch and the fall and subsequent drop of the ball doesn't matter because it is no longer part of the catch.
Then the Dez play you can see he had the ball longer, switched hands, and lunged for the end zone but that was all part of the catch.

So what I'm saying is the Dez play was so much more of a catch than that play that a reasonable person would have trouble believing he could call one a catch that was close to a drop then one a drop that wasn't nearly as close. Or close at all.

Well, I didn't see the catch so I can't really comment. Do you have a link to the video of the catch? Was it included in this thread?

Second, maybe that was his understanding at the time, and he later has a better understanding of the rule. That happens. It's not always that someone is purposely being inconsistent. And as an umpire myself, who is always in the process of learning the game and the rules, I can understand from that perspective.

 

[DogFace]

Well, I didn't see the catch so I can't really comment. Do you have a link to the video of the catch? Was it included in this thread?

Second, maybe that was his understanding at the time, and he later has a better understanding of the rule. That happens. It's not always that someone is purposely being inconsistent. And as an umpire myself, who is always in the process of learning the game and the rules, I can understand from that perspective.

There you go. New thread called "this isn't funny" documents hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[tyke1doe]

There you go. New thread called "this isn't funny" documents hypocrisy at its finest.

Everybody's a hypocrite. I think that term is so overused, it's almost meaningless now.
What people do is they find some point in your life where you aren't acting the same way you are now. And if they disagree with you or your position, they cry "hypocrisy."

Of course, they generally don't take into account:

1. Personal growth, i.e., the way a person acted in the past does not mean the person still acts the same way; the values one held as a youth may not be the values one holds as an adult; the decisions one makes with inexperience are not the same decision one makes when one has more experience, etc.

2. Context, people love to pull statements and situations out of context to prove hypocrisy. You can make ANYONE and EVERYONE a hypocrite by taking his/her statement out of context.

3. Lack of understanding, some people's view of life is so limited that they can understand or grasp the nuances of life. So they generalize everything and call it hypocritical because they don't understand the specifics and distinctions that may validate one decision from another, one action from another, even if they look the same.

We can argue this issue until the cows come home. At the end of this discussion, it's not going to change anything. The Packers still won. And we're still left with our "what ifs" and trying to find out what motivated someone to render a decision that didn't benefit us.

Shrug.

 

[DogFace]

Everybody's a hypocrite. I think that term is so overused, it's almost meaningless now.
What people do is they find some point in your life where you aren't acting the same way you are now. And if they disagree with you or your position, they cry "hypocrisy."

Of course, they generally don't take into account:

1. Personal growth, i.e., the way a person acted in the past does not mean the person still acts the same way; the values one held as a youth may not be the values one holds as an adult; the decisions one makes with inexperience are not the same decision one makes when one has more experience, etc.

2. Context, people love to pull statements and situations out of context to prove hypocrisy. You can make ANYONE and EVERYONE a hypocrite by taking his/her statement out of context.

3. Lack of understanding, some people's view of life is so limited that they can understand or grasp the nuances of life. So they generalize everything and call it hypocritical because they don't understand the specifics and distinctions that may validate one decision from another, one action from another, even if they look the same.

We can argue this issue until the cows come home. At the end of this discussion, it's not going to change anything. The Packers still won. And we're still left with our "what ifs" and trying to find out what motivated someone to render a decision that didn't benefit us.

Shrug.

Ok that's a wonderful diatribe on someone's personal growth. Who's? No one significant to this discussion.

Now your lack of comment on the demonstrated hypocrisy, that was the two differnt explanations for nearly identical plays that couldn't be impacted by "personal growth", tells me you have no answer and thus those who have pointed out the hypocrite are right.
Personal regression and dishonesty possibly could be a factor. Not growth.

 

[tyke1doe]

Ok that's a wonderful diatribe on someone's personal growth. Who's? No one significant to this discussion.

Sigh. My point is you seem to think the difference is a matter of hypocrisy. Maybe it's a matter of him better understanding the rule.

Now your lack of comment on the demonstrated hypocrisy, that was the two differnt explanations for nearly identical plays that couldn't be impacted by "personal growth", tells me you have no answer and thus those who have pointed out the hypocrite are right.
Personal regression and dishonesty possibly could be a factor. Not growth.

Actually, I'm not making an accusation. YOU ARE. So you're the one who has to prove hypocrisy. And hypocrisy goes to motive. Good luck with that one. I'm merely explaining why two situations might be different and call for different responses. That's not an answer. It's an alternative guess.

 

[DogFace]

Sigh. My point is you seem to think the difference is a matter of hypocrisy. Maybe it's a matter of him better understanding the rule.



Actually, I'm not making an accusation. YOU ARE. So you're the one who has to prove hypocrisy. And hypocrisy goes to motive. Good luck with that one. I'm merely explaining why two situations might be different and call for different responses. That's not an answer. It's an alternative guess.

I have proved it. By you not offering a rebuttal and not commenting at all about the same play being called differently.

Again.
In one play he has to maintain control after taking 3 steps and diving. On another the player loses control as soon as he hits the ground.

Typical deflection avoidance. You have nothing. Admit it. Or comment on the actual plays that to any reasonable person demonstrat clearly a contradiction.
When he states two different opinions about the dropping of the ball on these two plays. Saying in one the player does not have to maintain control then saying the opposite. That's hypocrisy.

 

[tyke1doe]

I have proved it. By you not offering a rebuttal and not commenting at all about the same play being called differently.

Again.
In one play he has to maintain control after taking 3 steps and diving. On another the player loses control as soon as he hits the ground.

Typical deflection avoidance. You have nothing. Admit it. Or comment on the actual plays that to any reasonable person demonstrat clearly a contradiction.
When he states two different opinions about the dropping of the ball on these two plays. Saying in one the player does not have to maintain control then saying the opposite. That's hypocrisy.

It has nothing to do with avoidance. I don't need to see another play to have an opinion on THIS play. This is not a court of law where legal precedence comes into play. Each play is reviewed on its own merit. Refs don't go look at past plays to rule on plays they're called to judge at the moment. That's silly.

But I understand the points I'm making about hypocrisy are higher level concepts that I shouldn't expect single-minded people to understand. So it really doesn't bother me if you think my argument is weak/meaningless/void of substance, etc.

The bottom line is this: The ref, upon review, ruled that Dez did not maintain control of the ball. The league reaffirmed (by not issuing an apology or correction) he did not. And many, many ex-players, current players and former refs have said it wasn't a catch. And guess what? All of your whining about hypocrisy, conspiracy and incompetency isn't going to change anything. The Cowboys will still be sitting home this Sunday, and you'll still be fuming - unless, of course, you let go of your bitterness and focus on the future.