Video: Tony Romo Said That Was a Catch; I Agree

[DFWJC]

it so happens that hes right though

No. He definitely is not right

 

[MarcusRock]

The ball can hit the ground as long as its in possession...is the ball not in possession?

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact
by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.​

Did Dez maintain possession of the ball "throughout the process of contacting the ground," or did the ball ride up his shoulder and come completely out of his control before he repossessed it?

 

[G2]

4th and 2 with plenty of time wasn't the best play.

 

[MarcusRock]

No. He definitely is not right

Show me where I'm not then. You never have. Why not start with this reasoning right here? Why is Pereira wrong and show me where someone else corrected his claim here. There is none because it doesn't exist.

 

[CowboyFrog]

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact
by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.​

Did Dez maintain possession of the ball "throughout the process of contacting the ground," or did the ball ride up his shoulder and come completely out of his control before he repossessed it?

So your saying they made a judgement call that he didnt lunge and didnt make a football move that brought this into play? again the ball can touch the ground as long as its in his possession,,, the other part is because they made 2 judgement calls that are anything but clear unless your trying to win a forum argument...right? you can not say that there were no arguable judgement calls here its completley false......

 

[DFWJC]

Show me where I'm not then. You never have. Why not start with this reasoning right here? Why is Pereira wrong and show me where someone else corrected his claim here. There is none because it doesn't exist.

Once you take multiple steps and have full control of the ball, the catch is established.

To take it to an extreme.....
Say you throw a screen pass to Cooper Kupp for example....and he runs 20 yards and then dives for the endzone and the ball happens to touch the ground during the stretch.
That would not nullify the catch.
The overturn was silly

The Pittsburgh play was not as conclusive as the Dez play.

Pereira is doubling down and is not going back down from what he wrongly claimed years ago.
Ironically, HE even said once you bring the ball in, get 2 feet down and turn up field, then it is a catch.
By that very definition, Dez made the catch...and even more that

Look, we are not going to get anywhere with this.
You have your opinion and I have mine and no way they are changing.
I think Pereira is wrong, but whatever.

 

[CowboyFrog]

Once you take multiple steps and have full control of the ball, the catch is established.

To take it to an extreme.....
Say you throw a screen pass to Cooper Kupp for example....and he runs 20 yards and then dives for the endzone and the ball happens to touch the ground during the stretch.
That would not nullify the catch.
The overturn was silly

The Pittsburgh play was not as conclusive as the Dez play.

Pereira is doubling down and is not going back down from what he wrongly claimed years ago.
He said once you bring the ball in, get 2 feet down and turn up field, then it is a catch.
By that very definition, Dez made the catch...and even more that

He wont argue this part because it makes his argument null and void..again they had to make 2 very arguable judgement calls about possession move by a player for this rule Which is clearly for players catching balls without moving forward comming into play. This rule is and always has been clearly about players maintaining possesion through a catch that they are not running with the ball at the time...but again Dez was "Falling while stepping and lunging"...not keeping 2 toes inbounds and falling out of bounds which is a clear case of this rule.

 

[MarcusRock]

So your saying they made a judgement call that he didnt lunge and didnt make a football move that brought this into play? again the ball can touch the ground as long as its in his possession,,, the other part is because they made 2 judgement calls that are anything but clear unless your trying to win a forum argument...right? you can not say that there were no arguable judgement calls here its completley false......

Why are you not answering my question? You're just repeating the same things that are wrong by the rule I quoted you.

Yes, they made judgement calls supported by video. Everyone knows what a proper lunge is and Dez didn't do one here (he did vs. the Giants earlier in the year and Blandino used that to make his point). It is in the rules that a proper lunge gets you out of the going to the ground notation. If you don't perform one, it still remains and thus the requirement to "maintain" possession is still in effect. When Dez lost grip of the ball, that is what makes the pass incomplete. You have to do more than control it on the ground; you have to KEEP control and Dez didn't.

 

[CowboyFrog]

Why are you not answering my question? You're just repeating the same things that are wrong by the rule I quoted you.

Yes, they made judgement calls supported by video. Everyone knows what a proper lunge is and Dez didn't do one here (he did vs. the Giants earlier in the year and Blandino used that to make his point). It is in the rules that a proper lunge gets you out of the going to the ground notation. If you don't perform one, it still remains and thus the requirement to "maintain" possession is still in effect. When Dez lost grip of the ball, that is what makes the pass incomplete. You have to do more than control it on the ground; you have to KEEP control and Dez didn't.

No no not supported by video, if you show this video to 1000 people who watch football is it easily called a non football move? Why are you not owning up that its a very arguable judgment call and you need it to be to support your rule that covers players NOT moving forward with possession of the ball...right? is that rule in place if he is deemed as having possession and making a football move? I stated that if they make that judgement call then the ball hitting the ground while in his possession is a mute point.

 

[MarcusRock]

Once you take multiple steps and have full control of the ball, the catch is established.

Not if you're going to the ground, hence the controversy. Dez could have taken 4 or 5 steps going to the ground and so long as he lost possession of the ball it is still not a catch

To take it to an extreme.....
Say you throw a screen pass to Cooper Kupp for example....and he runs 20 yards and then dives for the endzone and the ball happens to touch the ground during the stretch.
That would not nullify the catch.
The overturn was silly

Don't even know what you're saying here. Of course that's a catch because Kupp is "upright" as Pereira says in the video. Dez was not.

The Pittsburgh play was not as conclusive as the Dez play.

Pereira is doubling down and is not going back down from what he wrongly claimed years ago.
He said once you bring the ball in, get 2 feet down and turn up field, then it is a catch.
By that very definition, Dez made the catch...and even more that

Look, we are not going to get anywhere with this.
You have your opinion and I have mine and no way they are changing.
I think Pereira is wrong, but whatever.

Exactly. Tap on out. You have nothing in the rules like I thought. It's a neat and tidy CONSPIRACY! and that settles it. How do you debate rules you don't even have a grasp of? Nothing on Pereira's "upright" versus "going to the ground?" You're literally done after one exchange. Don't claim I'm not right and then know nothing about why I'm wrong. Not a good look.

 

[foofighters]

This is why you can't snub Romo from the HOF. He got snubbed.

LET. IT. GO.

 

[DFWJC]

A legit question would be if Dallas could've held GB off the final few minutes even if they had taken the lead there.
I assume they run some clock, then run it in to take a 1 point lead with still well over 3 minutes left.
I would then go for two. If they make it, it's 29-26 and at least GB can't win it with a FG.

Oh well. We lost and that was long ago.

I think the Crayton pull-up with 17 seconds to go, preventing the win in the 2007 Giants playoff game was just as tragic. Perfect pass for the win....but nope.

 

[DallasEast]

Ten pages? And Dean "Lord Voldemort" Blandino's name has been mentioned in half of them? He hasn't faded away into tiny bits of paper yet after all these years? Disappointing.

 

[America's Cowboy]

it so happens that hes right though

He's wrong. Dead wrong.

 

[America's Cowboy]

The ball can hit the ground as long as its in possession...is the ball not in possession? and again to get to this point they have already made 2 very arguable judgment calls...right? your trying to say the ball can not touch the ground which is not true it can not touch the ground out of possesion...like if the reciever is trapping it off the ground its hitting the ground before possesion.

 

[SultanOfSix]

It was a catch by every definition of the term. The NFL had to weasel their way into some bogus "interpretation" to say it wasn't. That was about as egregiously biased officiating that I've ever witnessed, up there with the obviously ignored PI in the Saints/Rams game that should've been called. At most, there was still nothing conclusive enough to overturn it. It is blatant "flubs" like this that make even the most non-conspiratorial NFL fan question its integrity.

It should be left up to the players to make plays to win the game for all of the above mentioned reasons. That's exactly what Dez and Romo did. There was still plenty of time that the Cowboys could've lost the game and that's the point. But that should be earned by the opposing team not gifted by the refs due to a bail out. They call it a game of inches for a reason.

 

[America's Cowboy]

It was a catch by every definition of the term. The NFL had to weasel their way into some bogus "interpretation" to say it wasn't. That was about as egregiously biased officiating that I've ever witnessed, up there with the obviously ignored PI in the Saints/Rams game that should've been called. At most, there was still nothing conclusive enough to overturn it. It is blatant "flubs" like this that make even the most non-conspiratorial NFL fan question its integrity.

It should be left up to the players to make plays to win the game for all of the above mentioned reasons. That's exactly what Dez and Romo did. There was still plenty of time that the Cowboys could've lost the game and that's the point. But that should be earned by the opposing team not gifted by the refs due to a bail out. They call it a game of inches for a reason.

This is why I call out the officials as being crooked. They have done it many times to the Cowboys, especially in recent years.

 

[CowboyFrog]

And anyone who can not admit that he is CLEARLY holding the ball and lunging for the goal line is just being ridiculous. The ball is in no way moving while this is happening so therefore he has possession WHILE making a football move..its actually ridiculous to even debate.....

 

[MarcusRock]

No no not supported by video, if you show this video to 1000 people who watch football is it easily called a non football move? Why are you not owning up that its a very arguable judgment call and you need it to be to support your rule that covers players NOT moving forward with possession of the ball...right? is that rule in place if he is deemed as having possession and making a football move? I stated that if they make that judgement call then the ball hitting the ground while in his possession is a mute point.

Because it is in the rulebook. Don't know why you keep trying to legislate the rulebook out of things to interject your feelings about the play. The only football move that mattered was the lunge. It is not arguable that what Dez did versus Green Bay is even close to what he did versus the Giants the same season. That is why those videos were compared to one another. You're talking upright versus going to the ground. Here, I'll let Pereira explain it again. Maybe there'll be a sensible retort this time.

 

[MarcusRock]

He's wrong. Dead wrong.

I notice that those who come out to say I'm wrong also have zero grasp of the rules they're trying to challenge. In your case, you got busted lying and didn't miss a beat. Lol.