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

[CowboyFrog]

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.

No No i dont care what he says...kinda like me letting Mickey explain why Jerry does what he does....YOU either say Yes i can see why this is a very arguable judgement call that even puts this Falling down rule in play or say Nope i can not tell he is lunging towards the goal line with complete possession of the ball...its one or the other because one of them negates the other....

 

[Ranched]

Meanwhile....

 

[CowboyFrog]

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.

Tell me which rule i am getting wrong? does the falling down rule apply to a player deemed to have possesion in the field of play after a football move? once again at that point its either a fumble or its not...maybe the rules are all running together in your head at this point. If he is making a football move is it not ruled down ?

 

[tyke1doe]

Meanwhile....

Well, at least he qualifies for a pension.

 

[tyke1doe]

Dog bites man = no news
Man bites dog = news

Tony Romo say it was a catch = no news
Tony Romo says it was not a catch = news

Our news judgment has gone the way of Walter Cronkite.

 

[starfan1]

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



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.



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.

I truly think that those arguing so hard are doing so because they want so badly to have some sort of rationale that somehow validates their thought process that Romo will get screwed when it come to hall. I could be wrong Im speculating . Poor guy had alot of bad luck. Fumbled snap = they greased the ball. Crayton miss = he quit running! dez= it was a catch! miles austin=lost in the lights! loss to denver = stepped on the lineman foot those are just the ones that come to my mind Im sure theres more.

Romo not unlike Dak was and is cursed by being in a cowboy organization run by Jerry and also coached by Garrett.

 

[MarcusRock]

Tell me which rule i am getting wrong? does the falling down rule apply to a player deemed to have possesion in the field of play after a football move? once again at that point its either a fumble or its not...maybe the rules are all running together in your head at this point. If he is making a football move is it not ruled down ?

I know these rules quite well and have since the play happened. It's you and the others' attempts at trying to shoehorn one set while trying to ignore the other set that is the cause of confusion. I've already told you several times where you're wrong and you just gloss over it. Once you're deemed going to the ground you forget about the "receiver being upright" rules, the ball can never come out of your grip if it touches the ground. Dez did and that was that. Only a lunge would have saved him and he didn't execute. Judgment call? Yes. But it's pretty easy to compare 2 of Dez' own attempts to see that one was clearly better than the other. Green Bay's attempt just fell on the other side of that line towards "nah."

No No i dont care what he says...

This is literally the gist of this debate when I post all the evidence I have. Nothing to disprove it, just "I don't care, it was a CONSPIRACY!"

 

[MarcusRock]

I truly think that those arguing so hard are doing so because they want so badly to have some sort of rationale that somehow validates their thought process that Romo will get screwed when it come to hall. I could be wrong Im speculating . Poor guy had alot of bad luck. Fumbled snap = they greased the ball. Crayton miss = he quit running! dez= it was a catch! miles austin=lost in the lights! loss to denver = stepped on the lineman foot those are just the ones that come to my mind Im sure theres more.

Romo not unlike Dak was and is cursed by being in a cowboy organization run by Jerry and also coached by Garrett.

Yeah, I don't even get the insecurity regarding Romo on this play. His pass was perfect. Sure, he could have attempted to go to Beasley but he did his job on this play. As for the Hall, if what you say is true, then I agree it's clearly a case of trying to run to a CONSPIRACY! softening of the ground when what they know will happen from sheer merit (Romo doesn't deserve to be in as a player) actually happens so they can whine about being "victimized Cowboys." It's like seeing threads around here days before an important game about how the refs are gonna cheat us. They did it for the 49ers playoff game and we had a ref that was a former Cowboy on the field. That fact was conveniently ignored, lol. Same type of blindness with this play.

 

[CowboyFrog]

I know these rules quite well and have since the play happened. It's you and the others' attempts at trying to shoehorn one set while trying to ignore the other set that is the cause of confusion. I've already told you several times where you're wrong and you just gloss over it. Once you're deemed going to the ground you forget about the "receiver being upright" rules, the ball can never come out of your grip if it touches the ground. Dez did and that was that. Only a lunge would have saved him and he didn't execute. Judgment call? Yes. But it's pretty easy to compare 2 of Dez' own attempts to see that one was clearly better than the other. Green Bay's attempt just fell on the other side of that line towards "nah."



This is literally the gist of this debate when I post all the evidence I have. Nothing to disprove it, just "I don't care, it was a CONSPIRACY!"

This is BS and you know it...players are going to the ground every play after establishing possession and your trying to make this rule that is clearly for NON FOOTBALL MOVE judgements fit here because you know if they make that call your wrong. Again an RB, WR, CB any of them have the exact same rules of possession as a WR does once he is deemed as having possesion after a football move...so again without the complete dismissal of what i said..tell me I'm wrong and show me the rule that is diferent for a WR who has been deemed as having possession....The only way your rule works is if they decide he has not made a football move and is still in the act of catching the ball while falling down...

 

[CowboyFrog]

I truly think that those arguing so hard are doing so because they want so badly to have some sort of rationale that somehow validates their thought process that Romo will get screwed when it come to hall. I could be wrong Im speculating . Poor guy had alot of bad luck. Fumbled snap = they greased the ball. Crayton miss = he quit running! dez= it was a catch! miles austin=lost in the lights! loss to denver = stepped on the lineman foot those are just the ones that come to my mind Im sure theres more.

Romo not unlike Dak was and is cursed by being in a cowboy organization run by Jerry and also coached by Garrett.

No i actually dont think they would have won even with that TD as AR would've scored...and again the only thing I'm arguing is someone saying "This rule had no arguable judgement calls" in it...thats BS and thats the argument I have. Marcus is trying to fit a rule in because the NFL office said this is why we made a judgement call while everyone still asked why the football move was not a football move...he sounds like the NFL office at this point "Dont whatch this hand look at this"

 

[phildadon86]

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.

Which is funny because I seem to recall a certain Darren Waller fumbling the ball but it was ruled an incomplete pass this past season.

Always seems the Cowboys get this end of the stick on national TV lol.

 

[starfan1]

No i actually dont think they would have won even with that TD as AR would've scored...and again the only thing I'm arguing is someone saying "This rule had no arguable judgement calls" in it...thats BS and thats the argument I have. Marcus is trying to fit a rule in because the NFL office said this is why we made a judgement call while everyone still asked why the football move was not a football move...he sounds like the NFL office at this point "Dont whatch this hand look at this"

ok Im sorry then for lumping you in with other.I did say I was speculating

 

[MarcusRock]

This is BS and you know it...players are going to the ground every play after establishing possession and your trying to make this rule that is clearly for NON FOOTBALL MOVE judgements fit here because you know if they make that call your wrong. Again an RB, WR, CB any of them have the exact same rules of possession as a WR does once he is deemed as having possesion after a football move...so again without the complete dismissal of what i said..tell me I'm wrong and show me the rule that is diferent for a WR who has been deemed as having possession....The only way your rule works is if they decide he has not made a football move and is still in the act of catching the ball while falling down...

Because running backs are upright when they get the ball. Receivers are not always. That's why the going to the ground rule existed then as it still does today. Today though, you can complete the "upright" process of the catch all the way down to the ground (3 steps was added, for example). Back then, you couldn't. That's why it was incomplete. You don't get it though. You keep trying to argue "upright" rules that didn't exist for a falling receiver plus just gloss over what doesn't fit your stance.

 

[CowboyFrog]

ok Im sorry then for lumping you in with other.I did say I was speculating

No worries ive done that myself a couple of times

 

[bigdnlaca]

Yes it was a catch and the Cowboys would have taken the lead. That is true.

What is also true is the Packers would have at least tied it up anyways and based on how the defense was in the 2nd half, they would have allowed a td.

 

[CoachD]

Ya no #$%^ post haste.

 

[CowboyFrog]

Because running backs are upright when they get the ball. Receivers are not always. That's why the going to the ground rule existed then as it still does today. Today though, you can complete the "upright" process of the catch all the way down to the ground (3 steps was added, for example). Back then, you couldn't. That's why it was incomplete. You don't get it though. You keep trying to argue "upright" rules that didn't exist for a falling receiver plus just gloss over what doesn't fit your stance.

Again I'm saying the falling reciever rule does not come into play if he is deemed with possession making a football move ...yes or no? and lunging for yards or a goaline while in possession of the ball is considered a football move yes or no... so you can keep trying to left hand slide this but the fact is if they did not make the non football move judgement call and they did instead make the Falling while making a catch call THEY CAN NOT BE BOTH ...so in fact they made 2 judgement calls that lead to this ruling that are completley arguable in fact they changed the rule because they were so easily argued..yes or no?

Stop with the upright rule..if a WR is sliding and cathes a ball and never fully gets upright but does get hit while lunging forward for the first downline but clearly has possession while doing it and the ball hits the ground and pops up and he catches it on his back....whats the call and how clear is it?

 

[MarcusRock]

Again I'm saying the falling reciever rule does not come into play if he is deemed with possession making a football move ...yes or no?

No. This is what the video was trying to tell you but you said you didn't care. Thus, you don't want to know the full mechanics of the rule, you want to know the parts that get you the result you really, really wanted to see. The officials considered the total rule and the result was the result.

 

[RomoLover94]

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

Tragic it changed the trajectory his career. Definitely a catch.

 

[CowboyFrog]

No. This is what the video was trying to tell you but you said you didn't care. Thus, you don't want to know the full mechanics of the rule, you want to know the parts that get you the result you really, really wanted to see. The officials considered the total rule and the result was the result.

So its not in the rule book but the NFL officiating REP explains the mechanics that make the judgement call ok? Sure I'll just take his word for it...again how could he not be upright before he goes down? and how come before he went down he used his legs and feet to move forward? then how come he literally tears up turf lunging for the goaline while he has full possession of the ball...So he is not "Upright" but he aint"horizontal" either guess he was a tweener? just stop man they made 2 judgement calls that were not only questionable but very arguable and you dont wont to admit it. Again obviously it was not Black and white as they changed rules to make sure it never got "Judged" that way again.