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

[MarcusRock]

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.

Appreciate the effort, but like I said before, you just don't understand how the rule operates. It seems you're trying to argue against judgment calls that are actually in the rulebook as "hey, we're going to make a judgment call here" like they do for holding, PI, illegal contact, offsides, roughing the passer, forward progress, etc. Rules can't be applied unless there's a procedure already in place for how they're going to be handled. I've explained this one multiple times, cited sources, busted liars in here and so on. So if it doesn't make sense, it's probably not going to because people can't allow it to make sense to preserve their "Cowboys are victims" stance. The one that never needs proof somehow.

 

[DandyDon52]

Romo shouldn't get in as a player. He was just a HOF QB

well he also held for extra points ! remember those days?
but what you said makes little sense to me.

 

[DandyDon52]

Because everyone whines victim when it was a correct call by the rules. People are fine to disagree, I'm simply asking folks to show it by the rules at play, not what you wanted or hoped the rules to be. No one ever does and some just outright lie to boot like I've proven here a few times. Truth is just a principle with me. Many claim it is with them too until the winds shift.

how about this
it was called a catch on the field, and to overturn that evidence should be clear and undisputed.
The evidence was not "clear" or "undisputed" They had to look at that for 5 min or more to decide, and if it is clear, it should only take about 60 seconds or less.
That play should have stood as called on the field , and packers probably still win, but no stain on the game .

 

[Ranched]

​

 

[TequilaCowboy]

Catch or no catch, Romo isn't getting into the Hall, and neither will Dak. At least Dak has a few more years left to try and accomplish something.

LOL, Romo might go into the HOF as an announcer.... as for Dak, ... i think Romo has a better shot of winning the Masters than Dak has of getting into the Hall. BTW, Romo may also go into the ROH in the next batch once Jerry sobers up.

 

[CowboyFrog]

Appreciate the effort, but like I said before, you just don't understand how the rule operates. It seems you're trying to argue against judgment calls that are actually in the rulebook as "hey, we're going to make a judgment call here" like they do for holding, PI, illegal contact, offsides, roughing the passer, forward progress, etc. Rules can't be applied unless there's a procedure already in place for how they're going to be handled. I've explained this one multiple times, cited sources, busted liars in here and so on. So if it doesn't make sense, it's probably not going to because people can't allow it to make sense to preserve their "Cowboys are victims" stance. The one that never needs proof somehow.

Again, never said anything about us getting screwed in this argument, I have and will completely admit to wanting the Cowboys to get every call..no doubt about it, but directly to your comments I am saying your wrong by saying "This explains it so that its black and white from the rule book" because it wasnt..they had to make judgement calls that could easily have been the other way...but once again you cant just say "Yeah your right they they had to do that for the call to go the other way"..but thats you thing I guess..

 

[MarcusRock]

how about this
it was called a catch on the field, and to overturn that evidence should be clear and undisputed.
The evidence was not "clear" or "undisputed" They had to look at that for 5 min or more to decide, and if it is clear, it should only take about 60 seconds or less.
That play should have stood as called on the field , and packers probably still win, but no stain on the game .

You realize how instant replay plus commercial breaks work, don't you? It was not 5 or more minutes. There was a commercial break, the number of which are predetermined to show all the ads paid for, and as soon as they returned they went to Pereira who gave his take ("if it's me, I reverse this call") and that took less than a minute before they announced the decision. I have the game on file so I verified.

What's "clear" from the replays is the ball touched the ground and popped out of Dez' possession. Several in here claimed the ball never touched the ground and after I posted the still from my video they were never heard from again. This was clear if you know the rule. Most here don't. Pereira said it live on the broadcast before the decision was even reached. He also said there was no football move. But of course we know he was in on the conspiracy so that's the explanation front to avoid discussing rules they don't even know.

 

[MarcusRock]

Again, never said anything about us getting screwed in this argument, I have and will completely admit to wanting the Cowboys to get every call..no doubt about it, but directly to your comments I am saying your wrong by saying "This explains it so that its black and white from the rule book" because it wasnt..they had to make judgement calls that could easily have been the other way...but once again you cant just say "Yeah your right they they had to do that for the call to go the other way"..but thats you thing I guess..

What's black and white from the rulebook is how the rules are applied regarding a catch where a receiver is not upright and completes the 3 parts of a catch. If you don't and you're going to the ground, the requirement to hold on to the ball kicks in. They are telling you in the rules that they are going to make judgment calls. Same for holding, PI, forward progress, catches out of bounds, etc. Judgment calls can go either way by nature. That is a given so I'm not sure why you're fixated on that. But there is a dividing line where you say, "yes this is," or "not that isn't." If anyone thinks there was a wrong judgment call, show it via the rules and comparisons. There's video everywhere to compare. Blandino used several video comparisons to show the call was correct, including a video someone in this thread posted trying to say that the NFL has called that a catch before but they made Blandino's point for him because Dez stretched all the way out to advance the ball whereas he didn't in Green Bay. No one does this because they know the truth. I'm just here to remind them when they deny it.

 

[FloridaRob]

​

LOL, I think this is the Post of the Year. Maybe of the past ten years.

 

[DFWJC]

​

 

[CowboyFrog]

What's black and white from the rulebook is how the rules are applied regarding a catch where a receiver is not upright and completes the 3 parts of a catch. If you don't and you're going to the ground, the requirement to hold on to the ball kicks in. They are telling you in the rules that they are going to make judgment calls. Same for holding, PI, forward progress, catches out of bounds, etc. Judgment calls can go either way by nature. That is a given so I'm not sure why you're fixated on that. But there is a dividing line where you say, "yes this is," or "not that isn't." If anyone thinks there was a wrong judgment call, show it via the rules and comparisons. There's video everywhere to compare. Blandino used several video comparisons to show the call was correct, including a video someone in this thread posted trying to say that the NFL has called that a catch before but they made Blandino's point for him because Dez stretched all the way out to advance the ball whereas he didn't in Green Bay. No one does this because they know the truth. I'm just here to remind them when they deny it.

Dez stretched all the way out to advance the ball whereas he didn't in Green Bay.

Again thats a judgement call and gaurantee you its not cut and dry as he did lung and stuck his arm out with the ball even tore the turf up lunging...so thank you for saying that...thats what Ive been saying, they had to make a judgement call that he was falling not lunging for your rule to even come into play...and most people think he was lunging, but hey its not the first time youve seen things diferent than most when it comes to this....When you can show me the rule on what is and what isn'nt lunging (maybe you can) then we have an argument on how they judged it.

 

[MarcusRock]

Dez stretched all the way out to advance the ball whereas he didn't in Green Bay.

Again thats a judgement call and gaurantee you its not cut and dry as he did lung and stuck his arm out with the ball even tore the turf up lunging...so thank you for saying that...thats what Ive been saying, they had to make a judgement call that he was falling not lunging for your rule to even come into play...and most people think he was lunging, but hey its not the first time youve seen things diferent than most when it comes to this....When you can show me the rule on what is and what isn'nt lunging (maybe you can) then we have an argument on how they judged it.

A proper lunge is out there on video. Go find the video in this thread posted by Kevinicus on page 3 (post 44) and compare that video to what Dez did in Green Bay and tell me if there is a difference. It's the very comparison Blandino used the day after the game (can't find the video anymore). He even said that you have to draw the line somewhere and it's true. The NFL has even done video illustrations of what is or isn't holding to show you where their dividing line is. They can't do it for every single rule in the book. So go look at those 2 videos and tell me what you see.

 

[DandyDon52]

You realize how instant replay plus commercial breaks work, don't you? It was not 5 or more minutes. There was a commercial break, the number of which are predetermined to show all the ads paid for, and as soon as they returned they went to Pereira who gave his take ("if it's me, I reverse this call") and that took less than a minute before they announced the decision. I have the game on file so I verified.

What's "clear" from the replays is the ball touched the ground and popped out of Dez' possession. Several in here claimed the ball never touched the ground and after I posted the still from my video they were never heard from again. This was clear if you know the rule. Most here don't. Pereira said it live on the broadcast before the decision was even reached. He also said there was no football move. But of course we know he was in on the conspiracy so that's the explanation front to avoid discussing rules they don't even know.

is the ball touched the ground and popped out of Dez' possession......no it did touch the ground, but he had clear possession , and it popped out when he rolled over and he caught it again.
That play was not clearly a catch or non catch.
been years since I looked at it though.

 

[CowboyFrog]

A proper lunge is out there on video. Go find the video in this thread posted by Kevinicus on page 3 (post 44) and compare that video to what Dez did in Green Bay and tell me if there is a difference. It's the very comparison Blandino used the day after the game (can't find the video anymore). He even said that you have to draw the line somewhere and it's true. The NFL has even done video illustrations of what is or isn't holding to show you where their dividing line is. They can't do it for every single rule in the book. So go look at those 2 videos and tell me what you see.

is a proper lunge defined in the rule book? again this whole argument started with a very clear thing..I said there was nothing black and white about the judgment calls that could go either way...is this true or is it not? A lunge is a lunge and a football move is a football move, it does not say anything about how good the move is or how good the lunge is....

 

[CowboyFrog]

is the ball touched the ground and popped out of Dez' possession......no it did touch the ground, but he had clear possession , and it popped out when he rolled over and he caught it again.
That play was not clearly a catch or non catch.
been years since I looked at it though.

Spot on.

 

[MarcusRock]

no it did touch the ground

So, on the ground or nah?

 

[MarcusRock]

is a proper lunge defined in the rule book? again this whole argument started with a very clear thing..I said there was nothing black and white about the judgment calls that could go either way...is this true or is it not? A lunge is a lunge and a football move is a football move, it does not say anything about how good the move is or how good the lunge is....

Ah, the semantics strategy. No, a lunge isn't defined because it is not the focal point of the catch rule, which is what's being defined in the rules. This is the same for holding, which is a judgement call. In the rules, they define what holding is and there are several words and descriptions to describe actions that constitute holding like jerking, twisting, hooking, etc. For hooking, it is not defined anywhere in the rules. So how do you know what hooking is? Remember those holding tutorials I told you that the NFL has done? Well there, they show you what hooking is. Same for a lunge and that's what they did with this play. I told you the video they used the day after is here and to compare the 2 and tell me what you see. They saw a difference and said why they made the call. What do you see? Or do you want to avoid saying what you see to debate the meaning of the word "see?" Here they both are below. Both are going to the ground plays and both were reviewed.

Versus the Giants (4 steps and a lunge)


Versus Green Bay (3 steps and an attempted lunge)

 

[CowboyFrog]

On the ground or nah?

is it loose or does he have control? again the only way this comes in

Ah, the semantics strategy. No, a lunge isn't defined because it is not the focal point of the catch rule, which is what's being defined in the rules. This is the same for holding, which is a judgement call. In the rules, they define what holding is and there are several words and descriptions to describe actions that constitute holding like jerking, twisting, hooking, etc. For hooking, it is not defined anywhere in the rules. So how do you know what hooking is? Remember those holding tutorials I told you that the NFL has done? Well there, they show you what hooking is. Same for a lunge and that's what they did with this play. I told you the video they used the day after is here and to compare the 2 and tell me what you see. They saw a difference and said why they made the call. What do you see? Or do you want to avoid saying what you see to debate the meaning of the word "see?" Here they both are below. Both are going to the ground plays and both were reviewed.

Versus the Giants (4 steps and a lunge)


Versus Green Bay (3 steps and an attempted lunge)

Exactly holding is holding same outcome no matter how bad it was....same for a football move or a lunge..there is not degrees of holding nor is there degrees of lunging..its a judgement call and there is no black and white about it in the rule book other than if it was it is this...not if it was this bad or this good it is this. your literally making my point ...

 

[MarcusRock]

3rd time requesting. Did you look at the 2 videos and spot the difference? One would think you were avoiding doing so.

is it loose or does he have control? again the only way this comes in

Wrong. It comes in because the ball touched the ground he lost possession of it before regaining possession. He didn't "maintain" possession all the way through.

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.​

There is no way around this. Black and white, bro. Here it is. Did the ball touch the ground and Dez temporarily lost control of it? Yes or no? This is why people try to imagine the ball never touched the ground because this is what the whole review hinged on. Then they move to, "but, but he was upright," "but, but, he already did a football move." It's the progression of avoidance and I've seen it dozens of times. Way ahead of it.

Exactly holding is holding same outcome no matter how bad it was....same for a football move or a lunge..there is not degrees of holding nor is there degrees of lunging..its a judgement call and there is no black and white about it in the rule book other than if it was it is this...not if it was this bad or this good it is this. your literally making my point ...

Your point is, these are judgment calls when the rules specifically tell you they are going to be judgment calls. So you want wiggle room to say you don't agree with a judgment call but also can't even begin to prove how their judgment call was wrong. So when you can't prove anything, you just insert haze to say, "well there's no sure fire way they could know." They told you it was going to be a judgment call, so they judged it. This is the M.O. of the CONSPIRACY! folks on these boards and also stems from not wanting to accept a result they didn't want, like a loss.

And not every hold is a hold because the rules have exceptions where things look like holding but aren't per the rules. Again, people don't know this and swear up and down they see holding. But as for degrees of holding, there are. If you pull a string on a player from behind but don't "restrict" the player because the string gives way and didn't affect the player, that is not holding even though technically, it is. You pull a shirt tail and make the player go backwards, that is holding. There is a line and they judge it. Same with lunging.

So, for the 3rd time, are you going to watch those videos to compare them?

 

[Tenkamenin]

That clip still gives me chills, and that was such a ballsy throw and catch. Dez and Romo were a special duo.