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

[CowboyFrog]

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



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.



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?

6th time asking was there an arguable judgment call that lead to this? we can do this all day i guess..no amount of "Watch this hand not this one" is going to change what i said...WAS THERE A JUDGEMENT CALL THAT IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE IN THE RULE BOOOK USED TO MAKE THIS CALL? Didnt say conspiracy or any of the other 20 things you have now tried to move the goalpost about...Marcus simply say

A: nope they didnt make a judgement call that could've gone the other way
or
B; Yes they had to make a judgement call that was arguable and could've changed the call

pretty simple argument.

 

[MarcusRock]

6th time asking was there an arguable judgment call that lead to this? we can do this all day i guess..no amount of "Watch this hand not this one" is going to change what i said...WAS THERE A JUDGEMENT CALL THAT IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE IN THE RULE BOOOK USED TO MAKE THIS CALL? Didnt say conspiracy or any of the other 20 things you have now tried to move the goalpost about...Marcus simply say

A: nope they didnt make a judgement call that could've gone the other way
or
B; Yes they had to make a judgement call that was arguable and could've changed the call

pretty simple argument.

Not playing the haze game. I just showed you where you were wrong in back and white and again you just ignore what doesn't get you your desired result. That's all that's needed. I remembered you as a disingenuous debater from the Pats game last season where you asked for something, I showed it, then you turned around and called it BS. Things haven't changed. Thanks for playing.

 

[CowboyFrog]

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



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.



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?

So there was a judgement call that is not clearly defined in the rulebook that led to this? you didnt need 2 paragraphs and a rule cite that has only to do with how the judgement call affected the play to say this... Holding is in fact holding there are no degrees of it...its 10 yards from the foul...its not holding if it does not meet the criteria of the rules laid out for holding..the fact that holding is a missed call is more on the human factor than it is how the rule is written...why are you wanting to equate what is and isnt a football move to holding? again the rule you have cited 20 times is only in play because of an arguble judgment call....period there is no discussion on this as even the league decided to make it more clear so that wouldnt happen again. I dont care about conspiracy or anything else...anyone who says that there is no arguable judgement call on that play is being less than honest....

 

[CowboyFrog]

Not playing the haze game. I just showed you where you were wrong in back and white and again you just ignore what doesn't get you your desired result. That's all that's needed. I remembered you as a disingenuous debater from the Pats game last season where you asked for something, I showed it, then you turned around and called it BS. Things haven't changed. Thanks for playing.

No for the 50th time the rule you keep citing is only in play because they made a arguable judgement call on a football move before that rule comes into it...ok last try, if they deem what he did before the ball touches the ground in his possession a football move is that rule in play?

 

[CowboyFrog]

Not playing the haze game. I just showed you where you were wrong in back and white and again you just ignore what doesn't get you your desired result. That's all that's needed. I remembered you as a disingenuous debater from the Pats game last season where you asked for something, I showed it, then you turned around and called it BS. Things haven't changed. Thanks for playing.

one last time

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.


this is the rule you keep citing, now as simple as i can make it, is a player who has made a football move considered in the act of making a catch?

 

[erod]

The reason it wasn’t called catch is the original rule stated that if you’re falling down during the act of securing a catch, you then must maintain possession through hitting the ground.

Dez caught the ball and started lunging toward the end zone, and the refs interpreted that as going to the ground even though it took a few steps to get there as he was no longer upright. The ball then hit the ground as he went down and popped out of his hand.

What the board did 3 years later was lessen that part of the rule. So they thought it should be a catch moving forward, but it wasn’t viewed as a catch in the old rule. The refs weren’t crooked, the rule book was flawed for not allowing ref interpretation of what Dez was attempting (controlled fall vs loss of balance).

No, it was a catch and met all qualifications of the rule. Going to the ground is irrelevant with three steps and a football move.

Worst call in NFL history because they even got to review it and still botched it.

 

[mrmojo]

This happens every time we discuss this play. The ball is not on the ground here?

I wonder if those cheerleaders know there's a game going on?

 

[MarcusRock]

No for the 50th time the rule you keep citing is only in play because they made a arguable judgement call on a football move before that rule comes into it...ok last try, if they deem what he did before the ball touches the ground in his possession a football move is that rule in play?

Again, you clearly don't understand the rule you're trying to argue against. By Dez' second step, the going to the ground rule is ALREADY in effect because he's .... "going to the ground in the act of catching a pass." If not, then Dez stays on his feet and runs into the endzone while upright. He did not. Once that tag is in effect, the ONLY thing that can get you out of such a tag is a properly executed lunge or reaching out of the ball that shows you're under control enough to do something other than falling (going to the ground). The videos I showed you illustrate this but you don't want to watch them because they support the difference in judgment calls ultimately made by the replay officials. This is our quandary here: your refusal to look at support for the decisions made and instead trying to create haze to fixate on the type of decision they needed to make which the rulebook says they were supposed to make. If I said I haven't seen this technique before, I'd be lying. And I don't lie.

 

[eromeopolk]

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

Romo is not a Hall of Fame worthy QB just like any GM that has not gotten a team to a Conference Championship game in 26 years is a Hall of Fame GM.

 

[MarcusRock]

I wonder if those cheerleaders know there's a game going on?

Lol. That one on the end was like, "did something exciting happen?"

 

[CowboyFrog]

Again, you clearly don't understand the rule you're trying to argue against. By Dez' second step, the going to the ground rule is ALREADY in effect because he's .... "going to the ground in the act of catching a pass." If not, then Dez stays on his feet and runs into the endzone while upright. He did not. Once that tag is in effect, the ONLY thing that can get you out of such a tag is a properly executed lunge or reaching out of the ball that shows you're under control enough to do something other than falling (going to the ground). The videos I showed you illustrate this but you don't want to watch them because they support the difference in judgment calls ultimately made by the replay officials. This is our quandary here: your refusal to look at support for the decisions made and instead trying to create haze to fixate on the type of decision they needed to make which the rulebook says they were supposed to make. If I said I haven't seen this technique before, I'd be lying. And I don't lie.

Im not saying you lied...im saying exactly what this was, there was a questinable judgement call on if a football move happened for there to be a ruling on the rule you cited, thats it, thats all I'm saying. No conspiracy nothing else. I simple dont think saying "There was no question on the ruling" is being completely honest about what happened because of the arguable judgement call that brought that rule into play. You can not be in the act of catching the ball while making a football move ..right? so yes this call could've have gone the other way and been supported by rules in the rule book if that judgement call was kep[t as it was on the field..right?

The BS part is using a explanation by an guy who clearly is going to side with the NFL about why they made the judgement call because there are no clear rules on that judgement call in the rulebook. He lunged while having complete possesion of the ball that could in fact by the rules be considered a football move which would in fact take the "Act of making a catch"Rule out of the fold.

 

[MarcusRock]

Im not saying you lied...im saying exactly what this was, there was a questinable judgement call on if a football move happened for there to be a ruling on the rule you cited, thats it, thats all I'm saying. No conspiracy nothing else. I simple dont think saying "There was no question on the ruling" is being completely honest about what happened because of the arguable judgement call that brought that rule into play. You can not be in the act of catching the ball while making a football move ..right? so yes this call could've have gone the other way and been supported by rules in the rule book if that judgement call was kep[t as it was on the field..right?

The BS part is using a explanation by an guy who clearly is going to side with the NFL about why they made the judgement call because there are no clear rules on that judgement call in the rulebook. He lunged while having complete possesion of the ball that could in fact by the rules be considered a football move which would in fact take the "Act of making a catch"Rule out of the fold.

You can't call a judgment questionable and then refuse to look at the evidence that supports it not being questionable. Neither can you say the procedure for going through the rule is faulty and then ignore the person who used to reside over the rules themselves explain how the procedures work. At that point, you only want the answer that says it was a catch. Free country but none of you produce evidence by the rules, neither do any of you produce anything that discredits my evidence by the rules. So all that's left after that is to try to discredit the messengers ("Blandino's a crook" or "Pereira is biased for the NFL") or create what y'all think are loopholes in the rules that have already been vetted. When people need to do that, they admit they know what the call was but just don't want to accept it. As I said, I've seen every approach with this play.

 

[CowboyFrog]

You can't call a judgment questionable and then refuse to look at the evidence that supports it not being questionable. Neither can you say the procedure for going through the rule is faulty and then ignore the person who used to reside over the rules themselves explain how the procedures work. At that point, you only want the answer that says it was a catch. Free country but none of you produce evidence by the rules, neither do any of you produce anything that discredits my evidence by the rules. So all that's left after that is to try to discredit the messengers ("Blandino's a crook" or "Pereira is biased for the NFL") or find what y'all think are loopholes in the rules. When people need to do that, they admit they know what the call was but just don't want to accept it. As I said, I've seen every approach with this play.

By the rules written does the NFL have conclusive evidence that he did not lunge? or are they showing videos of lunges trying to show a diference in what they consider a lunge but there are no written rules on it? Again it doesnt matter it was judgement call AND many people even NFL people argued it..so by that what i was saying was correct...You can not show that play and say "There is no argument about the judgement call here" there was obviously, and just flat out saying "Your wrong because they say your wrong" or "Your wrong because its not written in the rules" when in fact neither is the mechanics of diferent lunges written in the rules...is not a winning argument. What loopholes? again if he is considered as making a football move there is no more act of making a catch, thats the intended rule and how its written...I'm not getting why its so hard to say "Yeah they had to make an arguable judgement call to overturn the call on the field" Why?

 

[MarcusRock]

By the rules written does the NFL have conclusive evidence that he did not lunge? or are they showing videos of lunges trying to show a diference in what they consider a lunge but there are no written rules on it? Again it doesnt matter it was judgement call AND many people even NFL people argued it..so by that what i was saying was correct...You can not show that play and say "There is no argument about the judgement call here" there was obviously, and just flat out saying "Your wrong because they say your wrong" or "Your wrong because its not written in the rules" when in fact neither is the mechanics of diferent lunges written in the rules...is not a winning argument. What loopholes? again if he is considered as making a football move there is no more act of making a catch, thats the intended rule and how its written...I'm not getting why its so hard to say "Yeah they had to make an arguable judgement call to overturn the call on the field" Why?

Hey, I get it. You don't actually want to talk about the rules. You want to divert to talk about how the rules are judgment calls, which the rules already tell you they are.

 

[CowboyFrog]

Hey, I get it. You don't actually want to talk about the rules. You want to divert to talk about how the rules are judgment calls, which the rules already tell you they are.

Wow again, i have not diverted any I started off saying they had to make an arguable judgement call on the play to use that rule to overturn the call on the field and am still saying it...if you can not say that then fine just say No they made no arguable judgement call to overturn the call on the field and we can move on.....

 

[MarcusRock]

Wow again, i have not diverted any I started off saying they had to make an arguable judgement call on the play to use that rule to overturn the call on the field and am still saying it...if you can not say that then fine just say No they made no arguable judgement call to overturn the call on the field and we can move on.....

Yes, you're saying there was a judgment call about whether there was initial ball possession (supported by video), about whether Dez got 2 feet down (supported by video), whether Dez made did not make a proper lunge (supported by video you won't look at) before there was a judgment call about the ball hitting the ground (supported by still shots and video that corrected what you thought happened) and the ball coming out of Dez' possession (supported by video you won't address at all) just like the rules told you were going to be judgment calls to get to the decision they got to. Check.

Sounds eerily similar to officials making a judgment call on a play that there was no illegal substitution, before a judgment there was no offsides, before a judgement there was no holding on a passing play, before a judgment there was no illegal contact while the ball was in the air, before a judgment the QB getting hit was not roughing the passer, before a judgment the pass ended up as offensive pass interference on the WR.

Congratulations on discovering a day in the life of an NFL official and the rules that govern their jobs (some of which is supported by video). Glad we could cover this but it has nothing to do with my evidence presented nor the lack of any evidence to the contrary except how people "feel" the call should have gone.

 

[pitt33]

By rule…at the time…it wasn’t a catch. Dez always did that crap of extending out after catching a pass. He simply could have rolled into the end zone.

The reason Dallas lost that game was Murray’s fumble. He had clear sailing to the end zone.

It’s history.

Unfortunate history for fans.

 

[buybuydandavis]

yeah but cowboys still would have lost as GB would have scored last to win the game, so catch or not makes no difference in outcome of game.
however, the call on field should have stood.

Exactly. It was called a catch on the field.

It's simply absurd to assert that there was indisputable visual evidence that it was not a catch as we're still disputing the catch over 7 years later.

I also think GB marches down the field and wins. Our dline was nothing for that game, and out of gas after drive after drive.

 

[America's Cowboy]

No, it was a catch and met all qualifications of the rule. Going to the ground is irrelevant with three steps and a football move.

Worst call in NFL history because they even got to review it and still botched it.

One of the few times we agree, @erod !

 

[Jimbo123]

I just wasted three minutes of my life reading this thread. What is wrong with me?