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

[jsb357]

at this point what difference does it make?

 

[MarcusRock]

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'm pretty sure it's just Cowboys fans disputing the catch. I wonder why. Lol.

 

[DandyDon52]

So, on the ground or nah?

I said it touched, but that is ok if they have possession and ball doesnt move while touching ground.

 

[MarcusRock]

I said it touched, but that is ok if they have possession and ball doesnt move while touching ground.

It is NOT okay. This is what I keep trying to tell you people who don't get the rule. The ball touching the ground was the whole basis for the overturn of the call. Because ...

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.​

The ball touched the ground and he lost possession of it before regaining possession. He didn't "maintain" possession all the way throughout per the rule. There is no way around this. This is black and white as I've said. No haze. Did the ball touch the ground and Dez temporarily lost control of it? Yes or no? Then, by the rule posted above is the pass incomplete? There's a reason no one ever wants to discuss this rule and instead tries to harp on only the rules that deal with an "upright" player because this rule ends the discussion (except for the blatant liars). Dez was not upright no matter how you slice it. So then these rules apply.

 

[buybuydandavis]

It is NOT okay. This is what I keep trying to tell you people who don't get the rule. The ball touching the ground was the whole basis for the overturn of the call. Because ...

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.​

The ball touched the ground and he lost possession of it before regaining possession. He didn't "maintain" possession all the way throughout per the rule. There is no way around this. This is black and white as I've said. No haze. Did the ball touch the ground and Dez temporarily lost control of it? Yes or no? Then, by the rule posted above is the pass incomplete? There's a reason no one ever wants to discuss this rule and instead tries to harp on only the rules that deal with an "upright" player because this rule ends the discussion (except for the blatant liars). Dez was not upright no matter how you slice it. So then these rules apply.

Three steps and an arm before he momentarily lost control of the ball.

How many football moves do you think he needs? 1000?

 

[MarcusRock]

Three steps and an arm before he momentarily lost control of the ball.

How many football moves do you think he needs? 1000?

Back then, when a receiver was going to the ground, the number of steps did not matter. He could have taken 5 on the way down to the ground and there'd still be a need to hold on to the ball. That was the point of the rule change in calling out that 3 steps was enough to call something like that a catch. Back then, no.

 

[BigBlacKahuna]

Let it go….

 

[TwentyOne]

What was the rule at the time? ....

It was. And over that season the refs ruled those catches incomplete in a consistent way.

 

[America's Cowboy]

It was. And over that season the refs ruled those catches incomplete in a consistent way.

No, they didn't.

 

[TwentyOne]

No, they didn't.

Of course they did. It was also a topic the whole season.

Doesnt change even if you lay down on the floor and cry out loud "NO NO NO".

 

[America's Cowboy]

Of course they did. It was also a topic the whole season.

Doesnt change even if you lay down on the floor and cry out loud "NO NO NO".

They didn't, hence why they altered the rule(s) once again. Evidence is there, yet you spew your venom of untruths to cover for your agenda.

 

[TwoDeep3]

If you watch the replay, as I am certain you all have, you will note the defender and Dez bumped legs as Dez grasped the ball. Dez began and movement which appears that he was falling from that contact. He lunged with his free leg. The ball was cradled in the crook of his arm. He extended and the arm and ball hit the ground.

At this time the ball popped up. Dez rolled and caught the ball, but...

Contact with the defender, going to the ground, lunging and the ball popping out of his arm due to the ground all add up to no catch.

You guys have rewritten this play many times in many ways. But there are a series of events during this play near the goal line which indicate no catch. There was no football move due to the falling forward after contact. They judged he was going to the ground. He was. That triggers the maintain the catch and the ground cannot cause the ball to break loose of the WR's grasp.

I hate it, but I cannot argue with the no catch decision.

 

[TwoDeep3]

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.

After the contact with the defender, which caused the going to the ground, your theory loses its application. The added step was seen as part of falling, which negates the football move. Which, by the way, is a ridiculous aspect the league included in the what is a catch criteria.

What makes all this truly ridiculous is the fact the ground cannot cause the fumble. But it can cause control to be lost. And that lunge was in the confines of falling, which caused the ground moving the ball to come into play.

 

[Runwildboys]

Haven't read a single post in this thread. Just saw that it's 14 pages, and wanted to add: ARE YOU FRIGGIN' KIDDING ME???

 

[mrmojo]

Calvin Johnsons overturn was more egregious , I can see why they overturned the Dez catch based on the rules at that time, didnt like it at that time, and thought they should have just let it go, but someone in NY had the magnifying glass out.

 

[Qcard]

If you watch the replay, as I am certain you all have, you will note the defender and Dez bumped legs as Dez grasped the ball. Dez began and movement which appears that he was falling from that contact. He lunged with his free leg. The ball was cradled in the crook of his arm. He extended and the arm and ball hit the ground.

At this time the ball popped up. Dez rolled and caught the ball, but...

Contact with the defender, going to the ground, lunging and the ball popping out of his arm due to the ground all add up to no catch.

You guys have rewritten this play many times in many ways. But there are a series of events during this play near the goal line which indicate no catch. There was no football move due to the falling forward after contact. They judged he was going to the ground. He was. That triggers the maintain the catch and the ground cannot cause the ball to break loose of the WR's grasp.

I hate it, but I cannot argue with the no catch decision.

This Thread has Nothing to do with Catch or NO Catch....

It's just a segment of Cowboys fans who are stuck in the overall below Cowboy Standard Romo Era.

 

[America's Cowboy]

If you watch the replay, as I am certain you all have, you will note the defender and Dez bumped legs as Dez grasped the ball. Dez began and movement which appears that he was falling from that contact. He lunged with his free leg. The ball was cradled in the crook of his arm. He extended and the arm and ball hit the ground.

At this time the ball popped up. Dez rolled and caught the ball, but...

Contact with the defender, going to the ground, lunging and the ball popping out of his arm due to the ground all add up to no catch.

You guys have rewritten this play many times in many ways. But there are a series of events during this play near the goal line which indicate no catch. There was no football move due to the falling forward after contact. They judged he was going to the ground. He was. That triggers the maintain the catch and the ground cannot cause the ball to break loose of the WR's grasp.

I hate it, but I cannot argue with the no catch decision.

Wrong.

Dez had already secured the catch and taken 2 steps to solidify the definition of a catch before he made a 2nd football move (lunge) to reach for the goal line. Dez was tripped during his 3rd step which happened after securing the catch and taking the first to steps to verify a completion but before he made a 2nd football move which brings into play a new set of rules of how the ground can not cause a fumble.

 

[MarcusRock]

If you watch the replay, as I am certain you all have, you will note the defender and Dez bumped legs as Dez grasped the ball. Dez began and movement which appears that he was falling from that contact. He lunged with his free leg. The ball was cradled in the crook of his arm. He extended and the arm and ball hit the ground.

At this time the ball popped up. Dez rolled and caught the ball, but...

Contact with the defender, going to the ground, lunging and the ball popping out of his arm due to the ground all add up to no catch.

You guys have rewritten this play many times in many ways. But there are a series of events during this play near the goal line which indicate no catch. There was no football move due to the falling forward after contact. They judged he was going to the ground. He was. That triggers the maintain the catch and the ground cannot cause the ball to break loose of the WR's grasp.

I hate it, but I cannot argue with the no catch decision.

One of the few that gets it.

Regarding the defender bumping Dez, I think Dez would have fallen to the ground regardless (see similar catch below vs. Ravens in preseason that year where no one even touched him). If not for the bump, he might have been under more control to execute a proper lunge which would have made that a catch like he did against the Giants earlier that year. In Green Bay, his 3rd step slipped (which is why you see the turf fly up), and it hampered his attempt that just made him hit the ground harder and at the same angle he was headed had there not been a 3rd step. As a result, he couldn't get the ball extended like against the Giants where he got credit for a lunge.