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

[Aerolithe_Lion]

But there was no reasonable basis for saying he went down as part of making the catch. He caught the ball in the air above his head, brought it down & shifted the ball and clearly turned his attention to not just going down in the tangle with the defender but to plant his leg & lunge toward the goal. All of which negate any basis for the requirement to maintain control. The catch, control & football move were all in place.

A few days after the game, I was discussing with some guys who thought the ruling was correct. So, I asked them if everything had happened the same except as Dez extended the ball the defender swiped the ball loose would they not have ruled it a catch & fumble? After considering, they all agreed it would have been ruled a catch & fumble.

It was a horrible injustice. Simple as that. The whole period where the league couldn't define & consistently what constituted a catch was a embarrassment.

Why did you friends say it was a catch and fumble if it were knocked out?

 

[CWR]

Why do this to yourselves?

Really, really wanting it to be so still doesn't make it so. Just grasp the ball and go down and we're in business. Can't blame Dez for trying to score but the rule was what it was. At least it can never happen like that again. Beasley was there in the flat for what it's worth.

It's equally as confounding you continue to engage. By now you have to realize those who believe it was a catch aren't changing their minds. Lol

 

[DogFace]

There is an additional rule you’re missing there:

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 until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

This supersedes the 2 step rule, the football move rule, and anything after that. Dez was attempting his lunge and no longer upright before he had 2 feet down and made a football move. That means this is now what determines if he caught it or not and not the 2 step + football move, even though he took many steps.

The problem with this rule is it doesn’t differentiate whether it’s involuntarily falling over or whether it’s the runner intentionally bending over to push for the end zone, which Dez was. So they changed it to make sure that doesn’t happen again in the future. The ref wasn’t at fault, the rule was. It was a good call on a bad rule.

There is nowhere in the rules that says the “going to the ground rule” supersedes the catch rule.
Once control, two feet down, and time is achieved he’s a runner.

Find the old thread. It was proven conclusively that the going to the ground didn’t supersede in this case and like I said the rule book never said it did in any case.

The ref on the field 5 yards from the play ruled correctly.

 

[DogFace]

the two step and football move rule is not in play when the receiver is going to the ground. Dez stumbled out of the catch and instead of repositioning himself as a runner, committed to it a lunge for the end zone. The whole act was ruled going to the ground due to him not having upright balance. There was no 2 step rule or football move in play there. He was required to maintain possession through going to the ground.

Once he moved it to his shoulder to better support it he achieved the football move time requirement. That was before he started to go to the ground.

Also, at the time there was nothing in the rules tagg said the runner had to be upright to establish himself as a runner. Per @percyhoward

 

[shabazz]

Romo should never enter the HOF without buying a ticket first.

His highs were highs and his lows were really low. Other than Roger, he was the most exciting Cowboys Quarterback to watch play the game. Too many turnovers and lack of SB appearance to make the HOF.

I guess that’s why I’m not sold on our present guy. Hard to watch low energy when one is used to watching a scoring high risk gunslinger. The smart money says neither one makes the HOF.

 

[DogFace]

Why did you friends say it was a catch and fumble if it were knocked out?

In the old thread there are two examples of Blandino completely contradicting what he and other officials would later say about what is a catch before the Dez catch.

It was part of an official segment on NFLN and involved the Giants. He makes it clear the going to the ground doesn’t apply because he was a runner.

 

[mattjames2010]

His highs were highs and his lows were really low. Other than Roger, he was the most exciting Cowboys Quarterback to watch play the game. Too many turnovers and lack of SB appearance to make the HOF.

I guess that’s why I’m not sold on our present guy. Hard to watch low energy when one is used to watching a scoring high risk gunslinger. The smart money says neither one makes the HOF.

He was only plagued with turnovers in 2007 and 2008. Romo became pretty efficient from 2009 and on - his 2012 season wasn't great, but that was a pretty crappy team offensively.

 

[KJJ]

It was definitely a catch just not under the ridiculous NFL rule they had which is why they finally changed it. The Packers would have still gone on to win the game anyway because we couldn’t stop Aaron Rodgers in the final four minutes. The Cowboys still had a chance to win the game despite the catch being overturned but Rodgers drove the Packers down the field eating up all the clock in the final minutes. He closed the game out by taking a knee.

 

[shabazz]

He was only plagued with turnovers in 2007 and 2008. Romo became pretty efficient from 2009 and on - his 2012 season wasn't great, but that was a pretty crappy team offensively.

I believe a lot of those turnovers came from trying to create too much knowing the other weaknesses with the team. It’s sad when we all have said at one time or another, “ the offense scored too soon”…… we all knew that no matter when Tony put up points, the defense would blow the game in the end

Broncos 51- Cowboys 48……tells us everything we need to know about Tony’s career.

 

[CowboyFrog]

Right, if it wasn’t a going-to-the-ground

So going to the ground is not a football move though, thats in bounds and keeping control through the catch, thats what I'm saying. he either caught it in bounds and not football move and didnt control it through the full motion, or he caught it in bounds made a football move and fumbled out of bounds...cant be both.

 

[mattjames2010]

Broncos 51- Cowboys 48……tells us everything we need to know about Tony’s career.

Getting his foot stepped on in the worst possible moment?

 

[McKDaddy]

Why did you friends say it was a catch and fumble if it were knocked out?

I guess the short answer is perception. They all agreed Dez was in control of the ball and thus if jarred loose a fumble. And that is what they agreed the refs would have ruled. So, it forced them to conclude a "catch" had already occurred and whatever happened after that should be under post catch rules.

 

[DogFace]

Blandino was looking for “more of a football move” (his quote) because the football move was the last part of the 3 part process.

He simply missed several other football moves while looking at the final lunge.

 

[Flamma]

It's equally as confounding you continue to engage. By now you have to realize those who believe it was a catch aren't changing their minds. Lol

You're right, he's not. But the way the rule was written allowed for refs to interpret the rule the way they wanted. You're seeing the same thing from fans.

IMO the rule was written to deal with all catches as the WR was falling to the ground in one fluid motion. But it wasn't written that way. Think of a sideline pass where a WR is toe tapping on a dive going to the ground. But many refs included any WR going to the ground no matter what. I don't believe that was the intent of the rule. Dez caught the ball, took 3 steps, lunged, and the ball came out when he hit the ground. That's a catch and down by contact. No way on this God's green Earth did the rule intend for that to be incomplete. But some refs saw it that way.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

So going to the ground is not a football move though, thats in bounds and keeping control through the catch, thats what I'm saying. he either caught it in bounds and not football move and didnt control it through the full motion, or he caught it in bounds made a football move and fumbled out of bounds...cant be both.

the first one, not a football move because going to the ground was in play before it was a consideration to be a football move.

What I meant earlier was it was an act that was consistent with being a football move, had that been a consideration on the play

 

[CWR]

You're right, he's not. But the way the rule was written allowed for refs to interpret the rule the way they wanted. You're seeing the same thing from fans.

IMO the rule was written to deal with all catches as the WR was falling to the ground in one fluid motion. But it wasn't written that way. Think of a sideline pass where a WR is toe tapping on a dive going to the ground. But many refs included any WR going to the ground no matter what. I don't believe that was the intent of the rule. Dez caught the ball, took 3 steps, lunged, and the ball came out when he hit the ground. That's a catch and down by contact. No way on this God's green Earth did the rule intend for that to be incomplete. But some refs saw it that way.

It will always be a catch in my mind. It's just not worth arguing anymore, because we've all had enough time to form educated opinions and settled in on it.

The only saving grace is my belief the defense would've folded like a lawn chair.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

In the old thread there are two examples of Blandino completely contradicting what he and other officials would later say about what is a catch before the Dez catch.

It was part of an official segment on NFLN and involved the Giants. He makes it clear the going to the ground doesn’t apply because he was a runner.

Upright is implied when there is a rule about when you are not upright, ie. Falling

 

[CowboyFrog]

You're right, he's not. But the way the rule was written allowed for refs to interpret the rule the way they wanted. You're seeing the same thing from fans.

IMO the rule was written to deal with all catches as the WR was falling to the ground in one fluid motion. But it wasn't written that way. Think of a sideline pass where a WR is toe tapping on a dive going to the ground. But many refs included any WR going to the ground no matter what. I don't believe that was the intent of the rule. Dez caught the ball, took 3 steps, lunged, and the ball came out when he hit the ground. That's a catch and down by contact. No way on this God's green Earth did the rule intend for that to be incomplete. But some refs saw it that way.

To me this is spot on, either its a in bound catch with control through out the out of bounds fall ..OR its a catch in bounds with a football move and anything about the ball now becomes down or a fumble..it can not be a catch in bounds a football move and no control through the tackle/out of bounds fall....it cant be both.

 

[Flamma]

It will always be a catch in my mind. It's just not worth arguing anymore, because we've all had enough time to form educated opinions and settled in on it.

The only saving grace is my belief the defense would've folded like a lawn chair.

Me too. I agree completely. Where the Cowboys lost that game was when they were up 10-7 and Murray fumbled it going through a huge hole near mid field. Dallas was starting to take control of that game like they've been doing all season. It would have been 17-7 and the avalanche was in motion. Same process in all of their wins. But that fumble changed everything. Packers still had 4 minutes left, I'm sure they would have scored again.

 

[McKDaddy]

In the old thread there are two examples of Blandino completely contradicting what he and other officials would later say about what is a catch before the Dez catch.

This is the real smoking gun. I don't remember all the details at this time but I'm pretty sure that Blandino, Perrera and maybe another person involved later (once they were retired) said that the wording of the rules was NOT what they were discussing and being instructed as the correct interpretation of the rules. In other words, they were being told that what happened with Dez should be ruled a catch. As other posters have said, earlier interpretations had already caused egregious rulings. In response the league had started adjusting the instruction being given to the officials even though the written word couldn't change mid season.