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

[Ranched]

It was a catch but all the pirdy colors were nice

 

[McKDaddy]

In all fairness to the referees. I remember reading something somewhere that the league had changed the rule and used that game as a testing game to see it. It may have been a different game though so dont quote me. But apparently the officials were very confused.

In another post, I recalled hearing that the league had been telling the refs to distinguish between a player going vertical to catch a ball and landing on his feet versus diving, sliding, etc.. My recollection was the refs were shocked\confused by NY's overturn of the call because they had ruled it exactly the way they had been instructed.

 

[McKDaddy]

While he was employeed by the NFL, he towed the company line. After retiring, I believe he confirmed he did not agree with the rules or the interpretation in this instance.

 

[MarcusRock]

Here is where you're wrong...

That old rule applied if you were going to the ground as you caught the ball. It would get nullified if you caught the ball, established possession by taking 2 steps, then made another football move ... which Dez did as shown in the picture below...

Notice, Dez is not going straight down but instead leaping forward with his 3rd step/knee bent/leverage coming off of that bent leg after he had already established a legal catch and football move with the first 2 steps done prior to his 3rd step and different football move after. THAT cancels the previous rule since a catch was previously established and now creates a new rule pertaining to a separate new football move where if touched by the defender and possession has already been established, the ground can not create a fumble during a tackle attempt as long as the ball carrier had possession of the ball all the way until the ball hit the ground, which Dez did. It can not be an incomplete catch since a catch was already previously established, thus nullifying the old rule you keep trying to apply to Dez's catch which the NFL Review Committe overwhelmingly voted 3 years later that it indeed was a catch.

God bless your soul for trying but this makes zero sense per the rules. It even sounds like something made up as you went along. It's simple, which is why none of you address the video I keep posting. Those 3 parts you mention refer to a receiver who is upright. You are either upright or going to the ground as you complete the catch process. Dez was the latter. When that's the case, you have to not let the ball touch the ground and lose possession. That is exactly what happened and why it was overturned. This is why none of you want to discuss the going to the ground rule because it kills your case on the spot. So everyone tries to argue he completed the catch before landing. He didn't. By TODAY'S rules a receiver can but back then you couldn't.

And the committee ruled it WOULD be a catch today, not that it wasn't then due to the rules then per Aero's post of the link below. He posted it in response to YOUR post yet you continue to spout that lie even when proven false. So you should be believed why again?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...s-cowboys-dez-bryant-playoff-game-ruled-catch

 

[MarcusRock]

Bottom line, years after the fact the league & multiple people directly involved with the officiating acknowledged that it was a bad call. I'm not sure why some people are still trying to interpret the rules to say it was the right call under the rules at the time. The league came out and said it wasn't.

False. See Post #13 of this thread. Note the title "... in the future."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...s-cowboys-dez-bryant-playoff-game-ruled-catch

 

[America's Cowboy]

God bless your soul for trying but this makes zero sense per the rules. It even sounds like something made up as you went along. It's simple, which is why none of you address the video I keep posting. Those 3 parts you mention refer to a receiver who is upright. You are either upright or going to the ground as you complete the catch process. Dez was the latter. When that's the case, you have to not let the ball touch the ground and lose possession. That is exactly what happened and why it was overturned. This is why none of you want to discuss the going to the ground rule because it kills your case on the spot. So everyone tries to argue he completed the catch before landing. He didn't. By TODAY'S rules a receiver can but back then you couldn't.

And the committee ruled it WOULD be a catch today, not that it wasn't then due to the rules then per Aero's post of the link below. He posted it in response to YOUR post yet you continue to spout that lie even when proven false. So you should be believed why again?

Taking 3 steps and making a 2nd football move IS NOT FALLING DOWN IN ANY EXPLANATION.

Once again, do you understand English? Where did you go to school?

 

[MarcusRock]

Taking 3 steps and making a 2nd football move IS NOT FALLING DOWN IN ANY EXPLANATION.

Once again, do you understand English? Where did you go to school?

This is falling down and thus the going to the ground rules apply. You can't even see a discernable football move here. One motion, down to the ground. That's why those rules apply. Again, you ignore that you've ignored what's been presented to you. Why trust you?

 

[America's Cowboy]

This is falling down and thus the going to the ground rules apply. You can't even see a discernable football move here. One motion, down to the ground. That's why those rules apply. Again, you ignore that you've ignored what's been presented to you. Why trust you?

You lie to justify your failed misinterpretation. Even the NFL, ex-officials and review board agreed that was a catch and should have been called a catch.

 

[glimmerman]

I think it was a catch. But the was our defense was playing and the time left then rogers likely comes back and scores. But us and football fans got screwed out of seeing a great end..

 

[MarcusRock]

You lie to justify your failed misinterpretation. Even the NFL, ex-officials and review board agreed that was a catch and should have been called a catch.

Again, why haven't you addressed Aero's post #13 in this thread that proved you're lying here? You can't ignore what doesn't suit your case.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...s-cowboys-dez-bryant-playoff-game-ruled-catch

The NFL competition committee has reached a "unanimous" agreement that some of the league's most debated catch controversies should be ruled complete in the future, according to committee member and New York Giants owner John Mara.

"I think where we are unanimous," Mara told ESPN on Tuesday, "[are] plays like the Dez Bryant play in Green Bay, going to the ground, [and] the Calvin Johnson play from a couple of years ago. I think all of us agree that those should be completions. So let's write the language to make them completions."

 

[America's Cowboy]

Again, why haven't you addressed Aero's post #13 in this thread that proved you're lying here?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...s-cowboys-dez-bryant-playoff-game-ruled-catch

The NFL competition committee has reached a "unanimous" agreement that some of the league's most debated catch controversies should be ruled complete in the future, according to committee member and New York Giants owner John Mara.

"I think where we are unanimous," Mara told ESPN on Tuesday, "[are] plays like the Dez Bryant play in Green Bay, going to the ground, [and] the Calvin Johnson play from a couple of years ago. I think all of us agree that those should be completions. So let's write the language to make them completions."

Because Dez made a second move after the catch, thus nullifying that previous rule. You know it, but as usual, you're acting ignorant.

 

[MarcusRock]

Because Dez made a second move after the catch, thus nullifying that previous rule. You know it, but as usual, you're acting ignorant.

That has nothing to do with Aero refuting your claim that the NFL "admitted" it made a mistake in its ruling in 2014 instead of the fact that they changed the rules and say it would be a catch today. Why haven't you addressed that?

 

[America's Cowboy]

That has nothing to do with Aero refuting your claim that the NFL "admitted" it made a mistake in its ruling in 2014 instead of the fact that they changed the rules and say it would be a catch today. Why haven't you addressed that?

Several posters, including myself, have already explained it. You're wrong.

 

[MarcusRock]

Several posters, including myself, have already explained it. You're wrong.

"Several posters" just ignored it and kept repeating the lie like you have. Why don't you point me to the post where you addressed it because what he said goes directly against what you said.

 

[McKDaddy]

This is falling down and thus the going to the ground rules apply. You can't even see a discernable football move here. One motion, down to the ground.

Marcus, obviously the rules back can be twisted to make any ruling you want as long as you are willing to define any single act to fit the wording. But if you accurately describe what happened it becomes clear. Key parts of the distinction are that Dez slowed, turned back toward the LOS, leapt off the earth, caught the ball, landed vertically, changed how he held the ball and then turned up field again in a clear & obvious attempt to advance the ball. Not simply to go to the ground but to advance the ball he possessed.

As a distinction, if this had all occurred at the 15 yard line and he had stumbled forward for 14 yards before finally hitting the ground at the 6 inch line no one would interpret the rule to conclude "no catch". Right?

He took multiple steps while clearly in possession of the ball. A shorter sequence than if it occurred at the 15 but the same actions nonetheless. It should be a catch in the backyard & it should be a catch at the highest levels of football.

 

[DFWJC]

Of course it was a catch

But Dez couldve just pulled it and gone down vs trying to dive into the endzone.

Dallas would've had 1st and 10 at the 1 or 2.
Use a lot clock, score a TD with that great line (assuming Murray dorsnt fumble again) and really be in the drivers seat.

 

[America's Cowboy]

Marcus, obviously the rules back can be twisted to make any ruling you want as long as you are willing to define any single act to fit the wording. But if you accurately describe what happened it becomes clear. Key parts of the distinction are that Dez slowed, turned back toward the LOS, leapt off the earth, caught the ball, landed vertically, changed how he held the ball and then turned up field again in a clear & obvious attempt to advance the ball. Not simply to go to the ground but to advance the ball he possessed.

As a distinction, if this had all occurred at the 15 yard line and he had stumbled forward for 14 yards before finally hitting the ground at the 6 inch line no one would interpret the rule to conclude "no catch". Right?

He took multiple steps while clearly in possession of the ball. A shorter sequence than if it occurred at the 15 but the same actions nonetheless. It should be a catch in the backyard & it should be a catch at the highest levels of football.

No use explaining it to him over and over. He is hell bent on arguing and refusing to admit he is dead wrong.

 

[Aven8]

I never thought it was a catch because of the way Dez acted after it. Go back and watch his body language. No throwing up the X or nada. I remember it like it was yesterday.

Still wouldn’t have mattered…..our D couldn’t get pressure on a one legged Rogers…….

 

[McKDaddy]

No use explaining it to him over and over. He is hell bent on arguing and refusing to admit he is dead wrong.

As I said earlier, it was just a sad time for the league. When you can't define what a catch is so that everyone shakes their head in agreement is beyond belief. I fully understand why they were trying to distinguish "when you go to the ground as part of making the catch" but they did a piss poor job of lumping it in with the other wording about a catch so that it makes it easier to say any player who goes to the ground at any point was under the rule. That was never the intention. It should have been a clearly worded sub section that made it clear it didn't apply in cases like Dez where he clearly established himself as a runner again before going to the ground.

 

[MarcusRock]

Marcus, obviously the rules back can be twisted to make any ruling you want as long as you are willing to define any single act to fit the wording. But if you accurately describe what happened it becomes clear. Key parts of the distinction are that Dez slowed, turned back toward the LOS, leapt off the earth, caught the ball, landed vertically, changed how he held the ball and then turned up field again in a clear & obvious attempt to advance the ball. Not simply to go to the ground but to advance the ball he possessed.

As a distinction, if this had all occurred at the 15 yard line and he had stumbled forward for 14 yards before finally hitting the ground at the 6 inch line no one would interpret the rule to conclude "no catch". Right?

He took multiple steps while clearly in possession of the ball. A shorter sequence than if it occurred at the 15 but the same actions nonetheless. It should be a catch in the backyard & it should be a catch at the highest levels of football.

Except he was going to the ground while doing all that and in that instance, a separate requirement needs to be satisfied. It wasn't. Would you like an explanation? Here's one I have not seen a retort to yet. You want to give it a shot?