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

[darthseinfeld]

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.

Ya we would have lost the game anyways. Rodgers would have had what 3, 4 minutes?

As painful as it was it was moot point. We should have drained clock before going for a score

 

[darthseinfeld]

my take on romo , is that he will get in HOF eventually for playing days and now as top announcer.
plus dont feel bad about a guy that makes 20 mil a year lol.

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

 

[McKDaddy]

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?

No. If you see it fitting that definition, then we simply disagree.

 

[Pass2Run]

What was the rule at the time? It's a catch IF you grab the ball while controlled and take at least 2 steps to prove you made a move with the ball in hand? Dez did that. The officials on the field initially called it a catch, but the crooked officials in New York (part of the camera review) overruled it and called it not a catch. Almost 3 years later, the NFL's Review Board wholeheartedly agreed that it was a catch and should have been ruled a catch.

Here's the deal.

And I'll be done with it. I won't post about it again, you know, in the spirit of moving forward and stuff.

Anyone with even a semblance of a brain knew that was a catch.

As fans, we talked ourselves into accepting it because there was no other choice. But in the game of football that we all know and love, that was a catch no matter how you cut it, slice it, chop it up . . . that was a catch.

Anyone with even a semblance of a brain.

I fear that kind of bias toward our team may prevent us from winning anything as long as Jerry is around and the NFL is looking back at Dallas being owned by the Jones' family.

 

[Kevinicus]

The post about the defender hitting him was after he caught it and was running to the endzone of his own accord. The GB play he was stumbling right out of the gate

Contact with the defender occurred immediately.

 

[MarcusRock]

No. If you see it fitting that definition, then we simply disagree.

That definition is the rulebook and the mechanics of the rules were followed. Not liking the result doesn't negate the fact that the rules were in black and white before the season ever began and all teams agreed to it. Why did Jerry or any Cowboys coaches never state it was wrong by the rulebook? Because it was right. Like the fans, they thought it should have been, and I agree with that, but it wasn't.

 

[CowboyFrog]

That definition is the rulebook and the mechanics of the rules were followed. Not liking the result doesn't negate the fact that the rules were in black and white before the season ever began and all teams agreed to it. Why did Jerry or any Cowboys coaches never state it was wrong by the rulebook? Because it was right. Like the fans, they thought it should have been, and I agree with that, but it wasn't.

The rule book has black and white but the way that play had to be called was not, again saying "Read the rules" doesn't exactly cover what happened....define possesion threw the catch, again the ball touches the ground but while in the posession of the reciever, it never touches the ground out of possession..also football move and falling down calls have to be made and on that play it anything but black and white...those are all judgment calls and to say they couldn't have gone the other way is crazy.

 

[MarcusRock]

The rule book has black and white but the way that play had to be called was not, again saying "Read the rules" doesn't exactly cover what happened....define possesion threw the catch, again the ball touches the ground but while in the posession of the reciever, it never touches the ground out of possession..also football move and falling down calls have to be made and on that play it anything but black and white...those are all judgment calls and to say they couldn't have gone the other way is crazy.

You're conflating a ton of rules in the same sentence. The ball didn't need to touch the ground "out of possesion." A receiver needed to maintain possession after it touches the ground and that is what sunk Dez. He either needed to keep the ball off the ground and he could bobble the ball to his heart's content, or keep the ball tight once it hit the ground so it doesn't move or only slightly move (could have pinned the ball to his shoulder). He did neither and that was the overturn. Judgment calls will never be eliminated from the game.

 

[noshame]

HOF Good Lord

 

[CowboyFrog]

You're conflating a ton of rules in the same sentence. The ball didn't need to touch the ground "out of possesion." A receiver needed to maintain possession after it touches the ground and that is what sunk Dez. He either needed to keep the ball off the ground and he could bobble the ball to his heart's content, or keep the ball tight once it hit the ground so it doesn't move or only slightly move (could have pinned the ball to his shoulder). He did neither and that was the overturn. Judgment calls will never be eliminated from the game.

how does this mean anything other than what i said..they had to make a judgement call on falling down not lunging then had to make a judgement call on wether thats a football move or not THEN had to make a judgement call on wether the ball was in his posession when he hit the ground with the ball as the ground can not cause a fumble...he then get possession of the ball after and it never hits the ground by itself not even close...so again non of your black and white rules cover any of that its all judgement on who was making the call and in fact could have gone the other way very easily.

 

[starfan1]

HOF Good Lord

Ya the legend of TR grows exponentially year by year

 

[john van brocklin]

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

I think most objective minds would say it was a catch.

 

[DFWJC]

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.

Whenever this topic comes up, Marcus goes ballistic. Just pounces on it.

For whatever reason, he is more invested in that NOT being a catch than ANY other Cowboy topic over the last 8 years

 

[MarcusRock]

and it never hits the ground by itself not even close

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

 

[starfan1]

Whenever this topic comes up, Marcus goes ballistic. Just pounces on it.

For whatever reason, he is more invested in that NOT being a catch than ANY other Cowboy topic over the last 8 years

it so happens that hes right though

 

[MarcusRock]

Whenever this topic comes up, Marcus goes ballistic. Just pounces on it.

For whatever reason, he is more invested in that NOT being a catch than ANY other Cowboy topic over the last 8 years

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.

 

[mattjames2010]

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.

Really hard to criticize a WR for simply reaching for a couple more yards or a score. I have no issue with what Dez did there.

 

[CowboyFrog]

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

The ball can hit the ground as long as its in possession...is the ball not in possession? and again to get to this point they have already made 2 very arguable judgment calls...right? your trying to say the ball can not touch the ground which is not true it can not touch the ground out of possesion...like if the reciever is trapping it off the ground its hitting the ground before possesion.

 

[DFWJC]

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

You know when even Stephen A agees wit Skip its plain as day.

• 1-2-3 steps and extend.
• Called a catch on the field.
• Both announcers thought for sure it was too.

As they said, it was a "criminal" overturned catch.

 

[DFWJC]

Really hard to criticize a WR for simply reaching for a couple more yards or a score. I have no issue with what Dez did there.

Oh, I know. Dez was just being Dez and trying to turn a catch into a TD all in once feel swoop.