Tony threw 2 INTs?

[Jarv]

That throw to Witten was awful. That is on Tony. But that Street one should count as a fumble

That's what I thought, so I was surprised to see 2 INTs in the box score...Oh well, a win is a win!

 

[mattjames2010]

I thought it was a lazy route ran by Witten on that first INT.

 

[MrPeanutbutter]

He was like a maestro back there........calm cool and collected

And he had ALL DAY. It was fantastic. The only times Tony was on the ground was when he left the pocket.

 

[tyke1doe]

well I agree it was a little behind Witten and we can call that on Romo, but you and I know that Witten looked quite nonchalant with his attempt there on a pass he would normally catch. he was like ho hum oh well, until it went the other way of course. Alot of the team was playing kinda rusty and aloof for all of first half and some into 2nd.

Huh? Are you saying Witten didn't care about catching the ball?

We try to dissect plays that are happening fast and in the moment. Witten tries to catch the ball, but it's behind him. I'm sure he didn't mean to hit it in such a way that it falls into the hands of Rogers-Cromartie.

It happens.

 

[SDCowboy]

The NFL needs to change the INT stat. If that second one was an INT, it should be on receiver INT. Not QB.

 

[Tawney88]

Did they call the pass to Street an Int? I thought he caught it and it was forced out?

They did say it was an int, but I thought the same thing he was running with it and it popped out on the hit. Not sure how that was called an int.

 

[Tawney88]

2 extremely bogus int's charged to Tony.

First one was on Romo, he threw it behind Witten. The second one I agree was bogus, but they have to make the NFL ruling on the Dez "Non" Catch last year in the playoffs seem legit.

 

[Doomsday101]

Did they call the pass to Street an Int? I thought he caught it and it was forced out?

That is why stats are not always the almighty indicator. Had Witten not kept drifting on the ball he tipped to a giants player Romo would not have had any ints on the night. As it stands Romo has 3 TD and 2 ints. However I don't feel either one were on Romo

 

[Doomsday101]

First one was on Romo, he threw it behind Witten. The second one I agree was bogus, but they have to make the NFL ruling on the Dez "Non" Catch last year in the playoffs seem legit.

I disagree watch the tape if Witten sits down in the hole the ball will not be behind him, Witten continued to drift on that play

 

[Tawney88]

I disagree watch the tape if Witten sits down in the hole the ball will not be behind him, Witten continued to drift on that play

The ball was behind him, it happens. It wasn't the only ball thrown behind the receivers last night. It isn't an indictment on Romo. It was one play, in an otherwise almost perfect performance.

 

[Doomsday101]

The ball was behind him, it happens. It wasn't the only ball thrown behind the receivers last night. It isn't an indictment on Romo. It was one play, in an otherwise almost perfect performance.

yes and Witten continued to drift on the play if he sits down in the hole within the zone that is not going to be behind him.

 

[sideon]

Witten & Street had ints, not Romo.

 

[phildadon86]

He never had full possession so it goes against Tony, even though it was all on Street. have to possess the ball as a catch before it can be ruled a fumble.

But didn't Beckham Junior have literally thr exact same play reversed?

 

[TellerMorrow34]

the first one is on Romo, that ball was way behind Witten

The pass was definitely off. He has to shoulder most of that.

But Witten can't be let off the hook. He got his hand on it. Either catch it or knock it down.

But that second INT is completely on Street. I thought it was a fumble as well when the game was going. It wasn't until later that they showed Tony with 2 INT's that I realized that they'd called it an INT.