Video Proof... Glenn dropped pass. NO SAFETY

[pancakeman]

I can't remember the side view of the play, but is there any chance it was a backwards pass from Romo in the first place? If it was a lateral, then discussion of an incompletion is irrelevant.

 

[SultanOfSix]

It's called satire, dummy. My post has already been rightfully praised and designated the "post of the day" by Hos (jealous?), so go crawl back under your rock or better yet, swallow a bottle of pills.

I suppose this was satire too:

"Ball was slick. Glenn didn't fumble. TNew didn't hook that guy's arm.

Loser talk."

Right. Go back to your own forum Commanders troll.

 

[bbgun]

I suppose this was satire too:

"Ball was slick. Glenn didn't fumble. TNew didn't hook that guy's arm.

Loser talk."

Right. Go back to your own forum Commanders troll.

Of course you disagree. You're a loser who buys the "loser talk."

 

[SultanOfSix]

Of course you disagree. You're a loser who buys the "loser talk."

You'll spin anything.

 

[CaptainQuint]

why is this even being discussed now? The game is long over and nothing anyone here or at Valley Ranch says will change the outcome of that.
Let's be honest with ourselves, would we really have beaten Chicago if we got past Seattle? Maybe, maybe not. But I think more than likely we would lose that game.

Because it was an interesting game, and had more incidents than the other 3 wildcard games.
The lateral pass run in by Wilford in the NE/NY game was one of the only interesting plays in the other games.

Dallas could definitely maybe have beaten Chicago.
Dallas was a better team than Seattle, and would have been a more interesting opponent for the Bears.

And I say that, honestly, because I'm really a Chargers' fan!

Seattle's advantage for the last 3 years has been wallowing in the NFC West, one of the easiest paths to the playoffs.

 

[WhizKid]

BALL HITS GROUND.

HIT GROUND MEANS,

INCOMPLETE PASS.:bang2:

plus he didn't have control til' he pulled up from the ground.

 

[Rampage]

why wasn't it a touchback? the seahawk who threw the ball back inbounds had his foot on the out of bounds line. what makes that a sefety and not a touchback?

 

[Smith22]

After Glenn fumbled, we have a scenarios:

1) Recover it ourselves and get back out of the endzone = 0 pts
2) Seahags recover in the endzone = TD
3) We recover in the endzone = safety
4) Balls goes out of bounds through the endzone (regardless of who touched it, kicked it, etc.) = safety

 

[yentl911]

Why wasn't the play called dead when Terry touched the ball to the ground? I thought that the play was over if the ball touched the ground while being in possession of the ball carrier????? I am sorry if this is a stupid question but it has been bothering me since the play occured.

 

[eduncan22]

BALL HITS GROUND.

HIT GROUND MEANS,

INCOMPLETE PASS.:bang2:

plus he didn't have control til' he pulled up from the ground.

You have to maintain control of the ball throughout the catch.

Glenn clearly drops the ball before he can control it.

 

[Rampage]

thanks man

 

[WV Cowboy]

Why wasn't the play called dead when Terry touched the ball to the ground? I thought that the play was over if the ball touched the ground while being in possession of the ball carrier????? I am sorry if this is a stupid question but it has been bothering me since the play occured.

Because it's not college. You can get down on the ground and roll around but you aren't down unless you are touched.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

why wasn't it a touchback? the seahawk who threw the ball back inbounds had his foot on the out of bounds line. what makes that a sefety and not a touchback?

Excellent question. I was asking myself that when the call was made, but there was so much more to focus on, I sort of forgot about it. Just a bizarre set of circumstances.

 

[Doomsday101]

You guys are reaching for excuses and the simple fact is Glenn did catch the ball and had it stripped as he tried to run with the ball. To try and some how use the refs as an excuse for this loss is just not right.

 

[Urinal Mint]

It's not a touchback because Seattle didn't have possession of the ball prior to it entering the end zone and going out of bounds. Since Dallas last had possession of the ball when it became loose, the ball was declared out of bounds when Tatupu (I think) touched it while being out of bounds, making it a safety.

why wasn't it a touchback? the seahawk who threw the ball back inbounds had his foot on the out of bounds line. what makes that a sefety and not a touchback?

 

[Urinal Mint]

Amen.

You guys are reaching for excuses and the simple fact is Glenn did catch the ball and had it stripped as he tried to run with the ball. To try and some how use the refs as an excuse for this loss is just not right.

 

[WV Cowboy]

I really can't without a doubt say either way, .. I'm not in the "shut up losers it was a fumble" crowd or the "it was not a catch" crowd.

But go back and watch the 2nd video posted in this thread, and click on the play, pause, ... play, pause buttons and watch in slow motion.

It almost looks like he went down because he is reaching for the ball that had popped loose, and not because he slips.

He pops back up so fast it almost seems like he went down under control in an effort to try to get the ball, and was not falling.

I wonder if the ball would have popped out when it touched the ground if it would have been ruled a fumble or an incomplete pass.

Something to look at.

 

[Doomsday101]

Amen.

We lose we lose, no excuses. I expect that from Whinner fans and some other low life fans around the league who always seem to blame refs or claim the games are fixed because some one in the league office does not like us any time their team loses. Dallas fought hard in the game but just made too many costly mistakes. Glenn mistakes was but 1 mistake on the night.

 

[Doomsday101]

I really can't without a doubt say either way, .. I'm not in the "shut up losers it was a fumble" crowd or the "it was not a catch" crowd.

But go back and watch the 2nd video posted in this thread, and click on the play, pause, ... play, pause buttons and watch in slow motion.

It almost looks like he went down because he is reaching for the ball that had popped loose, and not because he slips.

He pops back up so fast it almost seems like he went down under control in and effort to try to get the ball, and was not falling.

I wonder if the ball would have popped out when it touched the ground if it would have been ruled a fumble or an incomplete pass.

Something to look at.

Replay did look at the play, he caught the ball cleanly, he then tried to run and slipped then regained balance and was stripped of the ball. Had he made a big run on the play no one here would dispute the catch at all.

 

[SultanOfSix]

You guys are reaching for excuses and the simple fact is Glenn did catch the ball and had it stripped as he tried to run with the ball. To try and some how use the refs as an excuse for this loss is just not right.

BS. I thought it was in incomplete pass when I first saw it, regardless of the outcome. If Glenn ran 98 yards for the TD, I would have said the same thing.

The ironic thing is if this happened, and the Cowboys won the game, I'm almost 100% certain the media would be questioning the legitmacy of the refs because the Cowboys would be on the positive side of the outcome. Just look at idiot Schefter and how he defended the pathetic excuse for reffing in this game. They are a bunch of hypocrites.

Tell me how this is any different than Polamolu's ruled "incomplete interception" in last year's Colts game.