Video Proof... Glenn dropped pass. NO SAFETY

[Phoenix-Talon]

Did he have both palms on the ball?

At that time did he have both feet touching the ground?

At that time did the ball move between his palms?

An answer of yes to all three indicates it's a catch. You've already agreed to the first and second questions. Can you not see that the third one happens?

Interesting point of view.

 

[wxcpo]

This has to be the most talked about play of the season. Just like any other controversial play you are going to have those on both sides of the arguement. I just don't understand though how those that are for the catch arguement are calling those who are for the not a catch arguement whiners. Why can't it be a simple discussion about the play instead of we are right and you whiners are wrong mentality?

 

[percyhoward]

They are going by a picture that took place after the ball has already been caught. When Glenn slipped he slipped because he was trying to run at that point the ball does touch the ground but the catch as already been made.

We agree.

The pass didn't hit the ground. The ball did. The pass hit Glenn in the hands and he caught it. The only reason the ball hit the ground is because Glenn slipped, and used that hand (the one with the ball) to keep from falling.

 

[percyhoward]

If the ball hits the ground after it already has been caught, it's not incomplete.

That was my original argument, and while it is true in general, it turns out that it doesn't describe this particular play.

Mike Pereira, head of NFL officials, said on NFLN that it wasn't a catch until Glenn maintained control after the ball hitting the ground. I was surprised by that interpretation, because I thought the ball moved while it was touching the ground.

And it did move. It just didn't move around in Glenn's hand. Glenn turned it slightly while he turned his whole body to go toward the sideline.

We can each take our own understanding of the rule, and apply it to the play, but if you want to know the official explanation of why it was a catch, there it is.

 

[smarta5150]

Wow.

Still going.

 

[percyhoward]

Between the 2nd step and the ball hitting the ground, when did Glenn actually control this football?

Did he tuck the ball away? Did he cradle the ball, or extend it?

"Control" just means that the ball isn't moving around in the receiver's hands. You won't find anything among those rules you keep quoting about tucking away, cradling, or extending the ball.

 

[eduncan22]

You are not going to hear a lot about this play from the NFL.

The reason:

It's was an incomplete pass and their "Replay" blew the call.

I know they only have 90 seconds, but this was a playoff game.

It's also been overshadowed by the Romo muff.

 

[percyhoward]

You are not going to hear a lot about this play from the NFL.

That's a strange comment, if you've actually been reading this thread that you're posting in.

Like I said, the head of officials talked about the play in depth, analyzing the replay from different angles, and explaining why it was correctly ruled as a catch.

If you're interested in knowing why it was ruled a catch, all you have to do is read his explanation.

It was posted in this thread.

If there is any part of it that you take exception with, then by all means state your case.

 

[iceberg]

WAH!

WAH I SAY!!!

amazing that the whining continues.

 

[theogt]

Repost it. I'd rather not dig through the thread.

 

[smarta5150]

WAH!

WAH I SAY!!!

amazing that the whining continues.

Even I gave it up.

 

[iceberg]

Even I gave it up.

i just don't get what the point is anymore.

it was ruled what it was ruled and it's over. you can argue all you want but the nfl isn't going to dive in here, see the thread and re-evalute things.

some said they weren't whining but "discussing" it - but what in the holy hell is left to discuss? if you think it was a fumble, great. if not, great.

it's over and done and nothing else can possibly be said about this anymore and it's now long past the stage of just being "whining" and nothing more.

 

[Kilyin]

i just don't get what the point is anymore.

it was ruled what it was ruled and it's over. you can argue all you want but the nfl isn't going to dive in here, see the thread and re-evalute things.

some said they weren't whining but "discussing" it - but what in the holy hell is left to discuss? if you think it was a fumble, great. if not, great.

it's over and done and nothing else can possibly be said about this anymore and it's now long past the stage of just being "whining" and nothing more.

By that line of thinking, the season is over for the Cowboys so what's there left to discuss? All threads are meaningless speculation and/or whining. May as well shut down the message board.

 

[smarta5150]

i just don't get what the point is anymore.

it was ruled what it was ruled and it's over. you can argue all you want but the nfl isn't going to dive in here, see the thread and re-evalute things.

some said they weren't whining but "discussing" it - but what in the holy hell is left to discuss? if you think it was a fumble, great. if not, great.

it's over and done and nothing else can possibly be said about this anymore and it's now long past the stage of just being "whining" and nothing more.

I gave it a good 6 pages shortly after the game... now we are 1 week later and 16 pages in a new thread. Where's that beating a dead dog smiley?

 

[iceberg]

By that line of thinking, the season is over for the Cowboys so what's there left to discuss? All threads are meaningless speculation and/or whining. May as well shut down the message board.

i argue 1 play has been talked to death - you equate that to shutting down the board.

amazing the reaches some people can go through.

 

[WoodysGirl]

That's a strange comment, if you've actually been reading this thread that you're posting in.

Like I said, the head of officials talked about the play in depth, analyzing the replay from different angles, and explaining why it was correctly ruled as a catch.

If you're interested in knowing why it was ruled a catch, all you have to do is read his explanation.

It was posted in this thread.

If there is any part of it that you take exception with, then by all means state your case.

Just to add to your post, I got this from Spags Mick Shots.

Mick Shots - Jan. 8​

There seems to be a lot of questions about a lot of things today, along with a lot of second guessing, but one of the biggest questions marks seems to be the play from the Dallas 2-yard line that ended up a safety, and then a Seattle touchdown on the ensuing possession for an eight-point turnaround. Just like that, the Seahawks wiped out a 20-13 deficit to take a 21-20 lead in just more than two minutes.​

As you probably bitterly remember, Terry Glenn caught basically a quick out, was inadvertently stripped by Seattle’s Kelly Jennings who was just trying to make a tackle on the off-balanced Dallas receiver and the ball bounded backward like a hot potato. The ruling on the field was a Seattle touchdown, the officials saying Michael Boulware recovered the ball in the end zone.​

Cowboys head coach Bill Parcells challenged the call, insisting the ball went out of bounds in the end zone without Seattle ever gaining possession, which would have meant a safety. That’s exactly what referee Walt Anderson ruled upon further review.​

But many of you have contended Glenn never really had possession of the ball, that the ball really hit the ground while in his grasp and was dislodged, meaning it should have been incompletion. So the question has been: Did Parcells challenge the wrong part of the play or does Anderson review the entire play for any discrepancies from what was ruled on the field?​

So I put the question to Greg Aiello, the NFL’s vice president of public relations, and in an e-mail he said the answer is this:​

“Yes, the referee can look at the entire play during a replay review, and in fact that is what Walt Anderson did, and determined that it was a catch because Glenn maintained possession when the ball touched the ground. By rule, that is possession and a legal catch.”​

So just know all angles of the play were at least reviewed, regardless if you agree with the assessment.​

Now some food for thought: The Cowboys in the end would have been better off if they had never challenged the ruling or if Anderson had decided “the ruling on the field stands.” That way Seattle would only have scored seven points to tie the game, not the eventual eight following the missed two-point conversion to take a one-point lead . . . .​

That proved to be the difference in the game.​

Sometimes you just can’t win.​

Published Monday, January 08, 2007 6:28 PM by rphillips​

i argue 1 play has been talked to death - you equate that to shutting down the board.

amazing the reaches some people can go through.

Thing is there are alot of topics that get talked to death on this board...

Remember the 3-4 v 4-3 debates, and...

All the o-line addressed/not addressed threads...

All the various Quincy Carter threads...

All the various Henson threads...

All the various "I Hate Zimmer" threads...

All the various "Bledsoe-love vs Bledsoe-hate" threads...

Those topics have been discussed ad nauseum, but the discussions are what drive this board. When it's all said and done, none of the points in this thread changes the outcome, but I figure people don't mind debating the points within the discussion. And to me, at least it's limited to one thread and not 5 with seemingly different views.

The good thing about the new format is that threads don't get moved out of the main zone, and that old discussions can continue on, without getting moved to the opinion zone to die.

Of course, the bad thing about the new format is that threads don't get moved out of the main zone, and that old discussions can continue on, without getting moved to the opinion zone to die.

There are downsides to everything...:

And since this thread was so long, I just wanted to add my two nickles. I felt left out.

 

[eduncan22]

Just to add to your post, I got this from Spags Mick Shots.

Mick Shots - Jan. 8​

There seems to be a lot of questions about a lot of things today, along with a lot of second guessing, but one of the biggest questions marks seems to be the play from the Dallas 2-yard line that ended up a safety, and then a Seattle touchdown on the ensuing possession for an eight-point turnaround. Just like that, the Seahawks wiped out a 20-13 deficit to take a 21-20 lead in just more than two minutes.​

As you probably bitterly remember, Terry Glenn caught basically a quick out, was inadvertently stripped by Seattle’s Kelly Jennings who was just trying to make a tackle on the off-balanced Dallas receiver and the ball bounded backward like a hot potato. The ruling on the field was a Seattle touchdown, the officials saying Michael Boulware recovered the ball in the end zone.​

Cowboys head coach Bill Parcells challenged the call, insisting the ball went out of bounds in the end zone without Seattle ever gaining possession, which would have meant a safety. That’s exactly what referee Walt Anderson ruled upon further review.​

But many of you have contended Glenn never really had possession of the ball, that the ball really hit the ground while in his grasp and was dislodged, meaning it should have been incompletion. So the question has been: Did Parcells challenge the wrong part of the play or does Anderson review the entire play for any discrepancies from what was ruled on the field?​

So I put the question to Greg Aiello, the NFL’s vice president of public relations, and in an e-mail he said the answer is this:​

“Yes, the referee can look at the entire play during a replay review, and in fact that is what Walt Anderson did, and determined that it was a catch because Glenn maintained possession when the ball touched the ground. By rule, that is possession and a legal catch.”​

So just know all angles of the play were at least reviewed, regardless if you agree with the assessment.​

Now some food for thought: The Cowboys in the end would have been better off if they had never challenged the ruling or if Anderson had decided “the ruling on the field stands.” That way Seattle would only have scored seven points to tie the game, not the eventual eight following the missed two-point conversion to take a one-point lead . . . .​

That proved to be the difference in the game.​

Sometimes you just can’t win.​

Published Monday, January 08, 2007 6:28 PM by rphillips​

Thing is there are alot of topics that get talked to death on this board...

Remember the 3-4 v 4-3 debates, and...

All the o-line addressed/not addressed threads...

All the various Quincy Carter threads...

All the various Henson threads...

All the various "I Hate Zimmer" threads...

All the various "Bledsoe-love vs Bledsoe-hate" threads...

Those topics have been discussed ad nauseum, but the discussions are what drive this board. When it's all said and done, none of the points in this thread changes the outcome, but I figure people don't mind debating the points within the discussion. And to me, at least it's limited to one thread and not 5 with seemingly different views.

There are downsides to everything...:

And since this thread was so long, I just wanted to add my two nickles. I felt left out.

“Yes, the referee can look at the entire play during a replay review, and in fact that is what Walt Anderson did, and determined that it was a catch because Glenn maintained possession when the ball touched the ground. By rule, that is possession and a legal catch.

Interesting that the NFL would say this..

BTW, does this look he maintained control of anything?

http://i89.***BLOCKED***/albums/k215/eduncan22/GLENNDROPSBALLV.jpg

What do they think we are?

7. Any forward pass becomes incomplete and ball is dead if:
(a) Pass hits the ground or goes out of bounds.

Two steps + ball on the ground = No catch