Not a Packers or Cowboys fan, but I thought Bryant made a football move, and went 2 or 3 steps downfield. It was a brilliant 'catch' in my book. Wow....a shame to have that happen in such a big game.
Dave
Always looking for original, better date VF20-VF35 Barber quarters and halves, and a quality beer.
<< <i>Not a Packers or Cowboys fan, but I thought Bryant made a football move, and went 2 or 3 steps downfield. It was a brilliant 'catch' in my book. Wow....a shame to have that happen in such a big game.
Dave >>
Edit to say: I agree except the part about not being a Dallas fan, because I am.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
<< <i>Love Dimeman's devotion to his team. That is what sports is about. That is what defines sports.
In his eyes he truly believe that the catch was good. Who am I to disagree. >>
Because he is crazy
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Love Dimeman's devotion to his team. That is what sports is about. That is what defines sports.
In his eyes he truly believe that the catch was good. Who am I to disagree. >>
Because he is crazy
MJ >>
Let's just give out participation trophies to everyone~that way no feelings are hurt and everyone can maintain their illusions of grandeur..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Love Dimeman's devotion to his team. That is what sports is about. That is what defines sports.
In his eyes he truly believe that the catch was good. Who am I to disagree. >>
Because he is crazy
MJ >>
...it impossible to be a diehard sports fan over the age of twelve, without being crazy. To worship the athletic prowess of a bunch of fellows that you would not want your daughter dating, you would not want in your living room and you would not want to share a taxicab with is not evidence of sanity.
<< <i>Love Dimeman's devotion to his team. That is what sports is about. That is what defines sports.
In his eyes he truly believe that the catch was good. Who am I to disagree. >>
Because he is crazy
MJ >>
...it impossible to be a diehard sports fan over the age of twelve, without being crazy. To worship the athletic prowess of a bunch of fellows that you would not want your daughter dating, you would not want in your living room and you would not want to share a taxicab with is not evidence of sanity. >>
Why wouldn't you want an NFL player in your living room or sharing a taxi cab with you? Is it the tats? Or something else? Seems like a rather narrowminded perspective to have in any case.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Why wouldn't you want an NFL player in your living room or sharing a taxi cab with you? Is it the tats? Or something else? Seems like a rather narrowminded perspective to have in any case. >>
Would have gladly shared a cab with Barry Sanders, Jerry Rice and John Elway.
Would pass on Ray Rice, Michael Vick and Rae Carruth. OJ as well.
Plenty of good fellows in the sports as well as plenty of reprobates.
As a rabid fan though, you cheer on the whole team, good, bad and ugly.
Since they are going by the letter of the rule, at first I thought they def got it right. Buuuut, in slow mo he does catch it, bringing it in then extends forward toward the goal line. I think that's "the football move" that qualifies it as complete. Hes def making a football move. If you watch, if he had continued to just pull it in he could have tucked it and been down on the two.
Neutral fan in this case.
Interested in higher grade vintage cards. Aren't we all.
<< <i>Why wouldn't you want an NFL player in your living room or sharing a taxi cab with you? Is it the tats? Or something else? Seems like a rather narrowminded perspective to have in any case. >>
Would have gladly shared a cab with Barry Sanders, Jerry Rice and John Elway.
Would pass on Ray Rice, Michael Vick and Rae Carruth. OJ as well.
Plenty of good fellows in the sports as well as plenty of reprobates.
As a rabid fan though, you cheer on the whole team, good, bad and ugly. >>
Agreed with the clarification.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Since they are going by the letter of the rule, at first I thought they def got it right. Buuuut, in slow mo he does catch it, bringing it in then extends forward toward the goal line. I think that's "the football move" that qualifies it as complete. Hes def making a football move. If you watch, if he had continued to just pull it in he could have tucked it and been down on the two. >>
I agree with every single word of this. In fact, I was just about to type it myself, but you saved me the time.
I have watched that replay many times, and there's no doubt in my mind he was attempting a "football move." He simply ran out of room, it appears. Had the earth been a foot lower, it would have been more palpable.
The entire rule needs to be revamped. There's a serious disconnect when the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can break up a pass.
<< <i>Since they are going by the letter of the rule, at first I thought they def got it right. Buuuut, in slow mo he does catch it, bringing it in then extends forward toward the goal line. I think that's "the football move" that qualifies it as complete. Hes def making a football move. If you watch, if he had continued to just pull it in he could have tucked it and been down on the two. >>
I agree with every single word of this. In fact, I was just about to type it myself, but you saved me the time.
I have watched that replay many times, and there's no doubt in my mind he was attempting a "football move." He simply ran out of room, it appears. Had the earth been a foot lower, it would have been more palpable.
The entire rule needs to be revamped. There's a serious disconnect when the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can break up a pass. >>
Loins Fan are still hurting over this rule four years later. We were certain it would be revised the follow season. Nope. The rule blew then and it blows now
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
He never really made a football move. 2 steps that are simply momentum from leaping in the air don't count. Ball then hit the ground and came loose. Easy call to get right on replay and that's exactly what they did.
NFL needs to clean this up!! Bad call last week picking up flag on pass int. Bad call(rule) this week along with several other ? Calls! 90% of fans don't know these and cure rules even the players and refs! Average fan can see pass int. ball hitting ground and yes even a catch! They will lose fan base and figure these games r fixed! They r calling way to many pi the defense can't hit anybody and the sport is turning into flag football with 5 wideouts and no rb. The call didn't cost Dallas the game same as it didn't cost Detroit last week. It just looks Real Bad with the NFL right now. Dallas blew it before half and Murray fumble. Even if play was upheld and they scored GB would have marched right down and at least kicked a FG if not TD. Overall it was a Great season for Cowboys and need some pass rushers and should be back in it again next year!!
As stated by others above ....... it was a definite catch......lunge for the line......ball comes out (never touches ground) Dez recovers in end zone....TD!
Now there are lot of "shoulda's". He should have just caught the ball gone down on 1 or 2 yard line. We really didn't want to score then anyway. Chew the clock up then score.
Also, it's 4th and 2.......WHY call that play in the first place. Even though Romo put it right there where only Dez could get it and Dez made a great catch. It's still a lower percentage play than say running Murray or a slant pass to Whitten. All we needed was a first down......chew some more time.......score.....leave no time for Rodgers......win the game.
But those are all shoulda.....woulda.....coulda's. It's just bad to lose on a bad call.
Someone said the best team won........go up and down the line and see Dallas is really the better team.
As I said earlier..it's a catch because he's def making a football move. But wanted to add..
If he caught that at the fifty, he doesn't catch it the same way. He tucks it in and doesn't lunge. As he did on the one yard line, towards the goal line. Dez, who I am not a fan of but, essentially got penalized for reaching out and going for the touchdown. He was by his own athleticism. Being able to catch it then reaching out/forward midair. I'll admit, he is a heck of a receiver.
Oh well, moving on to tonight's game. Go Bucks!
Interested in higher grade vintage cards. Aren't we all.
<< <i>I knew as soon as that play happened that I'd see a Dimeman thread here today...
Ball hits ground, pops out onto Bryant's forearm, no catch. Head NFL official agrees. End of discussion.
If it makes the Cowboy fans feel better, I doubt Rodgers can succeed against Seattle playing on one leg. He barely did it against Dallas. >>
There is nothing wrong with Rodgers leg. I'm thinking that was a storyline that was milked for all it was worth. Seattle will lose to Green Bay . GB vs pats
<< <i>I knew as soon as that play happened that I'd see a Dimeman thread here today...
Ball hits ground, pops out onto Bryant's forearm, no catch. Head NFL official agrees. End of discussion.
If it makes the Cowboy fans feel better, I doubt Rodgers can succeed against Seattle playing on one leg. He barely did it against Dallas. >>
There is nothing wrong with Rodgers leg. I'm thinking that was a storyline that was milked for all it was worth. Seattle will lose to Green Bay . GB vs pats >>
Back in the early 2000s the ESPN sports boards were incredibly busy, thousands upon thousands of posts daily, and there was always a post that earned Gem Of The Day.
<< <i>As I said earlier..it's a catch because he's def making a football move. But wanted to add..
If he caught that at the fifty, he doesn't catch it the same way. He tucks it in and doesn't lunge. As he did on the one yard line, towards the goal line. Dez, who I am not a fan of but, essentially got penalized for reaching out and going for the touchdown. He was by his own athleticism. Being able to catch it then reaching out/forward midair. I'll admit, he is a heck of a receiver.
Oh well, moving on to tonight's game. Go Bucks! >>
I have heard that same argument several times today and I think it does have merit especially after Dean B. stated that it was a judgement call that Bryant's momentum took him into the end zone rather than him making a "football" move. Bryant does have the rare athletic ability to make plays like that one and I think it is possible that was not taken into consideration by the league office. Either way it is what it is and the Cowboys had other opportunities to score earlier in the game and to stop the Packers for one more possession before the game ended.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys - Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2 touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL title.
<< <i>Since they are going by the letter of the rule, at first I thought they def got it right. Buuuut, in slow mo he does catch it, bringing it in then extends forward toward the goal line. I think that's "the football move" that qualifies it as complete. Hes def making a football move. If you watch, if he had continued to just pull it in he could have tucked it and been down on the two. >>
I agree with every single word of this. In fact, I was just about to type it myself, but you saved me the time.
I have watched that replay many times, and there's no doubt in my mind he was attempting a "football move." He simply ran out of room, it appears. Had the earth been a foot lower, it would have been more palpable.
The entire rule needs to be revamped. There's a serious disconnect when the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can break up a pass. >>
Good points all around here but one thing I'd like to add to the discussion is why was a high risk play like that called in the first place? If I'm the Coach im using my stud running back who already has over 120 yards rushing in the game to plow up the middle, so many more things can go wrong with a 20 yard pass as opposed to a short yardage run up the middle.
Paul, you're interrupting the Cowboys whinefest. Bite your tongue, LOL!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
FWIW-not much I know-I saw the play for the first time today. I'm not a big NFL fan, but I did know who was playing. I am shocked that the call was overturned. OTOH, I will lose no sleep over it. As someone said earlier, karma is a b*tch.
<< <i>Good points all around here but one thing I'd like to add to the discussion is why was a high risk play like that called in the first place? If I'm the Coach im using my stud running back who already has over 120 yards rushing in the game to plow up the middle, so many more things can go wrong with a 20 yard pass as opposed to a short yardage run up the middle. >>
An argument can definitely be made for that, Paul. But I -- and I'm sure I'm in the minority on this one -- didn't view that pass to be nearly as risky as most probably did. For my money, Dez is the best receiver in the league. He's a total freak show. Hell, look at what happened on that play. Sam Shields played that ball perfectly, except for only a few minute problems: he's not as tall, can't jump as high, and doesn't possess the sheer athleticism that Dez Bryant does. I'm sure the Boys knew GB was going to stack to the box and leave single coverage on Dez. That'll make any coach salivate, and I applaud Garrett for going for it.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Perkdog, I def agree. Why the high risk play. I was going to add that but didnt want to hijack this thread with something that merits a totally different discussion....4th and two....throw deep to the corner, one on one, low probability vs ...oh who's that behind me, the league leading rusher this year? yeah, perk, we shouldnt even be discussing it.
Dallas had a almost the exact same decision earlier this year which Romo checked out of the running play because he saw dez had single coverage. Leads me to believe that may have been what happened here. Romo's decision making...a whole 'nother thread.
Interested in higher grade vintage cards. Aren't we all.
<< <i>Looked like the ball was in the receivers control. Best if the game is determined on the field and not by the suits in New York. >>
Well, since the ground isn't on the Dallas roster, they can't really share credit for that reception. So, ya know.... >>
.....looked like a good catch and I am not a Dallas fan. Original call was correct. Replays need to be eliminated in the best interest of the game. >>
Sure, if we ignore the rule, it's a catch. Why let pesky facts like rules and regulations get in the way of what "looked like a catch." LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Looked like the ball was in the receivers control. Best if the game is determined on the field and not by the suits in New York. >>
Well, since the ground isn't on the Dallas roster, they can't really share credit for that reception. So, ya know.... >>
.....looked like a good catch and I am not a Dallas fan. Original call was correct. Replays need to be eliminated in the best interest of the game. >>
Actually it looked like a great catch. But, the rule as bad as it is, was interpreted correctly. Original call was not correct and that's why it was overturned.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>But those are all shoulda.....woulda.....coulda's. It's just bad to lose on a bad call. >>
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
The only dissenting opinions are from those who don't understand the rule. In that case, ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>The only dissenting opinions are from those who don't understand the rule. In that case, ignorance is bliss, I suppose. >>
“If a player is going to the ground in the process of making a catch, he must maintain control throughout the entire process of contacting the ground,” the narrator of the video says. “If the player does not maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, the pass is incomplete.”
....but he already had made the catch when he went to the ground. By your logic had he made the catch 30 yards earlier, a slip near the goal line would have been an incomplete.
Completion made. Initial call, even though Grote thinks the ref is an idiot, was correct.
I don't have time to explain the rule to you, Glicker, but you are mistaken in your account of what transpired. Like I said, ignorance is bliss.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
>>>Packers still would have won had they ran it on 4th down. <<<
That's easy to say after a hosing call cost us the game!
He caught the ball ........never bobbled it......took 3 steps.......RIGHT THERE IT IS A CATCH!!!!!!! Then he lunged and reached for the goal and the ball upon his arm hitting the ground popped up. At this point it really doesn't matter what the ball does....he is a runner at this point and the ground can't cause a fumble.
The ball should have been Dallas's at the 1 yard line.
And yes, this horrible call "DID" "GIVE" the game to GD!!!!!
<< <i>I don't have time to explain the rule to you, Glicker, but you are mistaken in your account of what transpired. Like I said, ignorance is bliss. >>
Yes. I must easily be the least informed NFL observer on the forum. The years and years of watching 3 or four games from start to finish was merely a waste of time as absolutely none of the experience stuck. Field ref must have really been a stooge as he was standing right there and blew the call.
You can interpret the "rule" as you wish, but you are wrong.
The good and bad of professional sports is that not all calls are easy to understand. Hang with it a while Grote and you will pick these things up!
Oh wait, you watch whole games of football from start to finish? Well, you should have just said so! You must be correct, then! My apologies, LOL!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Oh wait, you watch whole games of football from start to finish? Well, you should have just said so! You must be correct, then! My apologies, LOL!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
It comes down to a judgement on "football move"... Opinion call like balls and strikes, or holding.
If you think the stretch was a move, (I do, but full disclosure, my opinion could be shaded by the fact that I'm a Dallas fan) it was a catch as ruled on field.
If you don't think it was a move, and simply just an act of the falling process, (honestly, quite probable as it happened quick) then the rule was absolutely applied correctly.
As I've said previously, the ref was there, knows the rule, made a decisive call. On close, opinion calls, I like to see them stay onfield, but such is life. No amount of rationalization will make it a catch today.
I also do not feel robbed in any sense from a W/L perspective, as we had several opportunities to take that game in hand.
Game Over...and let's go GB
52-90 All Sports, Mostly Topps, Mostly HOF, and some assorted wax.
Comments
Dave
<< <i>Not a Packers or Cowboys fan, but I thought Bryant made a football move, and went 2 or 3 steps downfield. It was a brilliant 'catch' in my book. Wow....a shame to have that happen in such a big game.
Dave >>
Edit to say: I agree except the part about not being a Dallas fan, because I am.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
In his eyes he truly believe that the catch was good. Who am I to disagree.
<< <i>Love Dimeman's devotion to his team. That is what sports is about. That is what defines sports.
In his eyes he truly believe that the catch was good. Who am I to disagree. >>
Because he is crazy
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>
<< <i>Love Dimeman's devotion to his team. That is what sports is about. That is what defines sports.
In his eyes he truly believe that the catch was good. Who am I to disagree. >>
Because he is crazy
MJ >>
Let's just give out participation trophies to everyone~that way no feelings are hurt and everyone can maintain their illusions of grandeur..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>Love Dimeman's devotion to his team. That is what sports is about. That is what defines sports.
In his eyes he truly believe that the catch was good. Who am I to disagree. >>
Because he is crazy
MJ >>
...it impossible to be a diehard sports fan over the age of twelve, without being crazy. To worship the athletic prowess of a bunch of fellows that you would not want your daughter dating, you would not want in your living room and you would not want to share a taxicab with is not evidence of sanity.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Love Dimeman's devotion to his team. That is what sports is about. That is what defines sports.
In his eyes he truly believe that the catch was good. Who am I to disagree. >>
Because he is crazy
MJ >>
...it impossible to be a diehard sports fan over the age of twelve, without being crazy. To worship the athletic prowess of a bunch of fellows that you would not want your daughter dating, you would not want in your living room and you would not want to share a taxicab with is not evidence of sanity. >>
Why wouldn't you want an NFL player in your living room or sharing a taxi cab with you? Is it the tats? Or something else? Seems like a rather narrowminded perspective to have in any case.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Why wouldn't you want an NFL player in your living room or sharing a taxi cab with you? Is it the tats? Or something else? Seems like a rather narrowminded perspective to have in any case. >>
Would have gladly shared a cab with Barry Sanders, Jerry Rice and John Elway.
Would pass on Ray Rice, Michael Vick and Rae Carruth. OJ as well.
Plenty of good fellows in the sports as well as plenty of reprobates.
As a rabid fan though, you cheer on the whole team, good, bad and ugly.
Neutral fan in this case.
<< <i>
<< <i>Why wouldn't you want an NFL player in your living room or sharing a taxi cab with you? Is it the tats? Or something else? Seems like a rather narrowminded perspective to have in any case. >>
Would have gladly shared a cab with Barry Sanders, Jerry Rice and John Elway.
Would pass on Ray Rice, Michael Vick and Rae Carruth. OJ as well.
Plenty of good fellows in the sports as well as plenty of reprobates.
As a rabid fan though, you cheer on the whole team, good, bad and ugly. >>
Agreed with the clarification.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Since they are going by the letter of the rule, at first I thought they def got it right. Buuuut, in slow mo he does catch it, bringing it in then extends forward toward the goal line. I think that's "the football move" that qualifies it as complete. Hes def making a football move. If you watch, if he had continued to just pull it in he could have tucked it and been down on the two. >>
I agree with every single word of this. In fact, I was just about to type it myself, but you saved me the time.
I have watched that replay many times, and there's no doubt in my mind he was attempting a "football move." He simply ran out of room, it appears. Had the earth been a foot lower, it would have been more palpable.
The entire rule needs to be revamped. There's a serious disconnect when the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can break up a pass.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
<< <i>
<< <i>Since they are going by the letter of the rule, at first I thought they def got it right. Buuuut, in slow mo he does catch it, bringing it in then extends forward toward the goal line. I think that's "the football move" that qualifies it as complete. Hes def making a football move. If you watch, if he had continued to just pull it in he could have tucked it and been down on the two. >>
I agree with every single word of this. In fact, I was just about to type it myself, but you saved me the time.
I have watched that replay many times, and there's no doubt in my mind he was attempting a "football move." He simply ran out of room, it appears. Had the earth been a foot lower, it would have been more palpable.
The entire rule needs to be revamped. There's a serious disconnect when the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can break up a pass. >>
Loins Fan are still hurting over this rule four years later. We were certain it would be revised the follow season. Nope. The rule blew then and it blows now
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
coming from an eagles fan this is tough...
TOUCHDOWN!!!
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
Bad call last week picking up flag on pass int.
Bad call(rule) this week along with several other ? Calls!
90% of fans don't know these and cure rules even the players and refs!
Average fan can see pass int. ball hitting ground and yes even a catch!
They will lose fan base and figure these games r fixed!
They r calling way to many pi the defense can't hit anybody and the sport is turning into flag football with 5 wideouts and no rb.
The call didn't cost Dallas the game same as it didn't cost Detroit last week. It just looks Real Bad with the NFL right now. Dallas blew it before half and Murray fumble. Even if play was upheld and they scored GB would have marched right down and at least kicked a FG if not TD. Overall it was a Great season for Cowboys and need some pass rushers and should be back in it again next year!!
Now there are lot of "shoulda's". He should have just caught the ball gone down on 1 or 2 yard line. We really didn't want to score then anyway. Chew the clock up then score.
Also, it's 4th and 2.......WHY call that play in the first place. Even though Romo put it right there where only Dez could get it and Dez made a great catch. It's still a lower percentage play than say running Murray or a slant pass to Whitten. All we needed was a first down......chew some more time.......score.....leave no time for Rodgers......win the game.
But those are all shoulda.....woulda.....coulda's. It's just bad to lose on a bad call.
Someone said the best team won........go up and down the line and see Dallas is really the better team.
Life goes on.
If he caught that at the fifty, he doesn't catch it the same way. He tucks it in and doesn't lunge. As he did on the one yard line, towards the goal line.
Dez, who I am not a fan of but, essentially got penalized for reaching out and going for the touchdown. He was by his own athleticism. Being able to catch it then reaching out/forward midair. I'll admit, he is a heck of a receiver.
Oh well, moving on to tonight's game. Go Bucks!
<< <i>
But those are all shoulda.....woulda.....coulda's. It's just bad to lose on a bad call.
Someone said the best team won........go up and down the line and see Dallas is really the better team.
Life goes on. >>
You did not lose on a bad call. You lost because your team did not score enough points to win. The rule was enforced correctly.
Yes, the best team won yesterday.
Ball hits ground, pops out onto Bryant's forearm, no catch. Head NFL official agrees. End of discussion.
If it makes the Cowboy fans feel better, I doubt Rodgers can succeed against Seattle playing on one leg. He barely did it against Dallas.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
I don't see any Seattle fans exhausting a case of Kleenex.
<< <i>I knew as soon as that play happened that I'd see a Dimeman thread here today...
Ball hits ground, pops out onto Bryant's forearm, no catch. Head NFL official agrees. End of discussion.
If it makes the Cowboy fans feel better, I doubt Rodgers can succeed against Seattle playing on one leg. He barely did it against Dallas. >>
There is nothing wrong with Rodgers leg. I'm thinking that was a storyline that was milked for all it was worth. Seattle will lose to Green Bay . GB vs pats
<< <i>
<< <i>I knew as soon as that play happened that I'd see a Dimeman thread here today...
Ball hits ground, pops out onto Bryant's forearm, no catch. Head NFL official agrees. End of discussion.
If it makes the Cowboy fans feel better, I doubt Rodgers can succeed against Seattle playing on one leg. He barely did it against Dallas. >>
There is nothing wrong with Rodgers leg. I'm thinking that was a storyline that was milked for all it was worth. Seattle will lose to Green Bay . GB vs pats >>
Back in the early 2000s the ESPN sports boards were incredibly busy, thousands upon thousands of posts daily, and there was always a post that earned Gem Of The Day.
This above post by Bronco is indeed GOTD.
<< <i>As I said earlier..it's a catch because he's def making a football move. But wanted to add..
If he caught that at the fifty, he doesn't catch it the same way. He tucks it in and doesn't lunge. As he did on the one yard line, towards the goal line.
Dez, who I am not a fan of but, essentially got penalized for reaching out and going for the touchdown. He was by his own athleticism. Being able to catch it then reaching out/forward midair. I'll admit, he is a heck of a receiver.
Oh well, moving on to tonight's game. Go Bucks! >>
I have heard that same argument several times today and I think it does have merit especially after Dean B. stated that it was a judgement call that Bryant's momentum took him into the end zone rather than him making a "football" move. Bryant does have the rare athletic ability to make plays like that one and I think it is possible that was not taken into consideration by the league office. Either way it is what it is and the Cowboys had other opportunities to score earlier in the game and to stop the Packers for one more possession before the game ended.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
<< <i>
<< <i>Since they are going by the letter of the rule, at first I thought they def got it right. Buuuut, in slow mo he does catch it, bringing it in then extends forward toward the goal line. I think that's "the football move" that qualifies it as complete. Hes def making a football move. If you watch, if he had continued to just pull it in he could have tucked it and been down on the two. >>
I agree with every single word of this. In fact, I was just about to type it myself, but you saved me the time.
I have watched that replay many times, and there's no doubt in my mind he was attempting a "football move." He simply ran out of room, it appears. Had the earth been a foot lower, it would have been more palpable.
The entire rule needs to be revamped. There's a serious disconnect when the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can break up a pass. >>
Good points all around here but one thing I'd like to add to the discussion is why was a high risk play like that called in the first place? If I'm the Coach im using my stud running back who already has over 120 yards rushing in the game to plow up the middle, so many more things can go wrong with a 20 yard pass as opposed to a short yardage run up the middle.
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Dodgers collection scans | Brett Butler registry | 1978 Dodgers - straight 9s, homie
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Good points all around here but one thing I'd like to add to the discussion is why was a high risk play like that called in the first place? If I'm the Coach im using my stud running back who already has over 120 yards rushing in the game to plow up the middle, so many more things can go wrong with a 20 yard pass as opposed to a short yardage run up the middle. >>
An argument can definitely be made for that, Paul. But I -- and I'm sure I'm in the minority on this one -- didn't view that pass to be nearly as risky as most probably did. For my money, Dez is the best receiver in the league. He's a total freak show. Hell, look at what happened on that play. Sam Shields played that ball perfectly, except for only a few minute problems: he's not as tall, can't jump as high, and doesn't possess the sheer athleticism that Dez Bryant does. I'm sure the Boys knew GB was going to stack to the box and leave single coverage on Dez. That'll make any coach salivate, and I applaud Garrett for going for it.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Thank goodness that didn't happen, Paul. This thread wouldn't exist if they had gone with a play with a higher chance of success. >>
Packers still would have won had they ran it on 4th down.
Dallas had a almost the exact same decision earlier this year which Romo checked out of the running play because he saw dez had single coverage. Leads me to believe that may have been what happened here. Romo's decision making...a whole 'nother thread.
<< <i>Looked like the ball was in the receivers control. Best if the game is determined on the field and not by the suits in New York. >>
Well, since the ground isn't on the Dallas roster, they can't really share credit for that reception. So, ya know....
<< <i>
<< <i>Looked like the ball was in the receivers control. Best if the game is determined on the field and not by the suits in New York. >>
Well, since the ground isn't on the Dallas roster, they can't really share credit for that reception. So, ya know.... >>
.....looked like a good catch and I am not a Dallas fan. Original call was correct. Replays need to be eliminated in the best interest of the game.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Looked like the ball was in the receivers control. Best if the game is determined on the field and not by the suits in New York. >>
Well, since the ground isn't on the Dallas roster, they can't really share credit for that reception. So, ya know.... >>
.....looked like a good catch and I am not a Dallas fan. Original call was correct. Replays need to be eliminated in the best interest of the game. >>
Sure, if we ignore the rule, it's a catch. Why let pesky facts like rules and regulations get in the way of what "looked like a catch." LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Looked like the ball was in the receivers control. Best if the game is determined on the field and not by the suits in New York. >>
Well, since the ground isn't on the Dallas roster, they can't really share credit for that reception. So, ya know.... >>
.....looked like a good catch and I am not a Dallas fan. Original call was correct. Replays need to be eliminated in the best interest of the game. >>
Actually it looked like a great catch. But, the rule as bad as it is, was interpreted correctly. Original call was not correct and that's why it was overturned.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>But those are all shoulda.....woulda.....coulda's. It's just bad to lose on a bad call. >>
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Original call was not correct, as has been discussed and shown thoroughly here and all over the interwebs. >>
I don't see where we have a consensus here, let alone the broader web.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Looked like the ball was in the receivers control. Best if the game is determined on the field and not by the suits in New York. >>
Well, since the ground isn't on the Dallas roster, they can't really share credit for that reception. So, ya know.... >>
.....looked like a good catch and I am not a Dallas fan. Original call was correct. Replays need to be eliminated in the best interest of the game. >>
Sure, if we ignore the rule, it's a catch. Why let pesky facts like rules and regulations get in the way of what "looked like a catch." LOL.. >>
Catch was good. Rehash it as you will.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>The only dissenting opinions are from those who don't understand the rule. In that case, ignorance is bliss, I suppose. >>
“If a player is going to the ground in the process of making a catch, he must maintain control throughout the entire process of contacting the ground,” the narrator of the video says. “If the player does not maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, the pass is incomplete.”
....but he already had made the catch when he went to the ground. By your logic had he made the catch 30 yards earlier, a slip near the goal line would have been an incomplete.
Completion made. Initial call, even though Grote thinks the ref is an idiot, was correct.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
That's easy to say after a hosing call cost us the game!
He caught the ball ........never bobbled it......took 3 steps.......RIGHT THERE IT IS A CATCH!!!!!!! Then he lunged and reached for the goal and the ball upon his arm hitting the ground popped up. At this point it really doesn't matter what the ball does....he is a runner at this point and the ground can't cause a fumble.
The ball should have been Dallas's at the 1 yard line.
And yes, this horrible call "DID" "GIVE" the game to GD!!!!!
<< <i>I don't have time to explain the rule to you, Glicker, but you are mistaken in your account of what transpired. Like I said, ignorance is bliss. >>
Yes. I must easily be the least informed NFL observer on the forum. The years and years of watching 3 or four games from start to finish was merely a waste of time as absolutely none of the experience stuck. Field ref must have really been a stooge as he was standing right there and blew the call.
You can interpret the "rule" as you wish, but you are wrong.
The good and bad of professional sports is that not all calls are easy to understand. Hang with it a while Grote and you will pick these things up!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
It comes down to a judgement on "football move"... Opinion call like balls and strikes, or holding.
If you think the stretch was a move, (I do, but full disclosure, my opinion could be shaded by the fact that I'm a Dallas fan) it was a catch as ruled on field.
If you don't think it was a move, and simply just an act of the falling process, (honestly, quite probable as it happened quick) then the rule was absolutely applied correctly.
As I've said previously, the ref was there, knows the rule, made a decisive call. On close, opinion calls, I like to see them stay onfield, but such is life. No amount of rationalization will make it a catch today.
I also do not feel robbed in any sense from a W/L perspective, as we had several opportunities to take that game in hand.
Game Over...and let's go GB