Hey Cowboy fans

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Sorry......I thought you said Granma Nanci

 

[Mklangelo]

Sorry......I thought you said Granma Nanci

Well, you know what they say about Americans and Brits. Two people separated by a common language.

 

[OldSchool101]

Don't make me notify the Grammar ****.

lol.. I only wish I could say it was a grammar "set-up" dum da dum dum duummm
I concede this mistake only to one... my 3rd grade English teacher prophesied this would happen decades ago!

 

[BlueRaptor]

I don't think it was a bad call - but instead a letter of the law call, which during a critical win or go home game fuels emotions.

 

[sjb12681]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Legalizeit]

Actually the ball popping out does matter. According to the rules, the ball can touch the ground as long as the player has control of the ball and the ball does not move after contacting the ground. If the ball hadn't popped/moved then it would have been called a catch.

In 2000 the NFL changed the rule, now known as the Bert Emanuel Rule. The result is that the ball can touch the ground as long as the player maintains control throughout the process.

I had figured that out after posting that, but at any rate, thank you.

 

[sschind]

I'm not sure you and I are talking about the same thing when we say "technicalities". You're talking about every rule in the game. I'm talking about overturning a catch that 99% of objective fans would say was a catch based on how a rule is worded.

I'm ecstatic the Packers are going to Seattle. I'm sad that football fans were robbed of a terrific play made by a great player. I'm sad that we didn't get to see Aaron Rodgers lead a comeback drive at the end of the game (because, realistically, the Cowboys weren't stopping the Packers in the second half). But hey, it was a win for fans of technical writing!

I'm not sad. First and foremost I'm not sad the Packers won (note you didn't say you were I'm just making my point) I'm not sad the catch was eventually ruled correctly as a non catch no matter how spectacular it may have been. I am certainly not sad that the Packers did not have to try to come from behind to get the win. Unlike you and few other fans I have some doubts that the Packers would have been able to pull it off. I don't know if that makes you a better fan than me but I think it make me a more realistic one.

I'm talking about overturning a catch that 99% of objective fans would say was a catch based on how a rule is worded.

As far as this statement goes I just don't know how to respond. Saying you don't think a call should be overturned because of how a rule is worded is like saying a call should not be overturned because of a rule. The rule is the rule and you cant start making exceptions just because it was a great effort.

If you want to argue that even by the rule it was still a catch that's one thing but but to say you thought it was a catch but by the rule it wasn't leaves no room for argument.

Lots of people are saying they personally thought it was a catch but they agree that by the rule it wasn't. In other words instead of saying the officials, and by that I mean the entire crew including the replay guys in NY and not just the one who made the initial call, screwed the cowboys we should be saying they got it right and should be applauded. After all isn't that what we ***** about all the time.

 

[sschind]

"though shall not kill"
Oh, you meant man-made.. sorry

Ever heard of capital punishment. plenty of controversy there.

Of course using the logic used by sports fans I suppose the argument would go something like this. I don't think executing a serial killer is wrong but according to the rule it is.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I'm not sad. First and foremost I'm not sad the Packers won (note you didn't say you were I'm just making my point) I'm not sad the catch was eventually ruled correctly as a non catch no matter how spectacular it may have been. I am certainly not sad that the Packers did not have to try to come from behind to get the win. Unlike you and few other fans I have some doubts that the Packers would have been able to pull it off. I don't know if that makes you a better fan than me but I think it make me a more realistic one.

I'm talking about overturning a catch that 99% of objective fans would say was a catch based on how a rule is worded.

As far as this statement goes I just don't know how to respond. Saying you don't think a call should be overturned because of how a rule is worded is like saying a call should not be overturned because of a rule. The rule is the rule and you cant start making exceptions just because it was a great effort.

If you want to argue that even by the rule it was still a catch that's one thing but but to say you thought it was a catch but by the rule it wasn't leaves no room for argument.

Lots of people are saying they personally thought it was a catch but they agree that by the rule it wasn't. In other words instead of saying the officials, and by that I mean the entire crew including the replay guys in NY and not just the one who made the initial call, screwed the cowboys we should be saying they got it right and should be applauded. After all isn't that what we ***** about all the time.

Wow, when did I say the call shouldn't have been overturned? My issue is with the rule! The rule should be changed. The call was correct.

Guy named Bill Macumber was in jail for 37 years for a murder he didn't commit. The guy that DID kill two people confessed to his attourney but then died in a prison fight. The judge in the case protected the attourney-client privilege of the dead man and wouldn't allow the confession to clear the innocent man. So, technically, the judge did the right thing. Does that mean the innocent man actually killed two people?

 

[TJV]

Read this link and watch the video clip: http://www.fieldgulls.com/2015/1/11...ersial-catch-cowboys-packers-was-that-a-catch
It explains why it was a catch. The ball hits the ground at the same moment as Dez's knee and elbow.

To me the Calvin Johnson call was worse. that's because I think he put the ball down on purpose.

Here's the Calvin Johnson catch no catch: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81a77070/Controversial-call-on-Megatron-non-TD
The best slow motion view starts at about the 1 minute mark. Johnson grabs the ball with both hands and both of his feet plant in the EZ. He then takes his left hand off the ball and his butt and left knee hit the ground and as he rolls over he puts the ball - still in complete control of it in his right hand - on the ground in order to help himself up.

Like many of you I don't like the rule. The only things I can say in favor of it are every receiver in the league knows the rule or should know it and with all the rules changes that have favored the offense in recent years, this is a small counterbalance. With regard to Bryant, he knew or should have known the rule and he certainly could have prevented the ball from hitting the ground. The Cowboys would have had the ball somewhere inside the 2 yard line. With the way the Cowboys' D failed to stop the Packers ensuing 4 minute offense (knowing they were trying to run out the clock), I still would have liked the Packers chances. IMO Cowboys fans should be blaming Bryant for not knowing the rule, or his coaches for not teaching it to him.

 

[sschind]

Wow, when did I say the call shouldn't have been overturned? My issue is with the rule! The rule should be changed. The call was correct.

Guy named Bill Macumber was in jail for 37 years for a murder he didn't commit. The guy that DID kill two people confessed to his attourney but then died in a prison fight. The judge in the case protected the attourney-client privilege of the dead man and wouldn't allow the confession to clear the innocent man. So, technically, the judge did the right thing. Does that mean the innocent man actually killed two people?

Maybe I misunderstood the part where you said I'm talking about overturning a catch that 99% of objective fans would say was a catch based on how a rule is worded. I took the bold directly from your text.

As far as you attempted analogy it fails as well no the judges decision has no impact on whether the man killed someone because he didn't kill anyone and The Judge did not say he did. Just like Bryant didn't catch the ball

You don't like the rule but you agree with the call because it agrees with the rule. I have no problem with that argument. Its just that I was unclear of your position based on your posts. I understand now.

 

[Sky King]

Wow, when did I say the call shouldn't have been overturned? My issue is with the rule! The rule should be changed. The call was correct.

Guy named Bill Macumber was in jail for 37 years for a murder he didn't commit. The guy that DID kill two people confessed to his attourney but then died in a prison fight. The judge in the case protected the attourney-client privilege of the dead man and wouldn't allow the confession to clear the innocent man. So, technically, the judge did the right thing. Does that mean the innocent man actually killed two people?

Football is not life or death.

 

[Guacamole]

lets say that incomplete pass to Bryant happened during a college game,what's the call?

 

[Mklangelo]

lets say that incomplete pass to Bryant happened during a college game,what's the call?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Mklangelo]

My original prediction of the cows scoring around 30 and pack scoring in the 20's could of been very close to accurate... We were underestimated by your fanbase and you know it and I know it, the CJ rule shouldn't apply to dez's catch. He possessed the ball and made many steps and a lunge.. It's a bad rule, and will be changed just because of this play no doubt. The pack was gifted a free reception at the end of the half that led to score. The play has been looked at and the ball did indeed hit the ground... There is no doubt, the cows made too many mistakes and lost on their own issues.. But make no mistake about it, the cows came to your field and nearly spanked the living daylights out of you... If the cowboys scored a touchdown, and they would of, it would of been up to rogers heroics to win the game and even though you guys moved the ball well there is no guaretees he can come back with the momentum swing... That fumble by Murray is where the everything swung in your favor ... The bounces when your way on Sunday that is just the way it unfolded..

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Croak]

Are you guys still discussing this? What the heck do you think this is, the fail mary????

 

[AmishMafia]

lets say that incomplete pass to Bryant happened during a college game,what's the call?

oh, and what if it was high school football and you, the ref, had to juggle 4 waffles while all the cheerleaers were singing a derge? What would be the call then?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Maybe I misunderstood the part where you said I'm talking about overturning a catch that 99% of objective fans would say was a catch based on how a rule is worded. I took the bold directly from your text.

As far as you attempted analogy it fails as well no the judges decision has no impact on whether the man killed someone because he didn't kill anyone and The Judge did not say he did. Just like Bryant didn't catch the ball

You don't like the rule but you agree with the call because it agrees with the rule. I have no problem with that argument. Its just that I was unclear of your position based on your posts. I understand now.

And 99% of people would say that a confession from a murderer should free an innocent man but a law didn't allow it.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Football is not life or death.

Correct.

 

[Legalizeit]

The ball hit the ground and popped out of his hands while falling from the catch, all rules aside, how the **** does that qualify as a catch to some people? Seriously.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm sure this was written somewhere......but for those with the ability to watch the incomplete pass to Bryant frame by frame....watch it. Watch it close and from all angles. For all those pissed off Cowboy fans......Bryant barely got a foot down as he was switching the ball to his left hand (not in control) and as that hand comes down, the ball strikes the ground and pops out, helping him to gain control of the ball. I have read posts about "3 steps, didn't hit the ground, etc." the facts are he didn't have control of the ball...ever (without the grounds help). I think the Calvin Johnson "non-catch" was much closer to being a catch. The refs got this call correct.....the second time....no debating that. IMO

 

[HardRightEdge]

The ball hit the ground and popped out of his hands while falling from the catch, all rules aside, how the **** does that qualify as a catch to some people? Seriously.

It's a bad rule, but it's the rule nonetheless. Why does it look like a catch? Because he had control, took two steps, then lunged for the goal line.

 

[Legalizeit]

It's a bad rule, but it's the rule nonetheless. Why does it look like a catch? Because he had control, took two steps, then lunged for the goal line.

No he didn't have control, he got the pass, switched hands (no control) and fell, the ball then proceeded to hit the ground and bounce out of his hands, sounds like an incompletion to me.

 

[HardRightEdge]

No he didn't have control, he got the pass, switched hands (no control) and fell, the ball then proceeded to hit the ground and bounce out of his hands, sounds like an incompletion to me.

He most certainly had control of the ball. The rule that applied in this case is that he did not make a football move before losing the control that he clearly had, thereby resulting in an incompletion. What constitutes a football move is really anybody's guess.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The best part about the no catch was the aftermath......watching Dez Bryant plead his case with everyone on the sidelines.....appeared Romo was tired of it and pointed to his own head, possibly saying "Dez leave me alone, all that whining of yours is hurting my head" But I will give Bryant some credit, he stayed on the field for the whole game this time.