dear god that call

[mrydel]

For all those who doubt the call...here is the actual rule...
N.F.L. Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1: Going to the ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Read the rule. No where does it mention a football move. It is a separate rule for going to the ground. Has nothing to do with a football move. Had he had both feet on the ground when he caught the ball then the football move would have been in effect. You cannot just say that individual rules are intertwined.

And I am a Cowboy fan and I think the rule stinks.

[Grant Carter]

The rule does not mention football move. It says if you catch the ball and are going to the ground you must maintain possession until you are to the ground. When he hit he lost possession. You guys are confusing rules. The football move rule is not the going to the ground move.

If that is he case, then why were pereira etc discussing whether his arm extension was enough to qualify as a football move? If football move has nothing to do with it then why was that a topic of discussion amongst he professionals?

Also, given that it was called a catch on the field, which frame of which angle shows conclusive visual evidence that the ball hit the ground since that is what is required to overturn a call made on the field? I have seen shots that make you think it might have hit the field, but nothing where you can actually see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrydel]

The rule does not mention football move. It says if you catch the ball and are going to the ground you must maintain possession until you are to the ground. When he hit he lost possession. You guys are confusing rules. The football move rule is not the going to the ground move.

If that is he case, then why were pereira etc discussing whether his arm extension was enough to qualify as a football move? If football move has nothing to do with it then why was that a topic of discussion amongst he professionals?

Also, given that it was called a catch on the field, which frame of which angle shows conclusive visual evidence that the ball hit the ground since that is what is required to overturn a call made on the field? I have seen shots that make you think it might have hit the field, but nothing where you can actually see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I heard the official in the booth say that it was incomplete. Maybe I get a different guy in Arkansas. I also clearly saw the ball hit the ground. Did you not watch the replay?

[Grant Carter]

Did you see the ball hit the ground or did it look like it hit the ground but his arm was in the way and you could not see it. What about the first part of my post?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

The ball clearly hits the ground in the view from the end zone.

[mrydel]

Did you see the ball hit the ground or did it look like it hit the ground but his arm was in the way and you could not see it. What about the first part of my post?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I addressed the first part of your post. I heard the official, I guess Perria or whatever his name is, say it was incomplete, And I discussed mold on pumpkin pie tonight but that does not make a difference in what the rule says either. All I am doing is reading the rule. It is there in black and white and I do not see any other way to interpret it. I saw the ball hit clearly the ground. When they over turn the call and let the Cowboys have the game I will be happy.

The rule needs to be changed. I would have been elated for the Cowboys to win but I hear enough blame the refs in Arkansas to not want to be a part of it.

[Grant Carter]

Did you see the ball hit the ground or did it look like it hit the ground but his arm was in the way and you could not see it. What about the first part of my post?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I addressed the first part of your post. I heard the official, I guess Perria or whatever his name is, say it was incomplete, And I discussed mold on pumpkin pie tonight but that does not make a difference in what the rule says either. All I am doing is reading the rule. It is there in black and white and I do not see any other way to interpret it. I saw the ball hit clearly the ground. When they over turn the call and let the Cowboys have the game I will be happy.

The rule needs to be changed. I would have been elated for the Cowboys to win but I hear enough blame the refs in Arkansas to not want to be a part of it.

I guess my point is that it was called a catch on the field which requires a higher standard of evidence to overturn. I not sure what could qualify as indisputable visual evidence that his reaching out with the ball was not a football move as I have not seen a definition of a football move.

If you missed the part where pereira was talking about whether the arm extension was enough to qualify as a football move then that might explain your confusion about whether that matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[couch 'em]

What is required to establish no longer going to the ground

[Fooball]

Did you see the ball hit the ground or did it look like it hit the ground but his arm was in the way and you could not see it. What about the first part of my post?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When they over turn the call and let the Cowboys have the game I will be happy.

The only thing that gets missed here is that the Dez touchdown wouldn't have won the game. If we got the touchdown we would have been up by one. A two point conversion would have made it a three point lead.

The Packers subsequently marched down the field on the next drive and would have had a pretty sure field goal to even it up at worst, but possibly win it (if the Cowboys didn't get the two point conversion). Of course it was also very possible that the Packers could have scored a TD, putting the game away.

I think the Detroit call was overblown last week because it far from cinched a win. I feel the same about the Dez call with my cowboys this week. We didn't play well enough to win.

[PlanoStang]

If you look at the first video above Dez is tackled by the Green Bay defender by Dez tripping over
him. Dez has control before that.

Also looks like Dez has his hand under the ball as it hits the ground. Inclusive evidence to over
turn the ruling on the field.

[Nacho]

Cowboys got hosed.
The rule will be changed in the offseason. Hopefully no lawyers will be involved.

[MustangStealth]

Also looks like Dez has his hand under the ball as it hits the ground. Inclusive evidence to over
turn the ruling on the field.

No, the ball clearly hit the ground. You can see the laces touching the ground here.

[MustangStealth]

If you look at the first video above Dez is tackled by the Green Bay defender by Dez tripping over
him. Dez has control before that.

Tripping over the defender = "going to ground". Therefore, he not only needs control before that point, but also after he hits the ground.

Again, it's a dumb rule, but it was called correctly according to the rule.

[3rdGenPony]

Falling is not running, diving, or lunging.

Yes, but turning is a football move and transferring the ball from 2 hands to 1 and extending is control of the ball

Do we need to discuss the ridiculous GB catch that hits the ground first that wasn't overturned? Horrible game.

I, for one, would definitely like to discuss this! Much clearer than the Dez catch and not overturned! This game made me question instant replay for the first time. As to the Dez catch, it seems like they reviewed a judgement and not a fact. Totally disagree with reviewing the judgement of the on field refs.

[Junior]

The call was bullsh. Should have been Cowboys on the 1.