**Official 2014-15 NFL Divisional Round Series** Big-D Bowl At Lambeau!!

[Retro Rob]

Fucking bullshit call. I'm hoping the Packers stomp the shit out of the Cowboys. Lions were robbed.

Fix'd that for ya!



I'm really kidding...you just hung it out there!

 

[Adrenaline]

The Packers won. Now we get to watch the Packers go to Seattle and get destroyed again, YAY !

 

[Captante]

Saw a few holding calls that were missed here as well, when the Boys were trying to sack Rodgers. Holding happens, and it is missed frequently.

Holding can literally be called on nearly every play, but that was at a seriously critical moment in the game (maybe the biggest moment) plus there was an official right there. Rooting interests aside stuff like that kinda ruins football.

Anyway moving forward the Cowboys played a pretty damn good game today and for once Romo has nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[BUTCH1]

There's a reason why you can't really blitz Rogers. Dude makes the adjustment and gets rid of the ball.

I mean, you can't really blitz him.

Yea, I know he would try and go to the "hot-read" outlet in a blitz situation, all the great QB's do it, but to me it would have been worth the huge gamble just for the simple fact that it is going to be close to impossible to cover his guys long enough only rushing 3-4 people.

 

[KeithTalent]

Uh, he had control of the ball - how else do you think he was able to extend his arm?

He did not make a move with the ball, he caught it, then fell into the ground where it hit the turf. Never established himself.

KT

 

[Fingolfin269]

Would this have been a TD if the catch were in the end zone? I know they referred to the Calvin Johnson catch of a few years ago but thought the rule had been tweaked in some way since then.

Also, seems like there's a problem if people in general have no idea what constitutes a catch anymore. Seems like many people think it was a catch. Many people think it wasn't. All because some people think he took a step or two, some think he didn't. Etc. When you have to go to the video and let someone's opinion dictate the outcome of the game you know you're in trouble.

And yes I know Dallas was on the good side of a bad call last week but I'm just trying to forget that and look at this specific play in a vacuum.

 

[Childs]

That being said, I've felt the refs had made bad calls all day against both teams, that just happened to be the worst at the biggest moment.

I kinda think they Cowboys got hosed on that call, but the NFL has been consistent in calling it that way. If he would have ran with it than dove it would have been fine, but it was in a sense one continuous motion towards the ground.

 

[purbeast0]

Would this have been a TD if the catch were in the end zone? I know they referred to the Calvin Johnson catch of a few years ago but thought the rule had been tweaked in some way since then.

Also, seems like there's a problem if people in general have no idea what constitutes a catch anymore. Seems like many people think it was a catch. Many people think it wasn't. All because some people think he took a step or two, some think he didn't. Etc. When you have to go to the video and let someone's opinion dictate the outcome of the game you know you're in trouble.

And yes I know Dallas was on the good side of a bad call last week but I'm just trying to forget that and look at this specific play in a vacuum.

no it would not have been a catch in the endzone.

the reason people in general have no idea what a catch is anymore is because they simply don't know the rules.

the rule says that if a receiver is going to the ground with the ball before establishing posession, then they must maintain posession all the way through to the ground.

he clearly never had posession (he was bobbling the ball out of the air, never had control when his feet were down) and then as he goes to the ground with the ball pinned between his forearm and hand, it clearly moves and shifts due to the ground.

 

[Slew Foot]

suck it cow-holes. Now for the revenge of the Fail-mary

 

[Fingolfin269]

After watching the video again I'm definitely not sure what a 'football move' is anymore.

Bryant caught the ball in the air then the following occurred:

1) Left leg landed
2) Right leg landed
3) Left leg planted
4) Pushed off left leg lunging for the end zone
5) Forearm holding ball hits ground
6) Dez rolls and ball pops up in air
7) Dez catches ball

Now forget 5, 6, 7. Do 1-4 not constitute a football move? Dude catches, hits ground 3 times and on the 3rd makes an obvious lunge towards the end zone. Don't look at the ball when this happens. Look at the leg.

 

[dougp]

He did not make a move with the ball, he caught it, then fell into the ground where it hit the turf. Never established himself.

KT

no it would not have been a catch in the endzone.

the reason people in general have no idea what a catch is anymore is because they simply don't know the rules.

the rule says that if a receiver is going to the ground with the ball before establishing posession, then they must maintain posession all the way through to the ground.

he clearly never had posession (he was bobbling the ball out of the air, never had control when his feet were down) and then as he goes to the ground with the ball pinned between his forearm and hand, it clearly moves and shifts due to the ground.

You're right guys, he TOTALLY DIDN'T MAKE THE CATCH AND FUCKING SWITCH HANDS WHILE TAKING MULTIPLE STEPS BEFORE LUNGING FOR THE TD.

Biased cunts.

 

[purbeast0]

You're right guys, he TOTALLY DIDN'T MAKE THE CATCH AND FUCKING SWITCH HANDS WHILE TAKING MULTIPLE STEPS BEFORE LUNGING FOR THE TD.

Biased cunts.

oh so we don't agree with you so we're biased.

says the biased cowgirls butthurt fan.

lol.

take your blinders off. i'm a neutral fan.

 

[Fingolfin269]

he clearly never had posession (he was bobbling the ball out of the air, never had control when his feet were down) and then as he goes to the ground with the ball pinned between his forearm and hand, it clearly moves and shifts due to the ground.

2nd gif on this page sure makes it look like he has control once his first foot hits the ground. And yes I know I'm linking to a page that also says the refs made the correct call.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/11/7528695/refs-correctly-overturn-dez-bryants-incredible-catch

Also neutral btw. Couldn't care less about the Cowboys or their crying.

 

[dougp]

oh so we don't agree with you so we're biased.

says the biased cowgirls butthurt fan.

lol.

take your blinders off. i'm a neutral fan.

You're still a wise and beautiful woman.

 

[purbeast0]

2nd gif on this page sure makes it look like he has control once his first foot hits the ground. And yes I know I'm linking to a page that also says the refs made the correct call.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/11/7528695/refs-correctly-overturn-dez-bryants-incredible-catch

Also neutral btw. Couldn't care less about the Cowboys or their crying.

he doesn't have control, the other angle they showed on tv in slow mo the ball shifting around between his two hands.

 

[purbeast0]

You're still a wise and beautiful woman.

and you're a typical cowboys fan.

 

[chimaxi83]

You're right guys, he TOTALLY DIDN'T MAKE THE CATCH AND FUCKING SWITCH HANDS WHILE TAKING MULTIPLE STEPS BEFORE LUNGING FOR THE TD.

Biased cunts.

Retarded meathead fangirls crying are the best part of sports, IMO.

 

[Captante]

2nd gif on this page sure makes it look like he has control once his first foot hits the ground. And yes I know I'm linking to a page that also says the refs made the correct call.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/11/7528695/refs-correctly-overturn-dez-bryants-incredible-catch

Also neutral btw. Couldn't care less about the Cowboys or their crying.

I believe the primary issue was that the ball came loose when he hit the ground and that's what made it an incomplete catch.

If you want to complain about the rule itself have at it, but according to the way the rule is written it was the correct call.

 

[zinfamous]

And karma aside I'm not sure how you can say that catch was controlled to the ground which is what the rule states has to happen for it to be a catch.


Edit: If it were a bad call I would have said so & I would have been just as disgusted as I was last week after the Detroit game.

I know it wasn't controlled to the ground, that much is obvious. My question is when does that supersede the necessity of the ball not touching the ground? Looked to me like his hand was always under it--ball never touched the ground--and no one seemed to suggest that it did.

I think back to the bobbly crazy catches like Antonio Freedom, who juggled the ball a dozen times and rolled with it, got up and secured it, then kept running.

Why did Dez need to control it on that catch--because the Defender had also pushed him ot the ground on that play?

 

[abj13]

Now forget 5, 6, 7. Do 1-4 not constitute a football move? Dude catches, hits ground 3 times and on the 3rd makes an obvious lunge towards the end zone. Don't look at the ball when this happens. Look at the leg.

Stop watching it in slow-mo, watch it in real time. That's no football move. That's trying to catch the ball and landing all in one act.

Hate the rule all you want, it was a correct application of the rule. He did not maintain possession through the act of the catch, which INCLUDES GOING TO THE GROUND. Not only did the ball hit the ground, he did not maintain tight possession.

 

[zinfamous]

You're still a wise and beautiful woman.

dude. don't be this guy. It isn't worth it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW4mq-nnSeE

[VERTICAL VIDEO WARNING]

 

[zinfamous]

I believe the primary issue was that the ball came loose when he hit the ground and that's what made it an incomplete catch.

If you want to complain about the rule itself have at it, but according to the way the rule is written it was the correct call.

Okay, that second gif, you can tell by the bounce that it touched the ground. That's a pretty clear ground bounce--I always thought his hand was under the ball when it jostled like that, so I was going with the ball never hitting the ground all along.

So, I guess, if he has established possession and the ball still hits the ground, it could be a ground can't cause fumble/recovery after possession sort of thing? But in that type of play, you can only establish possession by maintaining the catch all the way to the ground

 

[Deeko]

My opinion is that he had possession through contact with the ground, and by rule should have been a catch. But, hey, that's football. The silver lining here is that hordes of morons that want to piss and moan that there's some conspiracy theory and that the refs are in Dallas' corner can now slink back under the bridge for another season at least.

 

[juiio]

The play was a textbook example of what is now incomplete that would have been complete under the old rules. Basically anyone arguing that it should have been a catch should be arguing against the rule, not against the call. The call was 100% in line with the rule.

He was falling as part of coming down from his leap. He has to maintain control of the ball all the way through the fall. He didn't.

 

[lupi]

all I know is that if you asked the top receiver for each team if that was a catch, you'd have 31 yes and 1 abstained.