GFNER Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 NFL should be ashamed! Dez Bryant catch overruled!! You gotta be kidding, why even play the game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Seaguar Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Correct call according to the rules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishersofmen Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Heck of an attempt by Dez but couldn't quite control it. Good call.Rodgers on 1 leg is still better than most qb's on their best day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMITOUT Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Correct call according to the rules +1.Don't like the rule but they got it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainMusky Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Yeah that's a messed up rule for sure. So a receiver can have control of the ball two feet down and go to the ground where it can cause an incompletion. To me it looked like he was stretching for the goal line vs going to the ground. In that event it should have been a catch. But the ruled he didn't complete the action after the catch. Lame but oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schmitty3 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 B.S. rule/call. He clearly caught the ball took 3 steps and was reaching for the goal line when the ball hit the ground. The way I see it reaching for the goal line should be considered a football move, and that should have been a catch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainMusky Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Schmitty that's how I saw it too. The refs claimed he wasn't reaching for the goal line rather going to the ground hence the decision. I find it hard to believe it was overturned though. Most times those things "stand as called" since they don't want to stick their neck out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANYFISH2 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 No, he didnt take 3 steps!! He was off balance from the moment the ball touched his had, turned but never really made a "football" move he dove/fell to the ground, he didnt maintain control after hitting the ground, no catch, period. Right call.I hate the packers, but the call was right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1dwestF1sh Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Not nearly as bad as the call in the Det vs Dallas game... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 They got it right, but man, so close... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobberineyes Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Gutsy play on 4th down, I thought for sure he caught it, I guess what it boils down to is he shoulda pull the ball in instead of reaching and it would a been a catch......dumb rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aanderud Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 For those who say he wasn't going for the goal, explain why his hand/arm were stretched out. If that play was near the 50 yard line and nothing on the line, he brings in in and holds it near his chest and "maintains" control through the entire hitting of the ground with the ball. He was aware that the goal line was there and he was trying to cross it. The mere act of stretching it out toward the goal is a football move, AFTER the two+ steps with control. That's a catch. Even if it's "borderline" between catch and no-catch (which it must be, or there would be no debate on the topic) -- the undisputed fact is that it was INITIALLY CALLED A CATCH. There's not enough evidence that he didn't make a football move after having possession, IMHO, to OVERTURN the call on the field. If it had been called a non-catch, I'd have said the same thing. It was close enough of a play with not enough evidence on the replay -- in that case, you have to maintain the call on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMITOUT Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Gutsy play on 4th down, It was, but worth the risk when you're trying to advance in the playoffs? It was 4th and 2, not 4th and 10+ and I have to question lobbing it up 30yds when the season is on the line. Dallas will be Dallas, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Seaguar Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Bill Callahan is their OC, nuff said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunner55 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I thought they got the call right, but I'm not a Jerry Jones/Cowboy fan. This 1 & the 1 at the end of the Detroit game were both very tough calls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FISHINGURU Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I would bet my life that if they were playing against the Vikings that would have been ruled a catch.Possession in the air, 3 steps, and a dive with arm extended should be considered a football move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nofishfisherman Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Possession in the air, 3 steps, and a dive with arm extended should be considered a football move. Thats what I thought as well. He took three steps and looked to deliberately dive toward the goal line. Not sure how that's not a "football" move but I guess there is a lot of room for interpretation in what actual constitutes a football move.Either way I don't see the Packers or Cowboys going into Seattle and winning, at least not with Rodgers as limited as he appeared. He looked like he could barely move and that was after 2 weeks of rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJH Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Possession in the air, 3 steps, and a dive with arm extended should be considered a football move. You mean like this?http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81a77070/Controversial-call-on-Megatron-non-TD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FISHINGURU Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 You mean like this?MegaMoron pretty much let go of the ball on his own at the same time it hit the ground on that play.If he wasn't in the endzone did all that then dove and extended his arm trying to cross the goaline then the ground caused the ball to pop out it should be a complete pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandmannd Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 For those who say he wasn't going for the goal, explain why his hand/arm were stretched out. If that play was near the 50 yard line and nothing on the line, he brings in in and holds it near his chest and "maintains" control through the entire hitting of the ground with the ball. He was aware that the goal line was there and he was trying to cross it. The mere act of stretching it out toward the goal is a football move, AFTER the two+ steps with control. That's a catch. Even if it's "borderline" between catch and no-catch (which it must be, or there would be no debate on the topic) -- the undisputed fact is that it was INITIALLY CALLED A CATCH. There's not enough evidence that he didn't make a football move after having possession, IMHO, to OVERTURN the call on the field. If it had been called a non-catch, I'd have said the same thing. It was close enough of a play with not enough evidence on the replay -- in that case, you have to maintain the call on the field. Agree all the way on this. I saw it as a football move. I didn't see enough evidence to overturn it. Should have stood. Refs should not win or loose games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawgchaser Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Agree all the way on this. I saw it as a football move. I didn't see enough evidence to overturn it. Should have stood. Refs should not win or loose games. And I disagree all the way on this. (So what???) As far as refs winning or losing games, with 4 minutes left to play, I think Rogers's ability to move the ball against Dallas (80 yd. & 90yd. drives) would have been enough to get them in field goal position. In the hypothetical world, GB would have won by 1 instead of by 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leechlake Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I have no dog in the fight but after the call he was on the field with helmet off just like last week. I'd hate to try to coach someone who doesn't learn and can't control himself for the betterment of the team. He's a bad egg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawgchaser Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I have no dog in the fight but after the call he was on the field with helmet off just like last week. I'd hate to try to coach someone who doesn't learn and can't control himself for the betterment of the team. He's a bad egg. I was disgusted to see that, too. I prefer seeing rules consistently enforced rather than selectively enforced. To me, the ruling on Bryant's catch was consistent with the calls throughout the season. Bryant seems to get a pass on the helmet rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rundrave Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Not nearly as bad as the call in the Det vs Dallas game... the main difference between the call last week and Cowboys call this week is that the NFL won't be apologizing today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfv87 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I still don't understand the rule as applied, you can clearly see he has possession with 2+ feet down and separates the ball to 1 hand to reach for the goal line and tries to spike in across... so if he catches a pass and runs 40 yds and dives for the goal line and losses the ball is that also a incomplete pass? at what point is there control is it 2 steps or 3 or 10? and don't give me this steps don't matter dump... he is making a play to do more that just catch the ball, he is making a play to score... I am so conflicted because the 3 teams I hate the most (Det- Dal and GB) are all in these controversies with phantom rules/calls/non calls and while I love it because of my hate... I hate that football, which I love, is becoming so stupid and lacking common sense.Now that would not mean Dal would have won but lets be honest the game was over with that overturn by INDISPUTABLE VIDEO EVIDENCE????? Seems like I could dispute that he was making a "Football Move" as he had enough control to put the ball into 1 hand to reach out, just saying. This is a overturn, I could make the same argument if it had been called a incomplete pass by the official, we are swapping 1 officials opinion for another and that should not be an overturn IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now ↓↓↓ or ask your question and then register. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.