Packers-Cowboys

[GFNER]

NFL should be ashamed! Dez Bryant catch overruled!! You gotta be kidding, why even play the game?

[Mr.Seaguar]

Correct call according to the rules

[fishersofmen]

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.

[LMITOUT]

Correct call according to the rules

+1.

Don't like the rule but they got it right.

[CaptainMusky]

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.

[schmitty3]

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.

[CaptainMusky]

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.

[ANYFISH2]

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.

[M1dwestF1sh]

Not nearly as bad as the call in the Det vs Dallas game...

[traveler]

They got it right, but man, so close...

[bobberineyes]

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.

[aanderud]

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.

[LMITOUT]

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.

[Mr.Seaguar]

Bill Callahan is their OC, nuff said

[gunner55]

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.

[FISHINGURU]

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.

[nofishfisherman]

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.

[CJH]

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

[FISHINGURU]

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.

[Sandmannd]

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.

[hawgchaser]

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.

[leechlake]

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.

[hawgchaser]

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.

[rundrave]

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

[dfv87]

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.