Cowboys got robbed

[echeese]

Cheese I am on your side on this one, but it seems like we need a definition of or examples of "secures control of the ball" by the NFL I still think it is a catch.

I get that rules are open to interpretation. . .  .

My other rule point is that such interpretation can ONLY be reversed (see the whitten 1st down that clearly was marked wrong. . .hated the call but it was the right call and irrefutable) is the evidence is "irrefutable" . .. 

In the opinion of the ref who made the call and all the refs on the field, it was a catch . .. there is NOTHING irrefutable with the replay unless you want to ignore the "football move" clause.    

Another problem is guys like Dez and Megatron and Odell have hands big enough they don't need 2 for control . .. . . 

Catch was made, control established, football move executed .. . . granted. . .my humble opinion but then I did read the rules. . . . ground now cannot cause a fumble. . . .

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

In the opinion of the ref who made the call and all the refs on the field, it was a catch . .. there is NOTHING irrefutable with the replay unless you want to ignore the "football move" clause.

This is the biggest problem I had with the referee overturning the on-field ruling. Leaves a bad taste in your mouth!

 

[UT1983]

This is the biggest problem I had with the referee overturning the on-field ruling. Leaves a bad taste in your mouth!

The rule in question starts with "When the player is falling to the ground.."   It doesn't matter if DB took one, three or three thousand steps, he failed to control the football when he hit the ground.  The rule may suck, but the refs got the call correct.  No one robbed the cowboys of anything. 

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

— Twitter API (@twitterapi) November 7, 2011

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

Did the ball ever hit the ground on Dez's catch?

 

[UTK66]

Dez caught the ball. No one will ever convince me otherwise. Cowboys got hosed on that call but it shouldn't have to come down to 1 play like that.

 

[UTK66]

The rule in question starts with "When the player is falling to the ground.." It doesn't matter if DB took one, three or three thousand steps, he failed to control the football when he hit the ground. The rule may suck, but the refs got the call correct. No one robbed the cowboys of anything.

Wrong. The refs got the call correct (catch). The replay official is the one that screwed it up.

 

[java]

"When the player is falling to the ground", does that phrase negate a great run, catch, or anything that precedes it?  I don't think so.  Is it not intended for situations where a player goes up catches a ball and falls immediately to the ground?  That is the only thing that makes any sense.

 

[UT1983]

Wrong. The refs got the call correct (catch). The replay official is the one that screwed it up.

Actually the reverse is true. The refs got the correct after reviewing the replay. The whole call centered on DB falling to the ground without controlling the football thought the entire play. To argue differently at this point is simply moot.

 

[DocHorn]

Its been two days and I've watched this play about 20 times from all the different angles available that were shown on Fox  during the game.  I am still convinced they got this wrong, they know they got it wrong but have come out in force defending the call.  One of the worst if not the worst call in NFL playoff history.

It will be  a while before I get over this one.  He clearly caught the ball, took three steps,  moved the ball to his other arm and was stretching and was down by contact, the db hit his lower body and he was stretching for the end zone/pylon.    If a defender had hit the ball and it had come out before he touched the ground, there is no doubt in my mind they would call it a fumble.

This one truly steams me.  No, I don't think it is a conspiracy against the Cowboys, I think they got it wrong in the replay booth and will not admit to it, even claiming they had the NY officials look at it during the replay timeout.  Now they are circling the wagons and being totally defensive.

The ruling on the field was a catch, even if you bye their explanation there is not clear irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field.

I don't know if the Cowboys would have won the game, GB may well have come back and won it if the Cowboys had scored the TD on the next play or two, but it would have been fun to watch and the players would have decided the game, not the officials.  This was Bull chit   . 

 

[Juan]

Panthers since losing Greg Hardy: 9-0 
Cowboys since gaining Greg Hardy: 0-5

 

[texbound]

Panthers since losing Greg Hardy: 9-0

Cowboys since gaining Greg Hardy: 0-5

Panthers without Can Newton: 1-8

Cowboys with Tony Romo: 7-2

 

[longhorn_mig]

Panthers since losing Greg Hardy: 9-0 
Cowboys since gaining Greg Hardy: 0-5

Karma is a hell of a thing.