Cowboys @ Packers: Who wins?

[German CTL]

Bottom line is that the refs are inconsistent in their reviews and I don't want that to affect my team like it did the cowboys this week... These fockers get paid a lot of $$$ and they need to get their shit straight. Who knows how they ultimately affected the final outcome of this game but if we're talking about the refs instead of the players, something ain't right.

 

[Remote Controller]

So they got it right last week and failed this week??

 

[German CTL]

So they got it right last week and failed this week??

They got it wrong both times IMO.

 

[Remote Controller]

I agree, and neither call decided the game. They were simply factors.

 

[Miller]

Here is my take. I was unable to watch the game so wanted to watch a complete replay of the play before commenting....

That should have been a CATCH! He had control, 2 feet down and his elbow hit the ground (which ends the play IMO and constitutes going to the ground) prior to the ball coming out. So he caught it and retained control to the ground to the point at which he was down. I do not see how that can be called an incomplete pass.....

And no, that doesn't decide the game outright, but it did steal the Cowboys best chance to take the lead in the game and allowed the Pack to end it.

Unfortunate end to what looked like was a great game.

 

[JScott]

Here is my take. I was unable to watch the game so wanted to watch a complete replay of the play before commenting....

That should have been a CATCH! He had control, 2 feet down and his elbow hit the ground (which ends the play IMO and constitutes going to the ground) prior to the ball coming out. So he caught it and retained control to the ground to the point at which he was down. I do not see how that can be called an incomplete pass.....

And no, that doesn't decide the game outright, but it did steal the Cowboys best chance to take the lead in the game and allowed the Pack to end it.

Unfortunate end to what looked like was a great game.

It's exactly the Calvin Johnson rule. His 2 feet down were during his fall to the ground, not running after the catch in a "football move". That's the distinction. So then he has to finish the catch, which is controlling the ball until the end. And because it was evaluated under these circumstances, that it was ruled incomplete because he lost control after he hit the ground during the roll over. AND just to note, I think it's a BS rule. The eyeball test says he certainly caught the ball, had possession going to the ground and the ground caused the ball to come loose. Any sane person says that should have been DAL ball at the 1 yard line. But unfortunately the NFL rules makers aren't sane people.

Also saw an interesting point somewhere else... what if Dez had crossed the the goal line while going to the ground, and then losing possession happened in the end zone. Would crossing the plain have trumped the need to fully complete the catch. I don't think it would have, because if it's incomplete then by rule he technically never has possession so crossing the plain with possession technically can't happen.

Hopefully this get's the NFL to do away with this rule once and for all.

 

[Miller]

IMO, Big difference on this one.....Dez went to the ground and was down per the rules of the game and still had control!! I just went through this frame by frame....no only was one elbow down before he lost control....2 elbows were down....he leg was down....his stomach was on the turf....and he CLEARLY had control when all these body parts were down. Play over....

 

[JScott]

Play over....

Agree on all points of what Dez did, but that's not the rule. Play not over... Because he catches the ball going to the ground the play isn't over when he's down by contact. He has to continue control all the way through, even after what we agree would be the point of down-by-contact, and that's where he loses control and thus incomplete.

If he had taken a running step or two after the catch and then fell to the ground, the rule wouldn't apply so it would be down by contact. And Golic brought something like this up on Mike and Mike this morning. He asked if Dez stretching out leaping/extending towards the goal line could be considered a "football move" thus negating the "Calvin Johnson" application of the rule.

 

[Beermutts]

Karma is a bitch! In the end the Cowboys got what the deserved

 

[bodey24]

He made the catch and lunged for the endzone with complete control of the ball. Hopefully this rule gets changed.

 

[Miller]

Agree on all points of what Dez did, but that's not the rule. Play not over... Because he catches the ball going to the ground the play isn't over when he's down by contact. He has to continue control all the way through, even after what we agree would be the point of down-by-contact, and that's where he loses control and thus incomplete.

If he had taken a running step or two after the catch and then fell to the ground, the rule wouldn't apply so it would be down by contact. And Golic brought something like this up on Mike and Mike this morning. He asked if Dez stretching out leaping/extending towards the goal line could be considered a "football move" thus negating the "Calvin Johnson" application of the rule.

The rule states you have to maintain control to the ground.... He did it. Ball caught.... Hit ground will control, lost ball stretching out after he was already down.... He satisfied the rule IMO.

And technically since he caught the ball and took a step and lunged I think it can be argued that he did not catch it going to the ground, he had it and lunged forward after he caught the ball.... Admit that this is a stretch a little...

 

[JScott]

The rule states you have to maintain control to the ground.... He did it. Ball caught.... Hit ground will control, lost ball stretching out after he was already down.... He satisfied the rule IMO.

And technically since he caught the ball and took a step and lunged I think it can be argued that he did not catch it going to the ground, he had it and lunged forward after he caught the ball.... Admit that this is a stretch a little...

That's one condition of the rule. From what I understand, and this is the confusing part, the rule(s) can and are applied/interpreted differently given the type of catch or something along those lines. For example, a WR catches the ball on the sidelines, taps both toes in bounds and then steps out of bounds. We've seen it a thousand times. And that's a completion as long as he doesn't bobble it on that step out of bounds. He's already made the catch and got two feet down but the play doesn't end there, he has to continue to maintain control after, while going out of bounds. It's a terrible rule, and a WR does have to maintain control while going to the ground but he also has to continue the control after hitting the ground.

And I agree with you. I think the lunging, even while going down, could have been ruled a "football move"

 

[Mike]

Catch rule will change in the off season, and it needs to.

Romo has taken much crap in his career, but he did all any qb could have done this December, and in the playoffs.

It's a shame that yet another game was taken out of the hands of the players, a major reason I have lost interest in this game over the past few years.

 

[German CTL]

That's one condition of the rule. From what I understand, and this is the confusing part, the rule(s) can and are applied/interpreted differently given the type of catch or something along those lines. For example, a WR catches the ball on the sidelines, taps both toes in bounds and then steps out of bounds. We've seen it a thousand times. And that's a completion as long as he doesn't bobble it on that step out of bounds. He's already made the catch and got two feet down but the play doesn't end there, he has to continue to maintain control after, while going out of bounds. It's a terrible rule, and a WR does have to maintain control while going to the ground but he also has to continue the control after hitting the ground.

And I agree with you. I think the lunging, even while going down, could have been ruled a "football move"

The fact that his lunging " could" have been ruled a football move totally negates the idea that the calvin Johnson rule should even be applied in this case IMO. Not enough evidence to say it wasn't a football move, call should stand. The fans and the cowboys were robbed of a great finish to a great game.

 

[JScott]

The fact that his lunging " could" have been ruled a football move totally negates the idea that the calvin Johnson rule should even be applied in this case IMO. Not enough evidence to say it wasn't a football move, call should stand. The fans and the cowboys were robbed of a great finish to a great game.

I heard a few refs (not sure if they were game officials or non-working refs being interviewed) say they didn't think it was enough of a lunge to constitute a "football move". Which I thought just adds another level or ridiculousness. They now have to judge how much of a move is enough for a full football move But yes, if they ruled he made a football move then it overrides the Calvin rule.

Also, it's crazy to me that if Dez just went to the ground, and not stretched/lunged for the goal line (most likely holding onto the ball all the way) then he's down at the 1 or 2 yard line. But because he gives an extra effort he ultimately is penalized.

 

[German CTL]

I heard a few refs (not sure if they were game officials or non-working refs being interviewed) say they didn't think it was enough of a lunge to constitute a "football move". Which I thought just adds another level or ridiculousness. They now have to judge how much of a move is enough for a full football move But yes, if they ruled he made a football move then it overrides the Calvin rule.

Also, it's crazy to me that if Dez just went to the ground, and not stretched/lunged for the goal line (most likely holding onto the ball all the way) then he's down at the 1 or 2 yard line. But because he gives an extra effort he ultimately is penalized.

I agree.. To me its insane that they can go back after its been ruled a catch and use highly disputable evidence to say they feel they've seen enough to override the original decision on the field. I'll reiterate that I'm not a cowboys fans but I was jumping outta my seat when dez made the play cuz I love the game.. The refs sucked all the life outta this particular game.

 

[Remote Controller]

Any Cowboy fan feels like, IF Cobb doesn't get fortunate on the tipped ball, (hell....any fan with a good qb on his team)Romo is gonna march down the field and score a td with 2:00 left. I was not concerned at all with 4:30 left, the way Rodgers was moving the ball, that he was gonna take the ball atleast 50 yards for the winning field goal. Like I have said repeatedly. THIS DID NOT decide the game, just like the play last week with 8:00 minutes left didn't decide that game. Cowboy fan was on borrowed time if they feel this was a game ender and forgot about last week.

(also, cobb might have been fortunate, but a good player is always ready to capitalize on the moment)

The Cowboys had a great season and Romo has proven once and for all how good he is. This game is over!

 

[JScott]

I don't think any of us still discussing it is thinking it was a game-winning reception taken off the board. Just talking about the stupid rule... and how it was/wasn't applied correctly. That's all.

 

[Remote Controller]

Last week was a bad call......this week was a bad call, but I can still only remember one bad call that decided a game in the NFL. (There might be others)

 

[Mike]

Decide the game? Who knows.

Major effect on the outcome? No question.

Ignorant reviews like this kill a great finish to what could have been a great game. Doesn't matter who is playing.

NFL rules need a 15 year rewind.