Oh my gosh, that's a fckn catch...

[HoopsDawg]

what BS!

[HoopsDawg]

what BS!

he caught it, took 3 steps, then his elbow was down, and when he tried to extend the ball the ground caused it to come out.

[VandelayIndustries]

Calvin Johnson rule, should be a catch though

[HancockCountyDog]

what BS!

How is that not a football move? I mean, how many steps does he need to take before he has possession. Just ridiculous. I hate the cowboys, but that was a joke.

[Smitty]

Yep, infuriating

[Maroonthirteen]

Worst review ever. Get rid of instant replay. Horrible.

[msstate7]

I thought if anything, he got complete control in the end zone = touchdown. Looked like his forearm touched ground and ball moved but didn't touch the ground. Dez then rolled and got possession in endzone

[HoopsDawg]

How is that not a football move? I mean, how many steps does he need to take before he has possession. Just ridiculous. I hate the cowboys, but that was a joke.

exactly, reaching for the endzone when you are falling down is a football move.

[mstatefan91]

That was a catch. BS call.

Well the Cowboys will get to discuss conspiracy theories it looks like now.

[Churchill]

NFL just gave themselves a giant black eye. This shit is no better than pro wrestling.

[Coach34]

He grabbed it- tucked it for a split-second, then had to extend the ball because he was falling

What a terrible decision

[HoopsDawg]

Worst review ever. Get rid of instant replay. Horrible.

Also, what happened to indisputable evidence? Replay was created to overturn obvious mistakes. This super slow motion BS is a crime.

[VandelayIndustries]

I hate the rule but it was the right call, he didn't complete the catch. once the ball hit the ground it was incomplete

[Saltydog]

comes around, goes around.......

[Smitty]

If GB holds on I hope Seattle makes them beg for mercy.

[mstatefan91]

I hate the rule but it was the right call, he didn't complete the catch. once the ball hit the ground it was incomplete

So with that reasoning, is it a fumble when a running back carries the ball three steps, has his elbow touch the ground and then the ball with the ground causing the ball to come out?

No. That is a down player. The same should apply to receivers who have demonstrated full control of the ball through multiple steps...

[Smitty]

Well shit.. Go Legion of Boom. Destroy them,

[Bully13]

I hate the rule but it was the right call, he didn't complete the catch. once the ball hit the ground it was incomplete

you are totally unaware of rules...

[HoopsDawg]

I hate the rule but it was the right call, he didn't complete the catch. once the ball hit the ground it was incomplete

I do not think that's the right interpretation of the intent of the rule. The "complete the catch" phrase was put in for receivers making diving catch's, etc. It was not for a player making a catch and then reaching for the goal line. There has to be an allowance for common sense. That was a catch, plain and simple.

[HancockCountyDog]

He grabbed it- tucked it for a split-second, then had to extend the ball because he was falling

What a terrible decision

Back to back weeks, and the biggest play will be made by the refs.

Just brutal.

Also, he extended the ball for the endzone, otherwise known as a football move. Just brutal.

[Smitty]

I hope Dez doesn't hold back in the presser.

[VandelayIndustries]

you are an idiot

Damn that's harsh haha. It's a shitty rule no doubt

[Smitty]

If I was Garret someone would have to restrain me from the zebras there.. Another step towards giving the NFL the middle finger completely for me. Hope the Seahawks wreck havoc and cause Goodell and the shield problems.

[bluelightstar]

If I'm understanding correctly, the problem is that he wasn't taking "three steps" -- it's that he was falling and going to the ground. I think it's a stupid rule that doesn't make a lot of sense, but the explanations that I've seen of it make it seem like the officials did get it right.

The problem was the rule, not the refs. And to the person who analogized it to running back, I think they should have similar protections but they don't. Ground can cause an incomplete pass, but can't cause a fumble. I imagine it's one of the rules there in an attempt to make things fair for defenses.

[Bully13]

he had possession going down. then there was a "ground called fumble".. the ball was dead at the 1. plain and simple. if it had been ruled an incompletion on the field, it should have been ruled a completion in the review. the fact that it went opposite makes it even worse. total bullshit.

[VandelayIndustries]

Dean Blandino ‏@DeanBlandino 4m4 minutes ago
Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete.

[HoopsDawg]

If I'm understanding correctly, the problem is that he wasn't taking "three steps" -- it's that he was falling and going to the ground. I think it's a stupid rule that doesn't make a lot of sense, but the explanations that I've seen of it make it seem like the officials did get it right.

The problem was the rule, not the refs. And to the person who analogized it to running back, I think they should have similar protections but they don't. Ground can cause an incomplete pass, but can't cause a fumble. I imagine it's one of the rules there in an attempt to make things fair for defenses.

There is a definitely a problem with the rule. But there was a problem with the officials too b/c they determined Dez was not making a football move by extending the ball to the goal line. I think he clearly was. But even if you disagree with that premise there was not indisputable evidence that he wasn't making a football move by extending forward. The call on the field should have stood.

[HoopsDawg]

Dean Blandino ‏@DeanBlandino 4m4 minutes ago
Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete.

Yeah, they have mutated the going to the ground spill from being a diving catch and maintaining possession to taking 3 steps and then falling. Sort of like the 2nd amendment and gun nuts. (I realize 95% of this board are gun nuts)

[Bully13]

Yeah, they have mutated the going to the ground spill from being a diving catch and maintaining possession to taking 3 steps and then falling. Sort of like the 2nd amendment and gun nuts. (I realize 95% of this board are gun nuts)

and the other 5% are freedom haters that would have pulled for England in 1780. 95% prefer big boy pants and the other 5% like diapers.

[Coach34]

Dean Blandino ‏@DeanBlandino 4m4 minutes ago
Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete.

But it wasnt a dive. He took 3 full steps before going to the ground. Those are different situations. It was a simultaneous grab and then hit the ground. He caught it- took 3 steps- then hit the ground. He even tucked it to his chest for a split second. That has to be a catch

[smootness]

There are a couple of problems with their ruling. First, he clearly had possession before hitting the ground. He even switched hands before reaching out. Any reasonable person would agree that he had control and was reaching out with his left hand because I think anyone would agree he had enough control to simply tuck it to protect it as he was going down had he wanted to. If you admit that, you admit he had control and was making a football move. His decision to reach for the end zone (which itself necessitates having control) is what opened the opportunity to have it touch the ground to begin with. Absurd that isn't a catch.

The second problem is that the ball simply touching the ground does not automatically mean incomplete. If they determine you have full control of the ball while the ball is touching the ground, it's still a catch. Therefore, the ground has to assist in gaining possession for it to be ruled incomplete. Well, the ground did not assist here. At no point was he not in control with the ball on the ground. At the point the ball touched the ground, he was in control. The ground popped the ball up, and he regained possession while always remaining in the field of play. So even by THAT rationale, you should be able to argue it is a catch.

Regardless, even by the terrible way the NFL has suddenly recently decided to interpret that rule, it should have been a catch. Absurd overturn.

[I seen it dawg]

This rule is stupid. By the rule it's not a catch. But the rule is fd up.

[Bubb Rubb]

he caught it, took 3 steps, then his elbow was down, and when he tried to extend the ball the ground caused it to come out.

This is how cowboy fans see it, but it's not what happened. He didn't take three steps. He went airborne to catch the ball, and stumbled with it. When he hit the ground, the ball popped out. The officials made the right call, and it's textbook. If Bryant had caught the ball, landed on both of his feet and ran with the ball, then fell and had it pop out, it would've been ruled a catch and down at the spot. You have to complete the catch with a football move, which is either advancing the ball after the catch, or maintaining possession of the ball throughout the end of the play. He did neither on that play.

I don't expect you to agree. Cowboy fans are as bad as Ole Miss fans. But it was the right call.

[DudyDawg]

@MikePereira: While the reversal in replay was correct, the clock should have been reset to 4:32. 26 seconds lost

It wasn't a catch. According to the rule. And he didn't take three steps. He jumped and his feet hit the ground three times while he fell. That's not the same. Rule is still stupid, but they made the right call

[bluelightstar]

@MikePereira: While the reversal in replay was correct, the clock should have been reset to 4:32. 26 seconds lost

It wasn't a catch. According to the rule. And he didn't take three steps. He jumped and his feet hit the ground three times while he fell. That's not the same. Rule is still stupid, but they made the right call

Agreed, he stumbled -- he didn't really take 3 steps.

[Churchill]

@MikePereira: While the reversal in replay was correct, the clock should have been reset to 4:32. 26 seconds lost

It wasn't a catch. According to the rule. And he didn't take three steps. He jumped and his feet hit the ground three times while he fell. That's not the same. Rule is still stupid, but they made the right call

So how did he propel himself 4 yds toward the goal line if his feet simply hit the ground while he was falling ? Sorry but bullshit is bullshit.

[DudyDawg]

So how did he propel himself 4 yds toward the goal line if his feet simply hit the ground while he was falling ? Sorry but bullshit is bullshit.

Do you understand basic physics. He was running forward when he left the ground. Do you think his body would stop immediately when he came back down? Comparing those "steps" to a running back taking three is the bullshit. The rule is bullshit. The call, based on the rules, was not bullshit

[Churchill]

Do you understand basic physics. He was running forward when he left the ground. Do you think his body would stop immediately when he came back down? Comparing those "steps" to a running back taking three is the bullshit. The rule is bullshit. The call, based on the rules, was not bullshit

Are you blind ? His last step pushed him almost into the end zone.

[smootness]

This is how cowboy fans see it, but it's not what happened. He didn't take three steps. He went airborne to catch the ball, and stumbled with it. When he hit the ground, the ball popped out. The officials made the right call, and it's textbook. If Bryant had caught the ball, landed on both of his feet and ran with the ball, then fell and had it pop out, it would've been ruled a catch and down at the spot. You have to complete the catch with a football move, which is either advancing the ball after the catch, or maintaining possession of the ball throughout the end of the play. He did neither on that play.

I don't expect you to agree. Cowboy fans are as bad as Ole Miss fans. But it was the right call.

No, the rule book itself states that lunging or diving forward is a football move, which Bryant clearly did. It's why Pereira had to try to use the semantics of 'I don't think he lunged' to explain it being incomplete.

And the NFL itself is who arbitrarily decided that 'going to the ground' meant more than simply diving a few years ago. Before 5 years ago, that would have been called a catch. But now it isn't because at some point they decided 'going to the ground' means that if your momentum is in any way eventually carrying you toward the ground after you make the catch, which is asinine. According to that interpretation, you could have someone stumbling and trying to maintain their balance for 50 yards, finally go down and lose the ball, and it would be incomplete.

They need to just go back to the old interpretation. If you dive to make a catch, you have to maintain possession through the ground. If you aren't diving, just clearly show possession and control before hitting the ground, which Bryant unquestionably did.

[State82]

That was "BYU@MSU, Dick Pace bad" officiating. That was the hose job of all hose jobs and every member of that crew should be relegated to academy 8 man football leagues.

[Bully13]

Bryant grasped the ball on the initial contact with both hands and secured the ball with both hands. THEN he brought the ball with both hands and secured it with both hands to his chest. he had the ball totally secured at that point, if not totally once his hands made initial contact. as he was going down he extended his arms with both hands extended , totally securing the ball towards the endzone.

that has to go down as the biggest post season cluster 17 by the officials in play off history. totally changed the game as to who won or who lost..

the Cowboys got 17'd and the Packers are welfare recepients... I hope the seahawks 17 their asses sideways with 12 inches and lots of girth.