They didn't get shafted. They did the same thing the Lions did, they got beat. If you have to depend on the outcome of one call, you didn't do what it takes to win. It's that simple.

 

Absolutely correct. Even if they miss the call and say it's a catch, the Cowboys still have to punch it in, then they have to stop Rodgers from marching the Packers down the field to kick a game-winning (or tying depending on what Dallas would've done for the point-after) FG. Lots of game to play after that play. Hell, the Cowboys still had a shot if they could've stopped GB from getting a 1st down.

Did you think he stretched the ball out for the end zone? That's all that is debatable on this play IMO.

 

That's not all that's debatable. During the process of the catch he was going to the ground. By rule, when that happens you have to maintain possession through the contact with the ground. He didn't do that. Incomplete pass.

That's not all that's debatable. During the process of the catch he was going to the ground. By rule, when that happens you have to maintain possession through the contact with the ground. He didn't do that. Incomplete pass.

 

What's not debatable? Some feel when his arm with the ball went towards the goal line that fulfilled the "football move" requirement? If it did indeed fulfill that requirement then it's a catch. Period.

 

So the only debate centers around the "football move" aspect of it. The NFL VP said exactly that on the NFLN last night. They said he they did not feel he was making an attempt to stretch for the end zone, thus, no football move which then makes it an incomplete pass.

 

I can see where they can say they didn't have enough evidence to say he was stretching. I think he was but get how they are coming up with their ruling.

What's not debatable? Some feel when his arm with the ball went towards the goal line that fulfilled the "football move" requirement? If it did indeed fulfill that requirement then it's a catch. Period.

 

So the only debate centers around the "football move" aspect of it. The NFL VP said exactly that on the NFLN last night. They said he they did not feel he was making an attempt to stretch for the end zone, thus, no football move which then makes it an incomplete pass.

 

I can see where they can say they didn't have enough evidence to say he was stretching. I think he was but get how they are coming up with their ruling.

 

His arms were extended the entire play. He didn't catch the ball and then extend his arms. He extended his arms when he leapt in the air, caught the ball, and his arms stayed extended as he fell. No football move. Incomplete pass.

What's not debatable? Some feel when his arm with the ball went towards the goal line that fulfilled the "football move" requirement? If it did indeed fulfill that requirement then it's a catch. Period.

 

So the only debate centers around the "football move" aspect of it. The NFL VP said exactly that on the NFLN last night. They said he they did not feel he was making an attempt to stretch for the end zone, thus, no football move which then makes it an incomplete pass.

 

I can see where they can say they didn't have enough evidence to say he was stretching. I think he was but get how they are coming up with their ruling.

Still doesn't matter, you know that once you go to the ground you must maintain control of the ball, he didn't. You know that is a rule also and they challenge that type of thing all the time. He clearly didn't maintain control of the ball when he went to the ground.

 

Not sure why this is still being questioned.

Still doesn't matter, you know that once you go to the ground you must maintain control of the ball, he didn't. You know that is a rule also and they challenge that type of thing all the time. He clearly didn't maintain control of the ball when he went to the ground.

 

Not sure why this is still being questioned.

 

No offense, my man, but you do not have a clear understanding of the rule. It DOES matter and VP of Officiating says so in his interview with Eisen. He clearly says they looked for it and said it wasn't obvious enough. Said it was part of his momentum.

 

NFL VP of Officiating Dean Blandino breaks down controversial calls from the Divisional Round - NFL Videos

So, again, it DOES matter.

I do enjoy listening to Jerry Jones whine about the officiating though lol.

 

I want to see if Jones gets fined. He was recorded yesterday saying this year the officiating was the worst officiating he's ever seen. Anyone else int he league would be fined for those comments, lets see if Jerry gets away with it.

No offense, my man, but you do not have a clear understanding of the rule. It DOES matter and VP of Officiating says so in his interview with Eisen. He clearly says they looked for it and said it wasn't obvious enough. Said it was part of his momentum.

 

NFL VP of Officiating Dean Blandino breaks down controversial calls from the Divisional Round - NFL Videos

So, again, it DOES matter.

He said it right at the beginning of the interview that he didn't control the ball whenhe went to the ground. That is what I just said. He just repeated what I said. He even compared it to the Johnson call a couple years ago just like I said yesterday.

 

He said he did not maintain control of the ball when he went to the ground there for it was not a catch.

 

He also repeated the same thing when Irvin asked him.

He said it right at the beginning of the interview that he didn't control the ball whenhe went to the ground. That is what I just said. He just repeated what I said. He even compared it to the Johnson call a couple years ago just like I said yesterday.

 

He then said that they did try to determine if he made a football move. Why would they try to make that determination if it didn't matter?

To talk about more than that play, I thought the Cowboys missed out on some big opportunities. The strip of Murray when he was going to score was huge. Also, though his numbers were really good, I thought Romo had some bad moments taking unnecessary sacks. He had all the time in the world but still went down. One of which I believe set up the 4th down play in question.

Edited January 12, 201511 yr by bugatti

From the lips of the referee after the game:

 

On what was the determining factor in calling that an incomplete pass:

 

"Although the receiver is possessing the football, he must maintain possession of that football throughout the entire process of the catch. In our judgment, he maintained possession but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game.

 

 

"act common to the game" is "football move"

 

It matters.

No offense, my man, but you do not have a clear understanding of the rule. It DOES matter and VP of Officiating says so in his interview with Eisen. He clearly says they looked for it and said it wasn't obvious enough. Said it was part of his momentum.

 

NFL VP of Officiating Dean Blandino breaks down controversial calls from the Divisional Round - NFL Videos

So, again, it DOES matter.

 

This is correct. Had his stretch towards the goal line been more pronounced it could be viewed as a football move, hence the bobble after contacting the ground would not come into the ruling. The move while slight did not justify a "football Move" thus the ruling incomplete pass is the correct one. I really don't like the rule as I believe he had full control of the football, but they did follow the rule to the letter in making the call.

On a side note: That's why you pay Dez the big bucks and put up with his antics. Dude makes plays.

He then said that they did try to determine if he made a football move. Why would they try to make that determination if it didn't matter?

It doesn't matter. He said and clearly said that to make the catch you must maintain complete control of the ball when you go to the ground and he clearly didn't.

 

LEt's pretend that, just for argument sake, that he did complete a football move (which I don't think he did because losing control was part of that move) but lets say he did complete the football move, he still, as is explained in the interview, Dez did not establish the catch yet until he maintains control when he goes to the ground, which he didn't do.

 

So even if you say that was a football move, you still have to maintain control as you go to the ground and he didn't. He wasn't established as a "runner" yet he explaned because he didn't have control of the ball yet. That is why the steps didn't count. He had to maintain control of the ball as he went to the ground and he didn't.

 

Incomplete pass.

 

Everyone they interview says the same thing, incomplete pass. All the refs they interviewed has said the same thing, incomplete pass.

 

As the rules are, it was an incomplete pass.

 

Again, the rules are stupid, but as long as they are the rules that was an incomplete pass.

Hellbird, I'm not sure if you're just being obstinate or what.

 

I can't make it any clearer than I have and others seem to have gotten it.