Cowboys Packers
- Thread starter Clint
- Start date
It means F-the Cowgirls (Calvin Johnson Rule bitches)
StogieNinja
Derek | BoM June 2014
It was worse, because now we have to hear Cowboys fans complain about it forever.
Craig Mac
BoM 4/10 7/11 12/14
Just tell em if they played better they wouldn't have to rely on winning thanks to a good/bad call. Plus Romo won his second playoff game this year, so they have that going for them.
I feel the same way.
I will not make excuses and blame the Cowboys loss on the call. However, after watching the games so far this season, I will be very disappointed if this issue of missed, bad, and inconsistent calls is not addressed by the NFL.
Okay....I'll take the Colts!!
Ha Sounds good, Send me addy!
The "process of the catch" rule needs to be changed -- no doubt about it. But from what I saw this was an incorrect usage of that rule. Bryant clearly had possession, then propelled hiimself toward the end zone with his quote-unquote third leg while reaching his left arm out for the line.
I don't know what move could be more football than that.
I agree 100%
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 1,543
It was just a horrible call for the officials to make and has to be addressed. At the very least you have to say he has possession even if you don't call it a football move. His arm was out with ball held under his ONE hand. If he didn't have possession there then the ball falls
I agree, the rule should change and only apply to the Detroit Lions.
I'm sorry that you feel victimized. I'm not a fan of any of the teams in this discussion, but I hate to see bad calls. Yes, the call in the Detroit - Dallas game was bad. Yes, the original "process of the catch" call was bad. Is that better?
Yes, thank you
AlohaStyle
BoM Sept '12 & Aug '13
No matter what, I think most fans can agree that this rule sucks... it takes away from the game when most people can agree that a lot of these "Calvin Johnson" rule calls are actual catches. Anyone watching that Calvin Johnson play knows he caught it. Most people can agree Dez physically caught it. The rule sucks and needs to be addressed.
Watching the game I immediately thought it would be overturned once I saw the replay thinking about the CJ rule. I agreed with the overturn based on the actual rule. But the more I think about it, the more I disagree with the overturn. Why? Most of this season, calls did not get overturned unless it was 100% indisputable evidence to overturn it. I saw quite a few calls where the announces and even former referees like Jerry Perriera said one thing, and the official call on the field was opposite because the refs felt it was/wasn't indisputable, even though the replays and people watching thought it was. Many times the announcers were baffled with the official ruling simply because the refs didn't feel the video justified overturning the call with 100% indisputable evidence.
Can anyone really say Dez did not make a football move and try to lunge the ball towards the goal line, saying it's 100% indisputable? I don't think there's anyway you can view the replays and say with 100% certainty that he simply fell to the ground and did not lunge at least slightly to stretch the ball farther. IMO, there has to be at least 1% possibility or thought in your head that Dez could've tried to lunge the ball forward. Seeing how strict the refs have been all year making a call be 100% indisputable and erring with however the original call was on the field, I now think they should not have overturned the call. The refs originally called it a catch and I don't think they had indisputable evidence to overturn it. Whatever the call was on the field should've stood based on the replay IMO.
Watching the game I immediately thought it would be overturned once I saw the replay thinking about the CJ rule. I agreed with the overturn based on the actual rule. But the more I think about it, the more I disagree with the overturn. Why? Most of this season, calls did not get overturned unless it was 100% indisputable evidence to overturn it. I saw quite a few calls where the announces and even former referees like Jerry Perriera said one thing, and the official call on the field was opposite because the refs felt it was/wasn't indisputable, even though the replays and people watching thought it was. Many times the announcers were baffled with the official ruling simply because the refs didn't feel the video justified overturning the call with 100% indisputable evidence.
Can anyone really say Dez did not make a football move and try to lunge the ball towards the goal line, saying it's 100% indisputable? I don't think there's anyway you can view the replays and say with 100% certainty that he simply fell to the ground and did not lunge at least slightly to stretch the ball farther. IMO, there has to be at least 1% possibility or thought in your head that Dez could've tried to lunge the ball forward. Seeing how strict the refs have been all year making a call be 100% indisputable and erring with however the original call was on the field, I now think they should not have overturned the call. The refs originally called it a catch and I don't think they had indisputable evidence to overturn it. Whatever the call was on the field should've stood based on the replay IMO.
I was tryin' real hard to understand Mike Pereira and was almost getting there when he said the ground can't cause a fumble, but the ground CAN cause an incompletion....ok....but where is the relevance two and a half steps later?
I'm a Packer fan to the core, but as much as I want to think they got it right according to the rules, I'm just not getting it
I'm a Packer fan to the core, but as much as I want to think they got it right according to the rules, I'm just not getting it
If the Cowgirls had been playing the Jaguars, the TD would have stood.
On a final note: I watched the game, not to see Green Bay win, but to see Dallas lose
Edit: Published Poll (Source: Official)
On a final note: I watched the game, not to see Green Bay win, but to see Dallas lose
Edit: Published Poll (Source: Official)
Last edited:
AlohaStyle
BoM Sept '12 & Aug '13
But the refs ruled he didn't really take 2+ steps, as in an actual football move. Those "steps" happened in the act of falling down making the catch, meaning he had to control the ball after hitting the ground. The refs ruled he didn't make a football move and all that motion was just him falling to the ground while trying to make a catch. By rule, it's incomplete in that case.