Why do you Cowboys fans think that was a catch?

Star wrote:

There have been many calls by officials in NFL history.

We just have to go back to the Lions getting gypped against the Cowboys the week before.

Or the Tom Brady tuck rule in the 2001 season playoffs that put the Patriots into the Super Bowl over the raiders.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/0ap2000000113871/Top-Ten-Controversial-Calls-Tuck-Rule

The Dez Bryant no catch had less impact because they still had to get into the endzone (and probably would have) and then stop the Packers from coming right back with 4 minutes left in the game, only needing a field goal.

1) If ruled correctly it would have been a TD as he recovered the ball in the endzone. Either way, Murray runs it in with 2:00- 3:30 or so on the clock depending on how many tries it takes them if it is ruled down on the 1. They hand it to him again for the 2 points and its 29-26

2) I agree this does not ensure a Dallas victory. But I would be interested to see the probability difference between up 29-26 in the last 3 minutes vs down 26-21.

3) The fans deserved to see hobbled Rodgers try to lead a gw drive against the overachieving try-hard Dallas defense. He may have succeeded, he may have ended up like Stafford last week. Either way, this game should have been decided that way.

4) To those comparing it to the Lions: that game DID have a chance to be decided on the field after that call. Detroit had 2 more chances to win, and Dallas had to drive the length of the field to win as well. Not to mention the P.I. flagged picked up was actually correct according to the NFL, it was defensive holding that was missed (holding is missed constantly for both teams).

dial it up wrote:

Dangnabit wrote:

Groan...you guys keep pulling out the same twisted logic and the guy that wrote that piece is using the same dumb argument....

Bryant didn't take 3 steps under control. He took 3 steps while falling down. That means the "going to ground" rule applies. No catch.

If he was in the open field, caught the ball, took 3 steps completely under control (NOT falling down) it would be different. But that isn't what happened here.

You need to let it go. The NFL says it wasn't a catch. It isn't.

You didn't read it.

Of course I did. This is his main argument:

"As I watched the catch on replay, I counted three steps Bryant took after coming down with the ball. If he did indeed take three steps with the ball in his possession, then I need for someone to explain to me how that does not pass the "two steps and a football move" threshold for a completed catch? "

Now please re-read what I wrote for the explanation.

Oh, and give it up already.

Dangnabit wrote:

dial it up wrote:

You didn't read it.

Of course I did. This is his main argument:

"As I watched the catch on replay, I counted three steps Bryant took after coming down with the ball. If he did indeed take three steps with the ball in his possession, then I need for someone to explain to me how that does not pass the "two steps and a football move" threshold for a completed catch? "

Now please re-read what I wrote for the explanation.

Oh, and give it up already.

So if he takes 17 steps and you don't deem them "under control" then goes down it isn't a catch? I could destroy your argument either by saying:

1) Three steps, plus switching hands with the ball, plus bracing your body to keep your knees up with one hand while reaching for the goal line is "under control" and a football move

OR

2) He has satisfied the 2 steps plus a football move with the 3rd step. Again think if he had 1,000 steps on his way to the ground. As the rule states once he is over 2 steps, it doesnt matter anymore.

I'll give it up based on the fact that I think based on all the coverage and analysis most people now know it was a catch. But I'm not sorry that I'm not the type of person you are where "close enough" or "good enough" is acceptable to me.

The numbers of steps he took is irrelevant because he is GOING TO GROUND. He is not under control and he is falling down. That is why the "going to ground" rule comes into play and this nonsense about counting steps does not.

Seriously, this was explained way back on page 1 or 2. You're either very dense or an extremely good troll.

Let it go, let it go......

Dangnabit wrote:

The numbers of steps he took is irrelevant because he is GOING TO GROUND. He is not under control and he is falling down. That is why the "going to ground" rule comes into play and this nonsense about counting steps does not.

Seriously, this was explained way back on page 1 or 2. You're either very dense or an extremely good troll.

Possibly both

TEXAS SECEDE!

Surprised this went on for so long. As was stated early on, it was clearly not a catch by the rules. He is going to the ground from the moment the ball was in his hands. He did not take 3 steps and lunge for the endzone.

He didn't maintain control in going to the ground as so it is not a catch.

HAHAHA dude you don't even know the rules for your delusional made up instances. In your delusional world where Dez had possession and made the catch how on earth is it a TD? "If ruled correctly" LOL, did you not see his right forearm smash into the turf? That would mean he would be down at the one in your delusional situation where he didn't need to maintain possession. How anyone takes you seriously when you don't know basic rules is out of my mind HA!

Also all you guys saying 3 steps seriously need a head check. I won't go into detail because you clearly didn't read my earlier posts but really really clutching at straws when you should be admitting defeat. So incredibly sad actually.

Newsflash: nobody reads your posts because you are an idiot

Idiottttt wrote:

Locke Lamora wrote:

HAHAHA dude you don't even know the rules for your delusional made up instances. In your delusional world where Dez had possession and made the catch how on earth is it a TD? "If ruled correctly" LOL, did you not see his right forearm smash into the turf? That would mean he would be down at the one in your delusional situation where he didn't need to maintain possession. How anyone takes you seriously when you don't know basic rules is out of my mind HA!

Also all you guys saying 3 steps seriously need a head check. I won't go into detail because you clearly didn't read my earlier posts but really really clutching at straws when you should be admitting defeat. So incredibly sad actually.

Newsflash: nobody reads your posts because you are an idiot

Sorry I'm not sorry about your butthurt...

No butthurt on my end, just a lack of ability to grasp concepts on your end