Stoney's He-Man Steeler Haters NFL Playoff Thread ... No Yinzers allowed

On the other side, you have Dan Wetzel facilitating the whining by the Cowboys, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and joining them in complaining about the call.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/dez-br...ant-catch-–-and-it-was-a-catch-000527313.html

Of course, Wetzel joins them in ignoring the fact that Bryant was falling down and he doesn't complete the act of the catch until he hits the ground. He also ignored the actual officiating errors that helped Dallas get past Detroit a week earlier.

 

Bryant absolutely shifted the ball into his left hand and lunged toward the goal line. It wasn't a particularly effective lunge because he was off-balance, but he has done the same thing to score many times during his NFL career. Those of us who watch the Cowboys regularly recognized immediately what he was attempting to do.

This was, and continues to be my biggest problem with the rule. Blandino insisted that it takes away ambiguity, but it still required a judgment that Bryant wasn't stretching the ball across the goal line. Pereiera said on Fox that Bryant didn't lunge far enough to make it a "football move," whatever that means.

It's ambiguous as hell, and totally goes against the concept of needing conclusive video evidence to overturn the call on the field. I'd argue that the fact that he had enough control of the ball to move it from both hands to his left hand constituted a "move common to the game" or at least was enough to make it inconclusive.

There's also this: If he wasn't attempting to stretch the ball across the goal line, there would've been no reason for him to have shifted the ball into his left hand. He could've easily just secured it with both hands and fallen to the ground. But again, that goes totally against the instincts of a player who is paid to try and score the go-ahead touchdown with 4 minutes left in a do-or-die game.

It's a dumb rule that defies common sense. But I'm not surprised that the NFL felt compelled to even things up after they screwed the Lions last week.

 

No offense, but Dan Wetzel knows a lot more about football than you do. I'm going with him.

You, as usual, are dead wrong.

 

They happened just a week prior, of course, in a victory over the Lions when a critical pass interference flag was picked up in favor of the Cowboys.

"Sometimes they go for you," Jones said. "Sometimes they don't."

You ought to try reading before you post, OOP.

 

That is a very vague reference, but if you want to reach for it, that's fine. Maybe I would have seen it the way you do if Wetzel had clarified by mentioning the officials' huge mistake in the Cowboys' favor the previous week, but such balance wouldn't have fit in with the rest of the piece.

Nothing I wrote in the post you responded to is incorrect. The Cowboys were whining. Christie was whining. Wetzel didn't just report what they said. He sided with them. He actually wrote "Forget what the rule says, this was a catch." Except that it wasn't, not by NFL rules.

You don't like the rule? Fine. I agree with you. But by the rules as they are written right now, it wasn't a catch. Bryant was on his way to the ground as he made the catch. That means he has to retain control as he hits the ground. That you are now trying to push this as some kind of conspiracy (the NFL was evening things up?) is just funny.

 

I write this as as Cowboys fan who hates the season is over, but it doesn't seem obvious to me the Bryant call/reversal was a game-changer. Yes, the Cowboys would have gone ahead, but they'd still have to have stopped the Packers. And Green Bay didn't face all that different a challenge as a result of the Cowboys not scoring. I think the way it went down is one of those uniquely Romo-esque things -- if Dallas scores there and then Green Bay marches down to win anyway, does Romo get off the hook? -- but Green Bay winning the game seems pretty much a lock either way.

 

no he's not wrong. Two feet down does not make a catch and the third foot down does not make a difference when you are falling. He wasn't God damn running he was falling.

It's funny you thought you had your gotcha moment because Wetzel agrees with you when in fact, his article is a load of opinion, not fact.

You're nothing more than a hurt fanboy. Should we link others that know a hell of a lot more than OOP and I that say it was called correctly, or is Wetzel the end all be all because he agrees with you?

The rule sucks, we almost all agree but you and Wetzel are dead wrong.

 

Are you really putting this on Romo?

 

JC--

You and I rarely agree but this may be a rare day.

I thought Romo played a HELL of a game on Sunday. The shots he took all through the second half and, for the most part, he made the throws. Completed nearly 80% of his passes. No picks.

Yes, I'm a Packer fanboi but I think that if Dallas goes aggressive at the end of the first half -- pushing to make it 21-7 -- they could have cruised to a win. Surprised they laid up for a par on the long FG (Bailey missed both the 45 yarder blown dead on the false start as well as the 50 yarder on 4th & 6). THAT, I felt, was a missed opportunity to really take a strong position going into half.

 

Oh absolutely not. I think it's Romo-esque in the sense that he plays a helluva playoff game -- consecutive great playoff games actually -- and changes about zero minds among his critics.

 

But those critics are brain-dead anyway. It took Romo a long time to shake the disease but I'd certainly want him leading an offense.

I think this is the bottom line: Without that call the Pokes take the lead in the next play or two, which means they played a pretty damn good playoff game up in Lambeau, against the odds, even if GB had come back to win in the final moments.

But I hate the line of thinking here that has been parroted a few times: It doesn't matter if he made the catch and they scored to take the lead because Green Bay just would've come right back down and scored anyway to win the game. Yeah, Gore would've been re-elected had he won the first time ... . Sometimes simple critical thinking gets lost in the shuffle here. Two things would have happened had Dez made the catch: they would have scored in a play or two to take the lead, or Green Bay would've held or maybe forced a turnover or something screwy.

But we can't just go and say that the Packers would have driven down to take the lead again BECAUSE RODGERS! or BECAUSE COWBOYS!

 

We can say that Dallas had failed to stop Green Bay in the rest of the fourth quarter, making a game-winning drive a likely possibility.