"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."It needs to be said -- if the call is upheld and Bryant gets the catch, it doesn't follow that the Dallas Cowboys leave Lambeau Field with a victory, although their chances of doing so would have improved quite dramatically. It's likely, but not certain, that the Cowboys would have scored and taken the lead. Aaron Rodgers would likely have had over three minutes to move the ball on offense. Perhaps the Dallas defense would have stopped him, but they didn't stop him much in the second half of the game.
The only time an official's call can be said to decide a game's outcome is if it happens on the last play of the game. And Packers fans have seen that happen.
17 comments:
It's unfortunate for the Packers, but I don't think they care. As for the Cowboys, I actually feel a little bad for them. It's got to be frustrating to be on the wrong side of a rule.
Three steps of completion make dez a runner, no longer a reciever.
I equate this to the "Tuck Rule" that extended the Patriots' postseason in January 2002: It's a questionable rule but interpreted correctly.
Three steps of completion make dez a runner, no longer a reciever.
I think you can make that argument and a lot of people are making it. That's not what the rule says, though. I suspect the rule will be tweaked in the offseason. Still, my point stands. The Cowboys had the opportunity to get the ball back, but they couldn't stop Rodgers. That's on them.
In any event, the big, bad Seahawks are eager to make this whole brouhaha irrelevant.
the rule you quoted applies to recievers, not runners. Dez was already a runner before the ball came out while making a football move. the official even said he was making a football move, but it wasnt a big enough move (he stretched as far as his shoulder pads will allow, so the official was full of it by his own explanation.)
if a Packer grabbed that fumble on the goal line you'd be livid if it was ruled incomplete on review.
Gino, I'm not seeing many people making that argument; I've checked a lot of sites and the discussion concerns whether it was a catch. Perhaps you are correct, but it doesn't change my point about the Cowboys failing to get the ball back because their defense couldn't stop Rodgers in the second half.
If this game is called football, why are they always using their hands?
Presumably for the same reason you drive on a parkway and park on a driveway, Bubba.
Cowboys failing to get the ball back because their defense couldn't stop Rodgers in the second half.
we will never know now, will we? tainted win.
Of course, we are certain the Cowboys would have scored, because defenses never have goal line stands and offenses never have turnovers in the red zone. But we'll never know, will we.
If the Cowboys get the call, maybe they win. If the Cowboys get a three and out, maybe they win the game. If the Cowboys pick up Randall Cobb's fumble on the kickoff, maybe they win the game. If DeMarco Murray doesn't fumble, maybe the Cowboys win the game. You can argue as many counterfactuals as you'd like, but it doesn't change the outcome.
Yer right. Only the refs can do that.
Yer right. Only the refs can do that.
Okay, let's work with that premise. Assume the refs knowingly took the ball away from the Cowboys, with malicious intent. Why would they do that? Did they have money on the Packers? Hope not, because the Packers didn't beat the spread. Did the league instruct them to give the Packers a tainted victory? Why would the league prefer one franchise over the other? The Cowboys are a marquee team, as are the Packers*, but I'm guessing that a Cowboys/Seahawks game would get a few more eyeballs than a Packers/Seahawks game would.
So what's the motivation? There has to be some motivation, right? Help me understand what the motivation is.
*The Bears are, too.
why would they do that? ask them. they had a chance to get the call right, they refused to do so.
and the later explanation was even worse (he made a football move that we didnt like, so...)
just like that bounced ball ruled a reception after review. everybody in the world saw that ball hit the ground, except for the people who did not want to.
my explanation: Rodgers/GB is the hot hand... more fans, more gear sold, more ad revenue. on par with Brady (who's getting old news, jersey sales maxed out...) and Peyton. peeps tune in, gotta keep it rolling...
the NFL has already shown itself to be the money whore that it is in too many shady ways already... whats one more?
I dunno -- I just don't think they can orchestrate that stuff. I understand why you think it was a bad call, but seriously, I don't think it came down to that. Too many variables involved. And I still believe that Rodgers could have scored another touchdown or field goal to win the game in any event, since Dallas wasn't stopping them at all in the 2nd half. And if the NFL wanted a Rodgers narrative and could actually orchestrate things, that would have been a better narrative.
While I will root like crazy for the Packers on Sunday, I don't think they can beat Seattle up there, anyway.
By the way, the Cowboys play GB in Lambeau again next season, so Dez will have his chance for redemption then.
i dont think they try to orchestrate. too obvious.
but they can place their thumb on the scale of a close game, and too often it looks to me like they do.
Peyton winning the last SB was in the cards for them, but Seattle wouldnt give them that chance.
we already found out 'the brass' was in on getting somebody to draft michael sam. nothing is beyond these guys. they are without shame.
Post a Comment