OT: IV. Metroplex Sports Talk

[TangoMcBride]

Every piece of observable data points to the Cowboys having the largest following outside of their local market. To dispute that is nothing more than willful ignorance. Huge numbers of Cowboys fans show up to every road game. Hell, "Let's go Cowboys" chants were loudly heard in Washington, Philadelphia and Seattle this year.

 

[glovesave_35]

Huh?!?! Uh I said the ratings thing is a small point. I was agreeing. It wasn't even "my" point I don't believe. All the data points(ratings/attendance is but one of many) are evidence of them being the most popular team regardless of what their nickname is. It's not like their popularity is some sort of controversial thing.

Do you think the nickname is stupid because it would be stupid under any circumstance for any team or because you don't think it fits this particular team?

The nickname is stupid under any circumstances.

I haven't argued against the Cowboys being the most popular team, they clearly are. Calling them America's team is like saying the Yankees are America's team. It's absurd.

 

[glovesave_35]

Every piece of observable data points to the Cowboys having the largest following outside of their local market. To dispute that is nothing more than willful ignorance. Huge numbers of Cowboys fans show up to every road game. Hell, "Let's go Cowboys" chants were loudly heard in Washington, Philadelphia and Seattle this year.

Nobody is disputing popularity here so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[Dr Pepper]

What a catch!

Cowboys hanging in there.

 

[Brand New Stars]

Would've been if he held onto it.

 

[Dr Pepper]

That was a crap call.

Bryant corralled the ball, had control of it as he reached for the end zone, the ball popped out briefly as he hit the ground but then he regained possession.

Hell, Dallas should've challenged and said it was a TD. No one touched him after his knee hit the ground

 

[Brand New Stars]

That's not necessarily a bad call. Basically the Calvin Johnson ruling from a few years back.

 

[ElGuapo]

Horrible rule. He caught it took three steps, tucked the ball away, pulled it back out to lunge for the endzone. So basically, he caught the ball, secured it, and took steps..that's it. After that, after the ball was caught in any reasonable way you could imagine, he then reached for the endzone as football players do. Don't know I'll be able to watch the NFL where that kind of stuff isn't a catch. It's telling when Troy, who agreed with the call, later said "it was a great catch" probably not realizing the irony in what he was saying. Everyone knows it was a catch even if it wasn't a "catch."

I also despise replay in sports with the passion of a burning sun. Earlier in the game Packers caught a ball that clearly bounced off the ground and they reviewed it and said it was a catch.

 

[ck26]

TIL that catching the ball and running with it isn't "a football play."

 

[Rune Forumwalker]

That's not necessarily a bad call. Basically the Calvin Johnson ruling from a few years back.

And it was just as bad then as it is now. Well no, it's worse now because playoffs are involved.

 

[Brand New Stars]

Don't blame the refs, blame the rule.

 

[Rune Forumwalker]

Totally do.

 

[99wasthebest]

Meh, they benefitted from some calls last week and this week the other team benefitted from some calls.

Funny seeing some of the haters over at the Football forum predict the Packers completely annihilating the Cowboys, even funnier seeing them squirm throughout the game and keep their trash talking to an absolute minimum until it became very abundantly clear that they were going to lose.

 

[ElGuapo]

Reading all the explanations, it comes down to this: Whether Dez reaching the ball out counts as reaching the ball out. Reaching the ball out is by rule a football move. A football move negates the stupid rule that caused the incomplete pass ruling. The officials did not think that him reaching the ball out counted as reaching the ball out even though reaching the ball out IS reaching the ball out(lmao) and they acknowledged he did, just that him doing it didn't count for some reason, because...just because I guess.

 

[Mr Misty]

Reading all the explanations, it comes down to this: Whether Dez reaching the ball out counts as reaching the ball out. Reaching the ball out is by rule a football move. A football move negates the stupid rule that caused the incomplete pass ruling. The officials did not think that him reaching the ball out counted as reaching the ball out even though reaching the ball out IS reaching the ball out(lmao) and they acknowledged he did, just that him doing it didn't count for some reason, because...just because I guess.

You have to maintain possession as you go to the ground. He hits the ground, the ball comes out, it touches the turf. Not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. 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.

 

[ElGuapo]

Just telling you what he and others said. It also contradicts the wording of other rules. And again just a dumb rule. It was impossible for him to do what he did without having possession and full control of the ball.

 

[Mr Misty]

"Football move" nonsense isn't in the rules, and when it is cited by laypeople like us it exclusively refers to receptions that don't require going to the ground and ruling whether that reception is made and then fumbled or it is an incomplete pass. When you leave the ground to make the catch and land by falling, you must maintain possession when you hit the ground. He jumps, he falls, the ball comes out, it touches the ground, incomplete pass. The part of 8.1.3 that I cited is specific to this case, it gives direction for a specific common situation and how to interpret the rule and doesn't contradict anything.

 

[ElGuapo]

Uh sure it is. It's used as the term that's defined in the rules. We have to call it something and sounds better than "an act common to the game."

But the rules also say it is a legal catch if the receiver maintains control of the ball long enough to allow him to make a move common to the game, a so-called “football move.” If Bryant were deemed to have done that — and no longer in the act of making the catch — he would have been considered a runner before going to the ground. He would have been down by contact at the 1-yard line and his loss of possession of the ball while on the turf wouldn’t have mattered.

It was very close, and opinions differed. Fox rules analyst Mike Pereira, formerly the NFL’s vice president of officiating, said on the network that he thought the reversal was correct and the play indeed should have been ruled an incompletion. Other observers contended that Bryant had finished making the catch and was running with the ball, as demonstrated by the fact that he was reaching toward the goal line with the ball — a football move, in their view.

Don't really see how it's possible for him to have made a move if he hadn't already caught the ball. Reaching towards the goal line is a conscious act. A move. Dare I say, a football move. Or perhaps an act. Since he was playing football you might say it was an act common to the game of football.

The Dez play is against the spirit of (making it a reason to change the rule) the stupid (also a reason to change it) point of making that 8.1.3 rule. That play is probably something never envisioned by the meat heads who thought it up. It almost always entails a guy having control of it in his hands then hitting the ground and hitting the ground being what makes the ball pop loose. Dez already established clear possession and the ball coming loose had nothing to do with the catch, it had to do only with him reaching the ball forward. Reaching footballs forward in the field of play has nothing to do with pass receptions. It only has anything to do with trying to advance the ball farther once you already have established possession of the football.

 

[Mr Misty]

Uh sure it is. It's used as the term that's defined in the rules. We have to call it something and sounds better than "an act common to the game."

Don't really see how it's possible for him to have made a move if he hadn't already caught the ball. Reaching towards the goal line is a conscious act. A move. Dare I say, a football move. Or perhaps an act. Since he was playing football you might say it was an act common to the game of football.

The Dez play is against the spirit of (making it a reason to change the rule) the stupid (also a reason to change it) point of making that 8.1.3 rule. That play is probably something never envisioned by the meat heads who thought it up. It almost always entails a guy having control of it in his hands then hitting the ground and hitting the ground being what makes the ball pop loose. Dez already established clear possession and the ball coming loose had nothing to do with the catch, it had to do only with him reaching the ball forward. Reaching footballs forward in the field of play has nothing to do with pass receptions. It only has anything to do with trying to advance the ball farther once you already have established possession of the football.

I don't like imprecise terms like that as a rule, because it makes it difficult to tell people who know what they are talking about from morons who don't. Use the language of the rule every time, I say.

I agree completely that this is pushing the boundaries of the rule maker's imaginations, human athletic achievement, and our intuitive "I know a catch when I see" it sort of sense as spectators.

As he lands he is way off balance because his legs are tangled with Shields. If he had maintained possession he would have been ruled down because of a tackle. He is going to the ground because of contact, so he must maintain possession for it to be a completed pass. There is a specific rule for this situation and according to the rule when he loses control of the ball and it hits the turf the pass is incomplete.

Also that definition of made a move is super broad. It doesn't apply here, but for replay type calls there's a big difference in the time it takes you to throw a pass and the time it takes you to advance.

 

[ElGuapo]

Has little to do with morons. Experts can't even all agree on what any of it means. What most people can agree on is what a catch really is and know one when they see it.

The thing is, if he had kept it tucked away, the ball doesn't touch the ground. That means he had possession at that point (securing and feet hitting multiple times) and anything that happens after that SHOULD (at this point talking common sense not rule interpretation) either down by contact, TD, out of bounds, or a fumble.

Common sense says that it's impossible for him to have been able to make that choice and have the ability of tucking it away safely and just going down or instead reaching it out towards the endzone. At the point he's capable of doing one or the other it's obvious he has possession of the ball and rule that messes with that is really bad. Basically, he met the conditions of A,B, and C. Even if you can interpret it as not meeting C(such as not thinking reaching the ball forward counts, although Pereira and others DO, despite the 'going to the ground' clause, just incredulously not when Bryant does it), it's certainly not conclusive, which means it can't be overturned.

Of course there's apparently also the 'going to the ground' part that's after what I quoted, maybe. Hell it's hard to find all this stuff in more than little blips. Seems that overrules the rest of it. Yet the game official's explanation after the game included the 'act common to the game' verbiage so it WAS considered thus being able for such an act to negate the going to the ground clause.

The thing is it looks like in the rules football moves have nothing to do with the going down part, but football moves (C) only makes any sense to even be mentioned if it has to do with going to the ground (well, still makes little sense but certainly not otherwise). Because if a receiver catches the ball on the sidelines and barely drags the tips of both feet for a split second before being out of bounds, that's considered a catch. He certainly doesn't have time to make any other acts common to the game so why is C there? Why is it not applied to those plays? Also, why are passes not caught with hands ruled completions? There have been passes caught between the legs not secured by hands before going down called completions. The rules regarding a completed pass say they must be secured by hands or arms.

See? What a BS mess.

Not sure what you're saying in the last sentence.

 

[Brand New Stars]

Maybe Dez should've just gone down. I get the effort, but scoring too early would've put them in bad position as Green Bay was moving the ball on them very quickly. If he just focused on the catch and let Murray run it in a play or two later after burning some clock then no controversial play occurs.

Also, a decent portion of the loss goes on Bailey. If he played like he did for most of the year then they would've only been down by 3 at that point and would've kicked the FG to tie it. Green Bay probably would've gone down to score, but at least they would've had a chance to stop them and force OT.

 

[ElGuapo]

Agree. Wish he'd just gone down. Almost all players will extend in that situation though.

Bailey probably doesn't mind the controversy. Has kept criticism off him as much! You're right he is automatic. Missing like he did means he flat out choked as far as I'm concerned.

There's also the strip on Murray that would have been a TD run. Cowboys could have won the game by more than one score.

 

[Mr Misty]

Has little to do with morons. Experts can't even all agree on what any of it means. What most people can agree on is what a catch really is and know one when they see it.

The thing is, if he had kept it tucked away, the ball doesn't touch the ground. That means he had possession at that point (securing and feet hitting multiple times) and anything that happens after that SHOULD (at this point talking common sense not rule interpretation) either down by contact, TD, out of bounds, or a fumble.

Common sense says that it's impossible for him to have been able to make that choice and have the ability of tucking it away safely and just going down or instead reaching it out towards the endzone. At the point he's capable of doing one or the other it's obvious he has possession of the ball and rule that messes with that is really bad. Basically, he met the conditions of A,B, and C. Even if you can interpret it as not meeting C(such as not thinking reaching the ball forward counts, although Pereira and others DO, despite the 'going to the ground' clause, just incredulously not when Bryant does it), it's certainly not conclusive, which means it can't be overturned.

Of course there's apparently also the 'going to the ground' part that's after what I quoted, maybe. Hell it's hard to find all this stuff in more than little blips. Seems that overrules the rest of it. Yet the game official's explanation after the game included the 'act common to the game' verbiage so it WAS considered thus being able for such an act to negate the going to the ground clause.

The thing is it looks like in the rules football moves have nothing to do with the going down part, but football moves (C) only makes any sense to even be mentioned if it has to do with going to the ground (well, still makes little sense but certainly not otherwise). Because if a receiver catches the ball on the sidelines and barely drags the tips of both feet for a split second before being out of bounds, that's considered a catch. He certainly doesn't have time to make any other acts common to the game so why is C there? Why is it not applied to those plays? Also, why are passes not caught with hands ruled completions? There have been passes caught between the legs not secured by hands before going down called completions. The rules regarding a completed pass say they must be secured by hands or arms.

See? What a BS mess.

Not sure what you're saying in the last sentence.

Sports is a field in which there are a bunch of experts, almost none of whom are experts on the actual rules. It isn't a perfect filter, but people who stick to the wording of the rule I find more likely to be actually correct in their explanation of it.

As much as I loathe it, here is my best attempt at explaining. You go up, you must come down. There are two ways you come down: on your feet or headed to the ground. In the latter instance, the phase of "the catch" lasts until you hit the ground and maintain possession.

My last sentence is just off topic commentary on that rule. To pass, you bring the ball away from your body and then forward in the direction of the pass. To reach, if that is indeed considered an act common to the game, you move the ball away from your body. Inductively and with lazy rounding, the ball moves half as far and should take half as long to reach as it does to pass. Considering the time frame we are working with, that rule seems pretty vague.

 

[ElGuapo]

Sports is a field in which there are a bunch of experts, almost none of whom are experts on the actual rules. It isn't a perfect filter, but people who stick to the wording of the rule I find more likely to be actually correct in their explanation of it.

As much as I loathe it, here is my best attempt at explaining. You go up, you must come down. There are two ways you come down: on your feet or headed to the ground. In the latter instance, the phase of "the catch" lasts until you hit the ground and maintain possession.

My last sentence is just off topic commentary on that rule. To pass, you bring the ball away from your body and then forward in the direction of the pass. To reach, if that is indeed considered an act common to the game, you move the ball away from your body. Inductively and with lazy rounding, the ball moves half as far and should take half as long to reach as it does to pass. Considering the time frame we are working with, that rule seems pretty vague.

I'm talking about people who are supposed to be NFL rules experts. For example, Pereira and the game official for example both thought that acts common to the game came into play on the Dez play. Ref didn't think there was one though, while Pereira thinks reaches are and he even said Dez did reach but his didn't count for some reason. He also thinks the rule is bad for whatever that's worth.

You're meaning that reaching a ball out should take less time than a passing motion? If so I don't know why you're saying it or what you're meaning by it.

 

[Mr Misty]

I'm talking about people who are supposed to be NFL rules experts. For example, Pereira and the game official for example both thought that acts common to the game came into play on the Dez play. Ref didn't think there was one though, while Pereira thinks reaches are and he even said Dez did reach but his didn't count for some reason. He also thinks the rule is bad for whatever that's worth.

You're meaning that reaching a ball out should take less time than a passing motion? If so I don't know why you're saying it or what you're meaning by it.

"Maintains control of the ball long enough...to enable him to perform any act common to the game" suggests an ambiguous time frame that maintaining possession is required. It isn't especially relevant to this matter but I think it is poorly worded.