If reaching the ball for the goal line isn't a football move they need to change the rules

[MilkSpiller22]

I know that it looked like a catch, and we all believe it should have been a catch... But why do we want the rule to change for this catch?? I don't think the rule itself is a bad one, it was just that this play was an extreme case of the rule...

 

[sonnyblack65]

You know what I find incredible? If Dez didn't have control to the ground, how in holy hell did Cribbs on the miffed punt return?

Two total contradicting scenarios involving the same basis of the rule.

The ground cant cause a fumble and Cribbs's knee was down, they are saying Bryant never had full control of the ball to rule it a catch. IMO he did, even when he rolled over and ball popped up, he caught it. I didnt think it bounced off the turf, but it did hit it as he had control. Just my 2 cents

 

[Brodes81]

The NFL just needs to look at that and realize he made the catch and stretched out to gain more yards. That isn't an incomplete pass although i understand what the rule technically is, but it absolutely screwed the cowboys & i hated to see that happen. And thats coming from an eagles fan too.. that says alot. Cowboys should have won that game even though i am happy they didn't. Karma does really come back to bite ya.

 

[Iggloo]

While it was the right call under the rules, I think the rule needs revision for sure. In common sense terms, Dez had that ball under control and then lunged for the goal line.

 

[TKOSpikes]

Cribbs' knee being down is my point. My question was how was he heralded with CONTROL. Cribbs' knee being down, the same excuse can be said for Dez's right elbow.

 

[anotheridiot]

That's not my point. My point is the two plays with the same rules and different results.

I'm not a Cowboys beggar. Rodgers would have won the game anyway.

I completely agree, 5 minutes to get a field goal there in no difference in the outcome of the game, unless the cowboys did a completely surprise move like an onside kick to try to keep the ball out of rodgers hands and run out the clock with a 4 minute type drill.

That tipped pass that cobb supposedly caught for the final first down they needed didnt even get reviewed. That Dallas CB needed to wipe out Cobb since there would be no pass interference from a tipped ball anyway.

Its a terrible rule when the receiver ends up with the ball in his hand making a football move.

 

[TKOSpikes]

Brodes. You can't say the Cowboys should have won. Rodgers would have had at least 3 minutes to get in FG range at least. This call had nothing to do with the outcome.

And nobody is explaining to me the Cribbs play. I guess because it's impossible to explain.

 

[Iggloo]

It was karma for Dallas to lose on a controversial call. Even if they had scored, we don't know that GB wouldn't have responded with the way their pass offense heated up late.

That said--and I hate Dallas--Dallas got screwed there, regardless of what the rule book says.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

While it was the right call under the rules, I think the rule needs revision for sure. In common sense terms, Dez had that ball under control and then lunged for the goal line.

How would the rule be changed?? be careful now!! Its very hard to make a rule and have it be perceived as the correct rule all the time...

 

[Oldschool739]

100% correct rule enforcement.


That is the Calvin Johnson rule which has been seen before.


The rule might be a dumb rule like the Tuck rule, but it was 100% correctly enforced.

I don't think so, if you watched the Broncos / colts game, on a kick off the colts player caught the ball while simultaneously being hit and the ball came out as he hit the ground....They ruled as many times before, "the ground cannot cause a fumble...
Dez had control and as the rule reads , he made a clear football move after possession , 1.2.3 steps and stretch for the goal line and the ground caused the ball to come loose but he regained it in the endzone....it could have been called a fumble then recovered in the endzone for a TD....I'm surprised no one checked to see if it broke the goal line before it came loose, it sure looked like it did.....
I don't have a horse in this race but I am convinced without a doubt, Cowboys got blatantly robbed of that victory, they were clearly the better team....Seattle will win convincingly at home against GB and an injured AR, Cowboys would have been a much better match up IMO......

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I just watched the play again with the knowledge that it was an incomplete pass(when I watched live I was convinced it was a catch and thought so throughout the reviewing process) I am beginning to agree with the call and the rule...

He catches the ball in the air and when he lands he is clearly on his way down( doesn't matter that he made three steps) I don't think anyone can make the argument that he was not on his way down!!!

When he hits the ground he clearly loses control of the ball, again not even an argument...

so he catches the ball with momentum sending him to the ground and he can not keep control throughout the process...

 

[TKOSpikes]

Old school. We see the reach the same, a football move, but the three "steps" sounds like fans trying too hard. He was stumbling, which is probably the reason they look at it as one motion (from catch to ground). But saying the Cowboys were robbed of a victory is just inaccurate. Robbed of a two point lead with 4-5 minutes left maybe, but victory?

 

[TKOSpikes]

Okay milk. Watch the Cribbs play and tell me where control was established, where his footbsll move is, and when Cribbs wasn't going to the ground?

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

I agree on both points... hopefully rule thrown out.

Rather they give Dallas ball at 1 and Rodgers have 4 minutes to win the game.

Okay, I'm glad I'm not the only one here. Who says even if Dez made that catch (even though he didn't) that Green Bay just doesn't come right down the field and score anyway? They only needed a FG to tie assuming Dallas got the two extra points.

I dunno what it is with Dallas and 'could have been' moments in games. It's like when Romo botched the snap, everyone was saying, "If Romo just gets that hold, game over Dallas wins." There was 2 freaking minutes on the clock, Seattle had timeouts, and Hasselbeck at that point in his career was one of the best come from behind QBs in the game. ??!?!?

 

[Inquisitor95]

Tired of all the idiots claiming karma. Dallas had nothing to do with the PI flag being picked up last week.

If Dez just tried to make the catch and not worry about crossing the endzone, he would have landed on his back and the ball would have never touched the ground. Even so, there was too much time left on the clock and the defense couldn't stop Rodgers when they needed to. So they probably end up losing anyway.

Dez should have understood that catching the ball was critical and it was to the Cowboys advantage that they didn't score right away. But it's hard for players to learn things like that.

 

[TKOSpikes]

Inquis. What you are describing is a football move. You're saying Dez made a concious decision to take his right hand off and stretch the ball out with his left.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Bottom line.

Dez should have come down with that ball and settled for possession.

Then they run Murray 2 or 3 times, go fo a 2 pt conversion. Give ball back to GB with less than 3 minutes left.

But you still have to stop GB.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Okay milk. Watch the Cribbs play and tell me where control was established, where his footbsll move is, and when Cribbs wasn't going to the ground?

I think, and could be wrong here, that there is a different definition of a catch for returning kicks... Could be wrong, but that is the only answer I can give...

 

[TKOSpikes]

So ANYONE???? Where is Cribbs' control and football move to have the ground cause the fumble. Where? Because everyone who says to look at the rule, are saying Cribbs caught it, controlled it and had it to the ground.

 

[Cincyfan78]

It was not a catch by definition, and the claim that him 'stretching' for the goal-line constitutes a 'football move' is incorrect per the rules listed in the NFL book.

Here's how Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 reads:

"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." Bryant, clearly lost control of the ball when the ball hit the ground. Thus, this is an incomplete pass. There is zero question about this.

Now, regarding a football move:

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the rule book. According to the wording of that Article, a catch occurs when a player has secured control of the ball in his hands, he is inbounds and he has maintained "control of the ball long enough … to enable him to perform any act common to the game."

Now, however, the rules also state that the player making a catch, or a move, while falling down will not constitute a 'football move'. So, yes, Bryant did stretch his arms out towards the goal-line; however, he did it while still in the act of catching the ball, and never established 'up right' position while catching the ball. In otherwords, his momentum from jumping caused him to tumble forward, and since he was, in the eyes of the refs, falling down as he was continuing his motion from catching the ball, reaching towards the goal line DOES NOT constitute a 'football move'.

Like it or not, they got the call corrected based on the rules.