Wow I'm editing my own post to prevent stupidity on my part from being shown to the world.

I was about to ask why didn't the Pack go for two after they scored a TD towards the end of the 3rd Quarter....only at the time of my original post I thought it was almost the end of the FOURTH quarter. That's what I get for multitasking with the TV on in the background!

Move on, nothing to see here!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2015 10:35AM by JC.

They said, your time warp aside, that you don't go for two in the early third quarter that you wait for the fourth quarter.

I didn't agree. To me, you're behind by 1 point if you kick the extra point, so what's the difference if you go for two and miss and are behind by 2. A later field goal on your part and you still go ahead. It's not like you risk being tied.

Wow! The Cowboys just got hosed. That is the worst call I have seen in NFL history AND AFTER A VIDEO REVIEW!!!

that really was. what an amazing effort and catch.

did the ball ever hit the ground when he reached for the endzone?

No, until he did the rollover but that was after the fact.

jsm08 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that really was. what an amazing effort and
> catch.
>
> did the ball ever hit the ground when he reached
> for the endzone?


I think they ruled that the ground must have caused the ball to pop out of his arm, after which he rolled over and caught it in the end zone.

Tough break for the cowboys BUT didn't they WIN last week at least partially because of a really bad non-call for interference?

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think they ruled that the ground must have
> caused the ball to pop out of his arm, after which
> he rolled over and caught it in the end zone.
>
> But the ball had crossed the goal line with firm
> possession,


I don't think they are ruling that the ball crossed the goal line with firm possession; I think they are saying he never had possession in the first place, because when he first fell the ball hit the ground and bounced out. He had the ball in his forearm but wasn't cradling it underneath; his forearm was around the ball at the same level, not underneath. The ball hits the ground--play over. even though he caught it after rolling over.

The above is how I interpret the ruling...I'm not sure I would have *made* that ruling if I were a referee, but that's what I think they are saying.

One hell of a play by Dez. Even though I don't care for the cowboys and wanted the Pack to win.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here are my thoughts. From your post.
>
> On fourth down with four minutes, 42 seconds
> remaining in the game, Cowboys quarterback Tony
> Romo floated a 31-yard pass down the left
> sideline. Bryant leaped over Packers cornerback
> Sam Shields and grabbed the ball with both hands.
> He took two steps as he stumbled to the ground.
>
> Why isn't it a catch at that point?
>


If that would have been a full description of what had happened, then it probably would have been ruled a catch.

That quote doesn't say: "while falling down the ball hits the turf and flies up in the air." They ruled that since the ball came lose in the act of his falling down, he didn't retain possession.



>
> How can a completed catch SUDDENLY RETROACTIVELY
> BECOME AN INCOMPLETE PASS BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THE
> GUY DOES AFTER PERFORMING A FOOTBALL ACT.
>

but it wasn't ruled a completed catch. It was ruled that he didn't maintain possession while falling during the process of the catch.

Don't agree with that last turnover either. Regardless of whether the tackler was blocked into him or not, it wasn't a fumble because the ball was in his hand when he hit the ground.

Finally got one right.