The catch?

[pbmax]

No catch for you.

[mraynrand]

I must just have good luck, haven't been overwhelmed with boorishness yet. Probably just a matter of time.

I also usually get one opposing fan who is at least funny and a good time. 3 for 3 on that count.

Where did you park?

we still had a lot of good fans around and good comments. Guy behind us was doing his rendition of Troy Aikman "Well, Joe, even though I am a former Cowboy I'm perfectly objective about that correct call on the pass interference." We parked/tailgated on the rubble of the old Kmart

[woodbuck27]

No catch for you.

That's the Pic that Dez Bryant might fix to his refrigerator in the off season!? hahahahaha

[pbmax]

Paul Noonan @BadgerNoonan 29m29 minutes ago
Per the Advanced Football Analytics WP Calculator, the Cowboys were 45% likely to win if the Dez call was upheld, 13% after the overturn.

[Cheesehead Craig]

[pbmax]

[Harlan Huckleby]

After getting an earful of complaints from Dallas fans on the Steven A & Skippy show, I have two observations:
1) There is a plausible case to be made that the catch was a catch
2) Dallas really hates Green Bay. The Packers are a rival to them in the same way that the Packers are big rivals to the Bears. Teams that get whupped for a decade or two come to hate their tormentors.

[denverYooper]

The refereeing is taking away from the fact that the Cowboys bet their season on a well defended 30 yard pass on 4th and 2 with 4 minutes left. There is no pretending they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory here.

I agree with this. If they score there, they're still giving the ball back to a red hot Packers offense they hadn't stopped over the last several drives with 3-4 minutes to work and only needing a FG. Green Bay ran their 4 minute offense after that and the Cowboys never got the ball back. The Packers could have scored again if they wanted.

[Cheesehead Craig]

After getting an earful of complaints from Dallas fans on the Steven A & Skippy show, I have two observations:
1) There is a plausible case to be made that the catch was a catch

Not according to the rules as they are currently written, there is not.

[pbmax]

After getting an earful of complaints from Dallas fans on the Steven A & Skippy show, I have two observations:
1) There is a plausible case to be made that the catch was a catch
2) Dallas really hates Green Bay. The Packers are a rival to them in the same way that the Packers are big rivals to the Bears. Teams that get whupped for a decade or two come to hate their tormentors.

Twisting down and falling is not a football move. Neither is not stretching the ball over the end line

[Striker]

I agree with this. If they score there, they're still giving the ball back to a red hot Packers offense they hadn't stopped over the last several drives with 3-4 minutes to work and only needing a FG. Green Bay ran their 4 minute offense after that and the Cowboys never got the ball back. The Packers could have scored again if they wanted.

Yep. It sucks that the rule is worded as it is, but it didn't decide the game. The Packers could have scored had it held. The Cowboys had 2 chances to get the ball back and failed to do so. It wasn't a game ending call like the Fail Mary was, or even calls like the Ed Hochuli early whistle in San Diego (which would have given the Chargers the ball back under 2 minutes) or other calls like that.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Packers could have scored had it held. The Cowboys had 2 chances to get the ball back and failed to do so.

Rodgers was unstoppable in 4th, excellent chance that Packer drive for score with 4-downs for every first.

[woodbuck27]

Rodgers was unstoppable in 4th, excellent chance that Packer drive for score with 4-downs for every first.

Tom says:



Aaron Rodgers is unstoppable !

[mraynrand]

Once again we learned no one in the NFL really knows what a catch is. The rule (known as the Calvin Johnson Rule) is clear: The ground can cause an incomplete pass. And the ruling appears to have been correct. But that doesn't make the rule any less ridiculous.

This illustrates how people who are getting this call wrong. The rule is you have to maintain control going to the ground. Shields dislodged the ball so that Bryant didn't have control going to the ground. The turf didn't 'cause' the fumble, it just illustrated that the ball wasn't secure. And of course he was going to the ground. Interestingly (I haven't seen the game coverage yet), It sure looked like Shields never touched him, so he shouldn't have been down by contact. The Jumbotron operator didn't seem to focus on that aspect; he was zooming in on the movement of the ball in Bryant's hand.

As a side note, the Lambeau Jumbotron/operator is the best I've ever seen at replaying critical plays. They really have that to a science. They have superslow motion and instant zoom in and out. Even on the play where Peppers may have tipped the pass (which would have negated the PI) they had the ball going by his glove in super slow motion, with his glove the size of a three story building on the Jumbotron. If Peppers touched that ball, it was by a stray strand of fiber on his glove - it was that close. I assume the Jumbotron operator is playing with the feed from FOX, but the way they are able to manipulate it is interesting.

[Guiness]

This illustrates how people who are getting this call wrong. The rule is you have to maintain control going to the ground. Shields dislodged the ball so that Bryant didn't have control going to the ground. The turf didn't 'cause' the fumble, it just illustrated that the ball wasn't secure. And of course he was going to the ground. Interestingly (I haven't seen the game coverage yet), It sure looked like Shields never touched him, so he shouldn't have been down by contact. The Jumbotron operator didn't seem to focus on that aspect; he was zooming in on the movement of the ball in Bryant's hand.

As a side note, the Lambeau Jumbotron/operator is the best I've ever seen at replaying critical plays. They really have that to a science. They have superslow motion and instant zoom in and out. Even on the play where Peppers may have tipped the pass (which would have negated the PI) they had the ball going by his glove in super slow motion, with his glove the size of a three story building on the Jumbotron. If Peppers touched that ball, it was by a stray strand of fiber on his glove - it was that close. I assume the Jumbotron operator is playing with the feed from FOX, but the way they are able to manipulate it is interesting.

MM losing that challenge that the tipped ball negated the PI surprised me a little. I had assumed Peppers had come over and told him he definitely made contact with the ball, and that the replay would show it.