Whiny Cowboy Fans
-
The Cowboys can't say a goddamn peep after the ass fucking the Lions got from the refs.
The Cowboys can't say a goddamn peep after the ass fucking the Lions got from the refs.
^ +1
-
-
Who cares if the ball hit the ground? He maintIned possesion and made a football play.
The refs bend the rules to fuck Cleveland all the time.
Who cares if the ball hit the ground? He maintIned possesion and made a football play.
How can he have maintained possession with the ball floating above him, untouched, in the air when he rolled onto his back?
Correct call...
-
I don't understand how the ground CAN'T cause a fumble if you are running, but if you are catching the ball, the ground CAN cause an incompletion
Shouldn't he have been down by contact when his arm hit the ground?.
Shouldn't he have been down by contact when his arm hit the ground?.
No.
VesnaKociper said:
Walter White.............. you are a fucking idiot. NOBODY is questioning the call.
In a continuous motion................. the ball can't touch the ground. It has nothing to do with control or juggling.
Sorry to step on another of your fact-optional rants, but the ball can touch the ground. However, the ground can neither aid the catch nor cause a loss of control... the latter being the case here.
Governor Fat Ass from NJ was shocked by the call!
https://twitter.com/algattullo/status/554408158559735808/photo/1
Shocked or preparing to eat his hand?
I have no idea why everyone is making this a big deal. Dez didn't complete the catch. This has been a rule in the NFL for years.
Yup... ever since Megatron's, controversial, two-handed non-catch in the end zone, the rule has been control all the way through to the ground... even if "the ground" is out of bounds.
-
VesnaKociper said:
Walter White.............. you are a fucking idiot. NOBODY is questioning the call.
In a continuous motion................. the ball can't touch the ground. It has nothing to do with control or juggling. The reason the rule was put into effect is to keep jackoffs like you from bitching and offering different interpretations. The NFL made the rule SIMPLE.......... EASY TO ENFORCE.... and EASY TO BE CONSISTENT ABOUT.
SO jackoff, le tm give it to your dick pimple of a brain again............ in a continuous motion, the ball can't touch the ground.
Had the receiver made a football move with the ball in his hands, and then fell, and then the ball touched the ground.... it would have been a complete pass.
SIMPLE to understand....... except for a jackoff like you, who actually thinks the gift the Blowboys got last week in any way resembled the call today. today's call was correct and the rule is a good rule.
I understand the rule. But only if it deals with a person making a catch and the continual motion of falling to the ground. That's not what happens on this play. The receiver makes the catch, comes down with two feet and complete control of the ball. Then takes another step and dives for the goal line. The reception has been established. That extra step is in the line of yards after the catch. The ball is bobbled in contact with the ground after the receiver is downed on the play (given that there was contact between the players). I would call that a catch and if it's not, the NFL needs to change the rule. What if a catch is made at the line of scrimmage and in stumbling 10 yards downfield the receiver hits the ground with the ball as he stretches for a first down? Are you going to call it incomplete?
-
VesnaKociper said:
Walter White.............. you are a fucking idiot. NOBODY is questioning the call.
In a continuous motion................. the ball can't touch the ground. It has nothing to do with control or juggling. The reason the rule was put into effect is to keep jackoffs like you from bitching and offering different interpretations. The NFL made the rule SIMPLE.......... EASY TO ENFORCE.... and EASY TO BE CONSISTENT ABOUT.
SO jackoff, le tm give it to your dick pimple of a brain again............ in a continuous motion, the ball can't touch the ground.
Had the receiver made a football move with the ball in his hands, and then fell, and then the ball touched the ground.... it would have been a complete pass.
SIMPLE to understand....... except for a jackoff like you, who actually thinks the gift the Blowboys got last week in any way resembled the call today. today's call was correct and the rule is a good rule.
I understand the rule. But only if it deals with a person making a catch and the continual motion of falling to the ground. That's not what happens on this play. The receiver makes the catch, comes down with two feet and complete control of the ball. Then takes another step and dives for the goal line. The reception has been established. That extra step is in the line of yards after the catch. The ball is bobbled in contact with the ground after the receiver is downed on the play (given that there was contact between the players). I would call that a catch and if it's not, the NFL needs to change the rule. What if a catch is made at the line of scrimmage and in stumbling 10 yards downfield the receiver hits the ground with the ball as he stretches for a first down? Are you going to call it incomplete?
I understand the rule. But only if it deals with a person making a catch and the continual motion of falling to the ground. That's not what happens on this play. The receiver makes the catch, comes down with two feet and complete control of the ball. Then takes another step and dives for the goal line. The reception has been established. That extra step is in the line of yards after the catch. The ball is bobbled in contact with the ground after the receiver is downed on the play (given that there was contact between the players). I would call that a catch and if it's not, the NFL needs to change the rule. What if a catch is made at the line of scrimmage and in stumbling 10 yards downfield the receiver hits the ground with the ball as he stretches for a first down? Are you going to call it incomplete?
This is what I thought.
And then when Cribbs got smashed on the punt and fumbled, they called him down by contact, even though he dropped the ball when he hit the ground. ANd he didn't make ANY moves as he was lit up before he could move
-
Governor Fat Ass from NJ was shocked by the call!
https://twitter.com/algattullo/status/554408158559735808/photo/1
Governor Fat Ass from NJ was shocked by the call!
https://twitter.com/algattullo/status/554408158559735808/photo/1
RiskyLiberal @RiskyLiberal 1h1 hour ago
@algattullo @Tomthunkit Christie looks like he's sitting next to his own private fried chicken warming cover.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
-
VesnaKociper said:
Walter White.............. you are a fucking idiot. NOBODY is questioning the call.
In a continuous motion................. the ball can't touch the ground. It has nothing to do with control or juggling. The reason the rule was put into effect is to keep jackoffs like you from bitching and offering different interpretations. The NFL made the rule SIMPLE.......... EASY TO ENFORCE.... and EASY TO BE CONSISTENT ABOUT.
SO jackoff, le tm give it to your dick pimple of a brain again............ in a continuous motion, the ball can't touch the ground.
Had the receiver made a football move with the ball in his hands, and then fell, and then the ball touched the ground.... it would have been a complete pass.
SIMPLE to understand....... except for a jackoff like you, who actually thinks the gift the Blowboys got last week in any way resembled the call today. today's call was correct and the rule is a good rule.
I understand the rule. But only if it deals with a person making a catch and the continual motion of falling to the ground. That's not what happens on this play. The receiver makes the catch, comes down with two feet and complete control of the ball. Then takes another step and dives for the goal line. The reception has been established. That extra step is in the line of yards after the catch. The ball is bobbled in contact with the ground after the receiver is downed on the play (given that there was contact between the players). I would call that a catch and if it's not, the NFL needs to change the rule. What if a catch is made at the line of scrimmage and in stumbling 10 yards downfield the receiver hits the ground with the ball as he stretches for a first down? Are you going to call it incomplete?
I understand the rule. But only if it deals with a person making a catch and the continual motion of falling to the ground. That's not what happens on this play. The receiver makes the catch, comes down with two feet and complete control of the ball. Then takes another step and dives for the goal line. The reception has been established. That extra step is in the line of yards after the catch. The ball is bobbled in contact with the ground after the receiver is downed on the play (given that there was contact between the players). I would call that a catch and if it's not, the NFL needs to change the rule. What if a catch is made at the line of scrimmage and in stumbling 10 yards downfield the receiver hits the ground with the ball as he stretches for a first down? Are you going to call it incomplete?
First off, that picture of Christie is hilarious thanks for sharing Fair haha.
All I can say is that everyone who gets paid to do this for a living say you are wrong in that opinion and I agree with them too. There's a brief bobble with the catch and there's no defining football motion. Your comparison is completely apples to oranges. Pretty much what everyone is saying is that's the right call by the rule but the rule itself sucks, which is very debatable. I just don't see how you can see that any other way.
-
Who cares if the ball hit the ground? He maintIned possesion and made a football play.
The refs bend the rules to fuck Cleveland all the time.
Who cares if the ball hit the ground? He maintIned possesion and made a football play.
The refs bend the rules to fuck Cleveland all the time.
Sorry bitch, But the refs got this one right...
-
I understand the rule. But only if it deals with a person making a catch and the continual motion of falling to the ground. That's not what happens on this play. The receiver makes the catch, comes down with two feet and complete control of the ball. Then takes another step and dives for the goal line. The reception has been established. That extra step is in the line of yards after the catch. The ball is bobbled in contact with the ground after the receiver is downed on the play (given that there was contact between the players). I would call that a catch and if it's not, the NFL needs to change the rule. What if a catch is made at the line of scrimmage and in stumbling 10 yards downfield the receiver hits the ground with the ball as he stretches for a first down? Are you going to call it incomplete?
This is what I thought.
And then when Cribbs got smashed on the punt and fumbled, they called him down by contact, even though he dropped the ball when he hit the ground. ANd he didn't make ANY moves as he was lit up before he could move
This is what I thought.
And then when Cribbs got smashed on the punt and fumbled, they called him down by contact, even though he dropped the ball when he hit the ground. ANd he didn't make ANY moves as he was lit up before he could move
Skip Bayless? Is that you? Sounds like his logic. A punt returner is not a receiver. You are comparing apples and oranges. Why not compare it to a RB too while you're at it...
-
What a bunch of faggots on here crying that the fucking cowboys lost. What the hell is wrong with you? Fuck off and go join the fucking cowqueers forum, asswipes.
-
But but but I thought there was a conspiracy with the Cowboys getting the calls? I'm not saying the rule is skewed but that was 100% accurately overturned.
But we want Prince Aaron to advance further so no holding calls on his court when they were so f'n obvious that HS refs would have seen them.
But we want Prince Aaron to advance further so no holding calls on his court when they were so f'n obvious that HS refs would have seen them.
The way the playoffs are being reffed, you could call holding or PI on every damn play. Plenty of offensive arm bars & push offs that aren't getting called either. Apparently there's one set of rules regular season, and another set in January.
The Cowboys can't say a goddamn peep after the ass fucking the Lions got from the refs.
Exactly. The non-interference, and two holding calls- one offensive and another defensive that didn't get called.
-
I hate the Cowboys and their fanbase.
However, he was fucking robbed of that catch and I'll stand by my point because if that was one of our own, we'd know damn well it was a catch.
He made a football move and came down with it.
-
The fucking cowqueers were getting calls all game. They initially got this call, but luckily Sherman challenged and the right call was made because the refs didn't have much of a choice.
-
Fist thing I said to my wife when I saw the play was "If that was the Browns it would have been incomplete" . . . When they overturned it I was surprised they made the call. I hate the rule and to me that's a catch but I don't feel the least bit bad about the call. I have seen so many of those calls go against the Browns and other teams as well. All the help the offense gets I'm surprised the NFL hasn't changed the rule yet.
-
The NFL "FORGOT" to reset the play clock and left 30 seconds off the game.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/12/steratore-failed-to-re-set-the-clock/
-
only good thing about the cowboy fan base that joined this forum because of manziel is that we got to see them get double-dick dong fucked in da azz.
manziel sucks and the cowboys are one and done AGAIN.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
-
I hate the Cowboys and their fanbase.
However, he was fucking robbed of that catch and I'll stand by my point because if that was one of our own, we'd know damn well it was a catch.
He made a football move and came down with it.
I hate the Cowboys and their fanbase.
However, he was fucking robbed of that catch and I'll stand by my point because if that was one of our own, we'd know damn well it was a catch.
He made a football move and came down with it.
Except he didn't and anyone who has any football knowledge is agreeing with that. Rule sucks but let it go, it was eventually called correct.
-
No catch.
He was attempting to secure the ball while hitting the ground.
It was his fault for trying to secure the ball and reaching out to the end zone. The rules are pretty clear.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login