Whiny Cowboy Fans
-
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.
-
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.
That went both ways.....trust me. I wasn't looking at it with the jaundiced eyes you are.
-
Replay sucks, its made officiating worse than ever.
Except, of course, they got this right....which is what they should do.
(wish we had replay back when Karlis was kicking.)
-
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.
What I saw was Bryant using the ball to break his fall to the ground. He was NOT imo "stretching" to get the ball in the end zone. In doing so, the ball came loose and hit the ground. Bryant did not control it through the entire play, as the rule requires.
Incomplete pass.
-
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.
That went both ways.....trust me. I wasn't looking at it with the jaundiced eyes you are.
That went both ways.....trust me. I wasn't looking at it with the jaundiced eyes you are.
As I've stated elsewhere, not a boyz fan and no dog in this fight. Just don't like crappy non-calls on egregious holding that got worse as the game went on. I felt the refs were "protecting" a gimpy Aaron Rogers from any further injury. And the one where the defender eventually had his back to the play with an arm around his neck lifting him up and over on his back was ridiculous.
-
After the Lions game last week, Dallas fans said the call had nothing to do with the outcome
of the game so I have little to no sympathy for this weeks debacle.
However, can we all agree that the term "football move" is about as asinine a term as has been
introduced in recent memory? FFS. the official NFL definition of "football move" includes an 'etc.'
It seems to me that as soon as the ball is snapped every player on the field is making a "football move".
-
That went both ways.....trust me. I wasn't looking at it with the jaundiced eyes you are.
As I've stated elsewhere, not a boyz fan and no dog in this fight. Just don't like crappy non-calls on egregious holding that got worse as the game went on. I felt the refs were "protecting" a gimpy Aaron Rogers from any further injury. And the one where the defender eventually had his back to the play with an arm around his neck lifting him up and over on his back was ridiculous.
As I've stated elsewhere, not a boyz fan and no dog in this fight. Just don't like crappy non-calls on egregious holding that got worse as the game went on. I felt the refs were "protecting" a gimpy Aaron Rogers from any further injury. And the one where the defender eventually had his back to the play with an arm around his neck lifting him up and over on his back was ridiculous.
And I am saying that I saw as much protection of Tony Romo going on.
-
After the Lions game last week, Dallas fans said the call had nothing to do with the outcome
of the game so I have little to no sympathy for this weeks debacle.
However, can we all agree that the term "football move" is about as asinine a term as has been
introduced in recent memory? FFS. the official NFL definition of "football move" includes an 'etc.'
It seems to me that as soon as the ball is snapped every player on the field is making a "football move".
After the Lions game last week, Dallas fans said the call had nothing to do with the outcome
of the game so I have little to no sympathy for this weeks debacle.
However, can we all agree that the term "football move" is about as asinine a term as has been
introduced in recent memory? FFS. the official NFL definition of "football move" includes an 'etc.'
It seems to me that as soon as the ball is snapped every player on the field is making a "football move".
As I said in this case.....to me, Bryant extended his hand with the ball in it to break his fall to the ground. While others may protest....yes, that is exactly the Calvin Johnson rule.
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