The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:24 am**

TexasCowboy wrote:Still ignores the knee and elbow being down which completely refutes everything he's had to
say

You are miss-using/reversing "ignore" and "refute."

I refuted your "knee/elbow" irrelevancy with the rule book and you ignore it.

#sigh

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:25 am**

Countertrey wrote:This thread has now officially moved from sad to truly pathetic... TC... dignity? Ever hear of it?

Never mind... I just realized that there is a Jesse Ventura quote as your sig...

Just a few things and then this thread can be closed once and for all,

* dignify myself to who? nobody...it's not a requirement nor should it
ever be, the truth is all that matters here, a truth that continually gets
stepped over and on because "people" who can't own up to their own
prejudices against Dallas want it to be the other way around

Let's go one further before moving on, is there any dignity
in just hearing someone else's opinion while never doing any
of the back breaking labor of discovering things out for ones
self?

X doesn't all ways mark the spot the way you discover the
truth is by researching and reviewing and when all areas
are covered, you have then discovered what is right and
what is wrong

moving on

* Sad and pathetic? yes indeed when the lie becomes the truth
and the truth is now the lie, I'd say it's time to stop making these
kinds of threads and stick to talking bout the Redskins rather than
worrying bout Dallas

* my signature, says who I am, I speak my mind..I don't back down
in a fight I stick to my guns, there is no waffling, just a straight talker
not a ear tickler, not a people pleaser, just a man that sticks to his guns
doesn't waffle and all ways defends the right

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:22 pm**

TexasCowboy wrote:Let's go one further before moving on, is there any dignity
in just hearing someone else's opinion while never doing any
of the back breaking labor of discovering things out for ones
self?

X doesn't all ways mark the spot the way you discover the
truth is by researching and reviewing and when all areas
are covered, you have then discovered what is right and
what is wrong

Your post seems to insinuate you did "back breaking labor" while all I did was "hear someone else's opinion."

The thing is, I actually did mountains of research. I dug through the rule book. I dug through the casebook. I formed an opinion backed up by research and reasoning. I presented my findings.

Meanwhile, you posted things that are so blatantly wrong ...

TexasCowboy wrote:there should not have been a challenge
from another official on the other side of the field

... there wasn't - Green Bay's coach challenged ...

TexasCowboy wrote:the ball did not completely come
free nor did it ever once hit the ground

... which has been conclusively refuted repeatedly though unacknowledged by you ...

... that it appears you may have not even seen the play.

Of course, through it all, you repeatedly make my argument for me while ignoring the rule:

TexasCowboy wrote:the ball is still in play at this point...Dez then secures
it..one foot comes down, the second foot? is now entangled with the defenders leg who
is trying to jar the ball free

You say this contact (entangled legs) sent him to the ground and that it happened after 1 foot was down. So he's going to the ground while making the catch but all of a sudden, the oft quoted rule does not apply??!!

Wow.

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:27 pm**

DarthMonk wrote:Your post seems to insinuate you did "back breaking labor" while all I did was "hear someone else's opinion."

strike 1, I am not some parrot who mimics what others have to say

DarthMonk wrote:The thing is, I actually did mountains of research. I dug through the rule book. I dug through the casebook. I formed an opinion backed up by research and reasoning. I presented my findings.

so where are your findings on the rule of down by contact?

DarthMonk wrote:Meanwhile, you posted things that are so blatantly wrong ...

keep believing that

DarthMonk wrote:... there wasn't - Green Bay's coach challenged ...

The Cowboys 1 and only costly mistake of not getting to the line quickly and
snapping it before they could challenge

DarthMonk wrote:... which has been conclusively refuted repeatedly though unacknowledged by you ...

hmm seems like the normal standard of doing things around here eh

DarthMonk wrote:... that it appears you may have not even seen the play.

I know you'd like to believe that, but NO I did watch the play and the game despite
what you maybe thinking right now

DarthMonk wrote:Of course, through it all, you repeatedly make my argument for me while ignoring the rule:

funny I thought the total opposite

DarthMonk wrote:You say this contact (entangled legs) sent him to the ground and that it happened after 1 foot was down. So he's going to the ground while making the catch but all of a sudden, the oft quoted rule does not apply??!!

Wow.

the going down is not the issue, or did we forget football is a contact sport. so a player regardless of the
position at some point goes down due to a trip/free fall or tackle

So that rules that out, leaving us with the issue of the ball and did it move while in his arms
not when his elbows or knees hit the ground after the play is over??? unless there is clear cut
evidence this happened, then all we have left is a catch

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:04 pm**

TexasCowboy wrote:the going down is not the issue

Actually, it is.
From page 1 of this thread:

The NFL rule book wrote:Player Going to the Ground. 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.

There it is. Read it and weep. End of discussion.

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:02 pm**

TexasCowboy wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:Your post seems to insinuate you did "back breaking labor" while all I did was "hear someone else's opinion."

strike 1, I am not some parrot who mimics what others have to say

How a strike? Are you not insinuating I am a parrot?

TexasCowboy wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:The thing is, I actually did mountains of research. I dug through the rule book. I dug through the casebook. I formed an opinion backed up by research and reasoning. I presented my findings.

so where are your findings on the rule of down by contact?

Right here. We all know what makes a runner down by contact. Point is, Dez had not yet completed the reception. As your own words say, contact (entangled legs) sent him to the ground and that it happened after 1 foot was down. So he's going to the ground WHILE making the catch, not AFTER having completed it.

TexasCowboy wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:Meanwhile, you posted things that are so blatantly wrong ...

keep believing that

As I should. After all, you said a ref challenged and he didn't, you said the ball didn't touch the ground and a picture shows it did, and you said the ball never completely came free - and it did.

TexasCowboy wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:... which has been conclusively refuted repeatedly though unacknowledged by you ...

hmm seems like the normal standard of doing things around here eh

That would make you a parrot if you simply don't acknowledge a fact because someone else did the same.

Did a ref challenge? Did the ball touch the ground? Did it come completely free?

TexasCowboy wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:... that it appears you may have not even seen the play.

I know you'd like to believe that, but NO I did watch the play and the game despite
what you maybe thinking right now

And yet the things you write make it seem like a real possibility. The whole world, including Jerry Jones, saw the ball come free yet you say it did not. The whole world saw GB's coach throw the challenge flag yet you say a ref challenged.

TexasCowboy wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:Of course, through it all, you repeatedly make my argument for me while ignoring the rule:

funny I thought the total opposite

What a shocker. I showed you right where you did it. 2nd foot entangled. You want that to imply down by contact but it's sending a guy to the ground while he is in the process of the catch - a CLEAR example of the rule you seemingly never give any thought to.

TexasCowboy wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:You say this contact (entangled legs) sent him to the ground and that it happened after 1 foot was down. So he's going to the ground while making the catch but all of a sudden, the oft quoted rule does not apply??!!

Wow.

the going down is not the issue, or did we forget football is a contact sport. so a player regardless of the
position at some point goes down due to a trip/free fall or tackle

So that rules that out, leaving us with the issue of the ball and did it move while in his arms
not when his elbows or knees hit the ground after the play is over??? unless there is clear cut
evidence this happened, then all we have left is a catch

GOING DOWN IS NOT THE ISSUE??? First of all, plenty of plays end with no one going to the ground. So you are wrong again. This play is all about when he went to the ground and when that began. If it began when you say it did (2nd foot entangled) then he gotta maintain control through his contact with the ground. That he did not do.

Posted: **Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:36 pm**

From 2 well respected Cowboy fan members of the Cowboyzone who get it ... or are they simply parrots?:

KJJ, post: 6001917, member: 24819 wrote:You want an answer I'll give you an answer but this is the last question I'm addressing because I'm not going to invest the next 2-3 days or how ever long you want to dig your heels in with this question and answer session. Giving my view isn't going to change yours or anyone else's opinion of the play it's just going to keep this argument going. lol FANS belly aching over my opinion isn't going to change the rule I dislike it as much as everyone else but I understand the rule and accept it. Your question was And what defines "going to the ground to make a catch?" Here's how I see it and I believe the league views it pretty much the same way. "Going to the ground to make a catch" has to occur "during the process" of a receiver making a catch it has to be "bang bang." Watching the video the defender Sam Shields was in great position but Dez did what Dez does he went up and high pointed the ball and Shields couldn't defend it.

When Dez was in the air it was clear to me watching the play live there was no way he would be able to maintain his footing once he landed with Shields battling right there with him. I was just hoping Dez could make the catch and stay in bounds. As Dez went up and caught the ball and came down he "immediately" started losing his footing. Although he took 2 steps after landing he was STUMBLING forward as he took them heading towards the ground. He realized he couldn't maintain his footing and dove at the 5 yard line to extend the ball over the goal line and the ball briefly came loose as it contacted the ground resulting in the catch being reversed. I was on the game chat and immediately after I saw the first replay I posted the play would be reviewed and the call reversed.

and then:

tyke1doe, post: 6002220, member: 455 wrote:An excellent description of what happened.

The question I asked is this: "Would Dez have been able to come down with the ball and stay on his feet?"
The answer is "No."

Therefore, he was going to the ground as he made the catch. If he had caught the ball and stayed on his feet, then made a move and fell going toward the ground and the ball popped out, it would have been ruled a catch.

But his catch and movement to the ground was a continual motion. And because that was the case, he had to maintain control of the ball.

Posted: **Fri Apr 03, 2015 12:39 am**

Look, the thread has gone far enough now...you aren't going to convince me that it wasn't a catch
just like I am not going to convince you it was a catch, so let's just end this nonsense all ready

Posted: **Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:14 pm**

TexasCowboy wrote:Look, the thread has gone far enough now...you aren't going to convince me that it wasn't a catch
just like I am not going to convince you it was a catch, so let's just end this nonsense all ready

No problem. Of course, he lost control through impact with the ground whence it was ruled not a catch - by every ref in the land and even some objective Cowboy fans.

Next time I post in the Cowboyzone I'll be sure to share.

Posted: **Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:39 pm**

TexasCowboy wrote:you aren't going to convince me that it wasn't a catch

Don't need to. The play is long over and it was officially in the record books a not being a catch. It will never be a catch. That you don't believe this has no bearing on the fact that it was, in reality, not a catch. You can live in denial forever, and it won't ever change the fact that it was not a catch. Get over it already. :roll:

Posted: **Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:07 pm**

Deadskins wrote:
TexasCowboy wrote:you aren't going to convince me that it wasn't a catch

Don't need to. The play is long over and it was officially in the record books a not being a catch. It will never be a catch. That you don't believe this has no bearing on the fact that it was, in reality, not a catch. You can live in denial forever, and it won't ever change the fact that it was not a catch. Get over it already.

Yes it was the second his knee and elbow hit the ground the play was over but of course
those things are irrelevant even though we know it's not

Posted: **Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:16 pm**

it was not a catch in anyone's mind .. except of course those who just refuse to accept the obvious

Posted: **Sun Apr 05, 2015 9:56 pm**

TexasCowboy wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
TexasCowboy wrote:you aren't going to convince me that it wasn't a catch

Don't need to. The play is long over and it was officially in the record books a not being a catch. It will never be a catch. That you don't believe this has no bearing on the fact that it was, in reality, not a catch. You can live in denial forever, and it won't ever change the fact that it was not a catch. Get over it already.

Yes it was the second his knee and elbow hit the ground the play was over but of course
those things are irrelevant even though we know it's not

Tell me what the box score says? Was it a catch?

Posted: **Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:16 pm**

TexasCowboy wrote:Yes it was the second his knee and elbow hit the ground the play was over but of course
those things are irrelevant ...

Correct.

TexasCowboy wrote:... even though we know it's not

You mean even thought "you insist" while WE actually know it IS irrelevant since WE understand the RULE.

Posted: **Sat Apr 11, 2015 1:52 pm**

Countertrey wrote:Tell me what the box score says? Was it a catch?

Answer? tells me 2 things, the first is had it been ruled right? which was a catch
and he is down..Dallas sets up for the go ahead score but does not guarantee the
game is over

leaving the only certainty being? time and a lack of defense by Dallas favors the
Packers in that situation

Posted: **Sat Apr 11, 2015 5:23 pm**

TexasCowboy wrote:
Countertrey wrote:Tell me what the box score says? Was it a catch?

Answer? tells me 2 things, the first is had it been ruled right? which was a catch
and he is down..Dallas sets up for the go ahead score but does not guarantee the
game is over

leaving the only certainty being? time and a lack of defense by Dallas favors the
Packers in that situation

The request was "Tell me what the box score says", NOT "Tell me what you wish the box score says"... Dude... your fantasy universe IS NOT REAL...

too harsh? :thump:

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:16 am**

Countertrey wrote:The request was "Tell me what the box score says", NOT "Tell me what you wish the box score says"... Dude... your fantasy universe IS NOT REAL... too harsh?

It says? someone got screwed (Dallas) cause someone else wanted (GB) to win and ensured that it happened
now if you think that is a fantasy, then you are the one who isn't real, happens every day in sports dude

just because you aren't there to witness it happen doesn't mean it's not happening, sports is corrupt,
and has been that way. every since organized crime got involved in gambling

1 day it will all come to a close cause the corruption will get exposed for what it is a elitist money
money making scam, that can no longer be contained in it's secret little world..

sad but painfully true

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 11:22 am**

TexasCowboy wrote:
Countertrey wrote:The request was "Tell me what the box score says", NOT "Tell me what you wish the box score says"... Dude... your fantasy universe IS NOT REAL... too harsh?

It says? someone got screwed (Dallas) cause someone else wanted (GB) to win and ensured that it happened
now if you think that is a fantasy, then you are the one who isn't real, happens every day in sports dude

just because you aren't there to witness it happen doesn't mean it's not happening, sports is corrupt,
and has been that way. every since organized crime got involved in gambling

1 day it will all come to a close cause the corruption will get exposed for what it is a elitist money
money making scam, that can no longer be contained in it's secret little world..

sad but painfully true

Dude... we know the league is corrupt... we're Redskins fans. But... that's not the issue. The rule in the case of this play, was in effect for both teams... and WAS imposed and enforced CORRECTLY. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. None of that matters... No one cheated you. No one screwed you (except for, perhaps, a receiver who couldn't manage to get a second hand on the ball). The pass was incomplete. You are whining.

We still like you...

Posted: **Sun Apr 12, 2015 4:16 pm**

The "rule" is written in crayon a QB who loses the ball after he is ruled down can't have it claimed
oh wait it was a fumble, knees and elbows count, in this case the league the got it wrong

Posted: **Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:45 am**

TexasCowboy wrote:The "rule" is written in crayon a QB who loses the ball after he is ruled down can't have it claimed
oh wait it was a fumble, knees and elbows count, in this case the league the got it wrong

Please! The play that the rule was named for was much more of a catch than this ever was. Dude had scored, had possession, rolled off his back to get up and spike the ball, used the ball to get up and lost control of it. No catch. This case was so much more a clear textbook example of the rule than that ever was. No one got cheated, and it certainly wasn't a fix, or it would have never come down to that. And you still didn't answer the question. What does the box score say?

Posted: **Mon Apr 13, 2015 10:28 am**

TexasCowboy wrote:not to turn this into a conspiracy
theory

But, it's awe full hard to not call
it 1, when the bookies who set
this games point spread at 5.5
I believe

weren't looking to lose money
on the game and GB just happens
to win by the point spread of 5
points

Sounds like a screw job to me folks

This seems confused. If a bettor had Dallas +5.5 he won. Over half the money was on Dallas and only Green Bay backers would've lost on this.

So much for that theory.

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:00 pm**

Deadskins wrote:
TexasCowboy wrote:The "rule" is written in crayon a QB who loses the ball after he is ruled down can't have it claimed
oh wait it was a fumble, knees and elbows count, in this case the league the got it wrong

Please! The play that the rule was named for was much more of a catch than this ever was. Dude had scored, had possession, rolled off his back to get up and spike the ball, used the ball to get up and lost control of it. No catch. This case was so much more a clear textbook example of the rule than that ever was. No one got cheated, and it certainly wasn't a fix, or it would have never come down to that. And you still didn't answer the question. What does the box score say?

he was down before he went over the goaline which means Dallas would have had to run another play
in order to score and go ahead, but it did not ensure Dallas would have won the game at the end

Posted: **Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:13 pm**

TexasCowboy wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
TexasCowboy wrote:The "rule" is written in crayon a QB who loses the ball after he is ruled down can't have it claimed
oh wait it was a fumble, knees and elbows count, in this case the league the got it wrong

Please! The play that the rule was named for was much more of a catch than this ever was. Dude had scored, had possession, rolled off his back to get up and spike the ball, used the ball to get up and lost control of it. No catch. This case was so much more a clear textbook example of the rule than that ever was. No one got cheated, and it certainly wasn't a fix, or it would have never come down to that. And you still didn't answer the question. What does the box score say?

he was down before he went over the goaline which means Dallas would have had to run another play
in order to score and go ahead, but it did not ensure Dallas would have won the game at the end

I don't know why you quoted me, your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone