Questionable NFL officials?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Not a Dallas fan so no bias, but I thought Bryant clearly had possession of the ball and was stretching out his arm towards to goal line.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Not a Dallas fan so no bias, but I thought Bryant clearly had possession of the ball and was stretching out his arm towards to goal line.

The reverse was based on the rule that you have to maintain possession to the ground. I thought the three steps he took after catching it, would mean that if he dropped it when he hit the ground, it would be a fumble.

I have no explanation for the first call, which was clearly incorrect, or the other call I mentioned that involved Golden Tate. I missed Jeff's succinct smart-ass explanations for those two.

[HRBAKER]

Can't comment, I didn't see them.
I'm just going on the fact that the in-house guru called exactly what was going to happen before the refs came back. And that is exactly what they did.

Didn't mean to be a smart ass.

[HRBAKER]

So you are saying that the "man under the hood" intentionally gave the Packers a catch in spite of the visual evidence and then was relieved when he got a chance to show he couldn't blow it two times in a row when the Bryant review came up?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

So you are saying that the "man under the hood" intentionally gave the Packers a catch in spite of the visual evidence and then was relieved when he got a chance to show he couldn't blow it two times in a row when the Bryant review came up?

Haha. No. I'm saying he either intentionally blew the first call, or was blind or drunk. I can't think of any other explanation. I'm also wondering if the announcers haven't been told to quit criticizing the replay official; otherwise, they would have made a bigger deal about the first call (the Packer catch).

Yes, I do think there could be something fishy going on, and reversing the 'Bryant catch' could have helped accomplish whatever that fishy goal was.

Edited to add: it's a relief to be able to blame a huge Cowboy loss on something other than Jason Garrett's horrible play-calling and clock management, or Romo's panic-induced interceptions. Against the two of them, I thought Garrett's 4th-down call was the right one, but the wrong play, primarily because they would have scored too fast and Rodgers had driven the field the last two times, for touchdowns. I also thought he should have kept running the ball during the set where Romo was sacked twice. Garrett frequently abandons the run when it is working well, but Harbaugh did the same thing yesterday when Flaco threw the long interception - they were driving the ball well and on pace to run the clock out and win, then inexplicably threw a long pass to a short man who was double-covered. I guess these guys crack under pressure sometimes and just do stupid things. I would hate to have their job.

[Runscott]

I just googled 'Dez Bryant three steps' to see if anyone else was thinking the way I was. Here's what I found at deadspin:

Officials reversed the call because they determined Bryant was still in the process of making the catch when the ball was jarred loose by the ground. (Read that sentence again; football officiating as a demonstration in real-time casuistry is the sort of thing that could make even gamblers swear off the sport eventually.) The Cowboys lost their goal-line situation, possession, and, eventually, the game.

Watching a replay from the sideline, it's unclear when the process ends. Bryant takes three steps; Bryant has possession of the ball; Bryant stretches out for the end zone. When Bryant chooses to reach for the end zone, doesn't that complete the process? Do any of us know anymore? Is football now necessarily an exercise in epistemology?

[CMIZ5290]

The call on Bryant's catch was puzzling to me. Had it been ruled incomplete on the field like that, I could somewhat better understand it, but to over turn it, not so sure. Having said that, Dallas got all of the calls in the Detroit game, very lucky to win that game...

[jiw98]

The calls last week were also questionable in the Cowboy - Lions game. It's possible that if the correct calls were made in that game Dallas wouldn't have been playing this weekend.
I think the games should be decided by the players, not the officials. Unfortunately the officials in every sport seem to be getting calls wrong more frequently. Maybe it's more noticeable to the fans now because of all the different angles they show on the TV. Technology has changed the way we view games.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I just googled 'Dez Bryant three steps' to see if anyone else was thinking the way I was. Here's what I found at deadspin:

Officials reversed the call because they determined Bryant was still in the process of making the catch when the ball was jarred loose by the ground. (Read that sentence again; football officiating as a demonstration in real-time casuistry is the sort of thing that could make even gamblers swear off the sport eventually.) The Cowboys lost their goal-line situation, possession, and, eventually, the game.

Watching a replay from the sideline, it's unclear when the process ends. Bryant takes three steps; Bryant has possession of the ball; Bryant stretches out for the end zone. When Bryant chooses to reach for the end zone, doesn't that complete the process? Do any of us know anymore? Is football now necessarily an exercise in epistemology?

Bryant takes two steps. He goes up, his right foot comes down slightly behind the five. He takes one step with the left, another with the right while he's lunging forward. He keeps possession clearly on the way down. If he doesn't reach out to try and score, there's no question in my mind it's a catch. But when he tried to do that, the tip of the ball hit the ground, it popped up in the air, and whatever he did from that point on didn't matter. He didn't complete the motion of the catch.

Remember, he has to establish possession before he can make a football move. Possession on a ball in the air entails establishing both feet in bounds in the NFL, not just one like in college football. So, while he made two "steps", I'm wondering if they didn't consider the first as establishing possession, and he has to make a football move after that. Who knows what the hell is going on in their minds. Welcome to the NFL in the Roger Goodell era. I sometimes think the guys in New York are throwing dice to determine the outcome of a challenge, or review.

It's a completely messed up rule. It's a rule that has completely burned Green Bay on at least three different occasions that I can think of in the last two years. And as soon as I say what happened, I posted on my Facebook that I was 100% sure that it would be overturned. There was not a doubt in my mind because I've seen it too many times before.

Cowboy fans said "the ref gave Green Bay the game" over and over.

Um, no, they didn't. The refs didn't give Green Bay an 80 and a 90 yard TD Drive, or surrender 430 yards of offense. The Cowboys had the absolute best situation they could have ever hoped for. They got the very best quarterback in the game, who relies heavily on creating outside of the pocket when the play breaks down, immobile. Rodgers only slipped out of the pocket twice all day, the second time was the game winning pass to Richard Rodgers that threaded the needle between two closing Cowboy defenders. And with Rodgers unable to run, and his best receiver double covered all day, they still couldn't stop him. The Cowboys were so worried about Jordy Nelson that Cobb and Davante Adams both went off for over 100. Eddie Lacy, too.

The Cowboys were also gifted their first touchdown. On second and eight, they got Tramon Williams for a ticky tack pass interference call when his feet tangled up with Terrance Williams. He put his right hand out, but didn't in any way impede, or grab Williams, but the line judge called him anyway. His feet got tangled up, and Williams fell down. The funny thing is that the exact same play happened in the Colts-Broncos game in the third quarter, and no penalty was called. Even Mike Pereira, the ex-head of NFL officials, said it was a ticky tack call. That gave Dallas, with the best O line and running back in the NFL, a first and goal at the 1.

Green Bay repeatedly shot themselves in the foot. On that touchdown drive I just referenced, our idiot middle linebacker Brad Jones basically mugged Demarco Murray though he completely didn't have to. There were two Packers waiting to stop the screen on third down. The Cowboys would have punted deep in their own territory. Then there was the ridiculous personal foul on T.J. Lang that gave the Boys another first down. And the one I went nuts over, when the Packers were trying to run out the clock, Andrew Quarless gets a false start on first and ten. Why the hell the tight end is getting a false start on a play that everybody in Green Bay knows is a run...is beyond me.

The Cowboy fans have nothing to hang their heads about, at least the real fans, not the bandwagon fans that jump back on the Cowboy train whenever they start doing better. They have a really good young team, and a Head Coach I really respect. Jason Garrett is a class act.

As for Tony Romo, I hope this puts an end to the ceaseless criticism of him. He played a great game. It's amazing how after nine years in the league, he finally figured it out!

Actually, he finally got some help. He got a real offensive line, and a running back that could take over the game. And, Dallas ran 15% more than they did last year. That kind of patience should pay dividends next year.

Good luck to the Cowboy fans. Great season, and I fully expect to meet you in the playoffs again next year. I must admit, though, that this win helped to soften the disappointment of all those losses at Dallas in the mid 90s. Rodgers is the man!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Can't comment, I didn't see them.
I'm just going on the fact that the in-house guru called exactly what was going to happen before the refs came back. And that is exactly what they did.

Didn't mean to be a smart ass.

Okay, I'm sorry Jeff. I'm a bit over-emotional at the moment, as I really prefer to see the game played on the field, not behind a review curtain.

Also, I have to admit that I heard the in-house guy say the same thing that you mentioned. I disagreed with him, but there is some legitimacy to the call because at least he called it prior to the review. The three steps Bryant took after the catch sealed it for me. I don't think the announcers or the official considered those steps.

Regarding the first call, which most definitely was botched, the in-house guy also called that a clear catch and said that the receiver clearly had his hands under the ball. I could easily see from the first replay (the same one the in-house guru saw) that the ball was on the ground, not within his hands. I outwardly vocalized that the in-house guy was a moron. They then showed a back angle and the two in-house guys said that "maybe" it wasn't a catch. The back-view actually showed the tip of the ball bounce on the ground. At that point my thinking was that both of the in-house guys were morons.

The review official then ruled it a catch. I can let the in-house guys off, since they aren't officials and have the right to be as stupid as anyone else watching the game, but the official is paid to know the rules. No excuses for him other than intoxicants or bribery.

So even if Bryant's catch could be called "questionable", the first call was not questionable at all.