Questionable NFL officials?

[HRBAKER]

Or maybe it wasn't a catch at all in Bryant's case.

[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?

[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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Or maybe it wasn't a catch at all in Bryant's case.

Gee, Jeff - ya think?