Cowboys Postgame: ON TO SEATTLE

Newz · Post #101 » by **Newz** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:11 pm

Oh yeah.

Clay Matthews was pretty bad last night. Please do not be bad against Seattle.

UWNick · Post #102 » by **UWNick** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:14 pm

I just need to have a mini-rant after listening to sports radio this morning, and hearing so much whining about the Dez play being a bad rule interpreted correctly. The major complaint is that it leaves too much gray area for the refs to interpret, but its actually the opposite. When going to the ground during a catch the ground can't alter the ball. It's simple, as soon as the ball popped up I called no catch, before the review etc. If you tweak the rule then most of the time you'd have the refs trying to judge if the ground helped the receiver or hurt the receiver and that would be way worse of a gray area/judgement call/whatever you want to call it. It's so straight forward.

The other "gray area" that he took three steps is ever dumber, dude jumped and fell. If guys want to call that a football move, and you would have a ton more fumbles that are incomplete passes now.

I didn't think they'd overturn it because in a big situation like that I figured the refs would avoid taking the heat on what was almost an amazing catch, but I'm glad they got it right. 99% of the time the calls don't look that close, and the tweaks that could be made to the rules to allow that play to be a catch would make all those other instances way worse. It'd be like if we said a toe top on the boundary was almost in so you change the rule to a player has to have 51% of his foot in, instead of 100%. No thanks, current rules are straight forward. No judgement needed.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #103 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:24 pm

trwi7 wrote:OMG, just picked up on this and can't believe I didn't right away but it seems that New York Bozo call by Rodgers was directed at Christie.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was intended to be a Christie reference. Rodgers gave Walker an autographed cheesehead cowboy hat before the game...

Post #104 » by **humanrefutation** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:11 pm

rilamann wrote:Great win,proud of this team.

It was looking like the same old playoff Packers in the first half but the 2nd half was all bout being clutch and mental toughness.I'll be eating my crow tonight and no one is happier about that than me.

Pretty sure you said the same thing after the Super Bowl. Maybe you can learn from the error in your ways this time around. :wink:

Post #105 » by **humanrefutation** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm

I heard New York Bozo live and I didn't catch is as a reference to Christie. But if so, LOL.

Newz · Post #106 » by **Newz** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:15 pm

humanrefutation wrote:
rilamann wrote:Great win,proud of this team.

It was looking like the same old playoff Packers in the first half but the 2nd half was all bout being clutch and mental toughness.I'll be eating my crow tonight and no one is happier about that than me.

Pretty sure you said the same thing after the Super Bowl. Maybe you can learn from the error in your ways this time around.

He'll be back to spouting off garbage in no time. Don't worry.

chuckleslove · Post #107 » by **chuckleslove** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:19 pm

humanrefutation wrote:
rilamann wrote:Great win,proud of this team.

It was looking like the same old playoff Packers in the first half but the 2nd half was all bout being clutch and mental toughness.I'll be eating my crow tonight and no one is happier about that than me.

Pretty sure you said the same thing after the Super Bowl. Maybe you can learn from the error in your ways this time around.

that seems unlikely

Post #108 » by **humanrefutation** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:27 pm

On a random aside, how have I never heard about these commercials before?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs1Q2lrJ3Cc[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aoe5O5I0w34[/youtube]

sidney lanier · Post #109 » by **sidney lanier** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:56 pm

UWNick wrote:I just need to have a mini-rant after listening to sports radio this morning, and hearing so much whining about the Dez play being a bad rule interpreted correctly. The major complaint is that it leaves too much gray area for the refs to interpret, but its actually the opposite. When going to the ground during a catch the ground can't alter the ball. It's simple, as soon as the ball popped up I called no catch, before the review etc. If you tweak the rule then most of the time you'd have the refs trying to judge if the ground helped the receiver or hurt the receiver and that would be way worse of a gray area/judgement call/whatever you want to call it. It's so straight forward.

The other "gray area" that he took three steps is ever dumber, dude jumped and fell. If guys want to call that a football move, and you would have a ton more fumbles that are incomplete passes now.

I didn't think they'd overturn it because in a big situation like that I figured the refs would avoid taking the heat on what was almost an amazing catch, but I'm glad they got it right. 99% of the time the calls don't look that close, and the tweaks that could be made to the rules to allow that play to be a catch would make all those other instances way worse. It'd be like if we said a toe top on the boundary was almost in so you change the rule to a player has to have 51% of his foot in, instead of 100%. No thanks, current rules are straight forward. No judgement needed.

I didn't think they'd overturn it either. To hear the twisted logic of some of the talking heads and others this morning, it's a good thing the people charged with making the call have a better grasp of the rules than others who feed at the sports trough.

I was tempted to text Mike and Mike this morning and tell Golic that if his football move interpretation was correct, and Bryant completed the catch, became a runner, disengaged from the defender, and then fumbled the ball over the goal line, that would have been a touchback anyway. But things seemed confused enough already.

I don't think there will be any rules change in the aftermath of this controversy. Jerry Jones might kick his son off the NFL Rules Committee, though.

glenn · Post #110 » by **glenn** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:59 pm

“Jenny also said Bryan Bulaga doesn’t like steak.”

Newz · Post #111 » by **Newz** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:00 pm

glenn wrote:“Jenny also said Bryan Bulaga doesn’t like steak.”

If this is true I hope we lose next week. I have no tolerance for people who don't like steak.

glenn · Post #112 » by **glenn** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:07 pm

Nah, it’s not true. Jenny has no idea what she’s talking about. Bryan Bulaga has all the mental toughness he needs to power through a nice, juicy steak.

Ron Swanson · Post #113 » by **Ron Swanson** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:15 pm

RRyder823 wrote:
RayRayJones wrote::rofl: Paul Ryan can troll with the best of 'em

[tweet]https://twitter.com/PRyan/status/554385135089754112[/tweet]

Man he just may have got my vote for that

Meh, let's not forget this certain infamous instance....

Ron Swanson · Post #114 » by **Ron Swanson** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:15 pm

Also, Brad Jones is the physical manifestation of the word "FAIL"...

sidney lanier · Post #115 » by **sidney lanier** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:37 pm

Ron Swanson wrote:Also, Brad Jones is the physical manifestation of the word "FAIL"...

He just thought DeMarco Murray needed a hug.

UWNick · Post #116 » by **UWNick** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 4:56 pm

sidney lanier wrote:
UWNick wrote:I just need to have a mini-rant after listening to sports radio this morning, and hearing so much whining about the Dez play being a bad rule interpreted correctly. The major complaint is that it leaves too much gray area for the refs to interpret, but its actually the opposite. When going to the ground during a catch the ground can't alter the ball. It's simple, as soon as the ball popped up I called no catch, before the review etc. If you tweak the rule then most of the time you'd have the refs trying to judge if the ground helped the receiver or hurt the receiver and that would be way worse of a gray area/judgement call/whatever you want to call it. It's so straight forward.

The other "gray area" that he took three steps is ever dumber, dude jumped and fell. If guys want to call that a football move, and you would have a ton more fumbles that are incomplete passes now.

I didn't think they'd overturn it because in a big situation like that I figured the refs would avoid taking the heat on what was almost an amazing catch, but I'm glad they got it right. 99% of the time the calls don't look that close, and the tweaks that could be made to the rules to allow that play to be a catch would make all those other instances way worse. It'd be like if we said a toe top on the boundary was almost in so you change the rule to a player has to have 51% of his foot in, instead of 100%. No thanks, current rules are straight forward. No judgement needed.

I didn't think they'd overturn it either. To hear the twisted logic of some of the talking heads and others this morning, it's a good thing the people charged with making the call have a better grasp of the rules than others who feed at the sports trough.

I was tempted to text Mike and Mike this morning and tell Golic that if his football move interpretation was correct, and Bryant completed the catch, became a runner, disengaged from the defender, and then fumbled the ball over the goal line, that would have been a touchback anyway. But things seemed confused enough already.

I don't think there will be any rules change in the aftermath of this controversy. Jerry Jones might kick his son off the NFL Rules Committee, though.

I sure hope there's no rule change. I just can't begin to think of a way that you can change that rule that isn't so much worse. Heard somebody today say that if it looks like a catch and smells like a catch it should be a catch, and that the rules are too confusing and give the refs too much leeway. I couldn't get them to explain how you determine what looks/smells like a catch should be.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #117 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:29 pm

HKPackFan wrote:I'm just gonna throw this out there....

I'm willing to pay money to anyone in GB or WI who can sneak into Brad Jone's place unplug his alarm clock and turn off his phone the morning of the flight to Seattle.

I'm just sayin it might be worth your while...$$$

And if you are worried that he might wake up while you are in his bedroom unplugging his stuff....I wouldn't be too concerned, He'd probably whiff the moment he tried to grab you anyway.

If anyone wants to relive the nightmare of Week 1, here ya go:

Can someone post these to Dom Capers or maybe Winston Moss and remind them of this nightmare?

Might have to bring back the X'd out Brad Jones avatar for this week. SMH.

ACGB · Post #118 » by **ACGB** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:47 pm

When I finally got to see the Dez Bryant play after I got home from work I was pretty surprised after reading people compare it to the Calvin Johnson play. It just looked like a straight up non-catch to me. Didn't even look like a technicality in the rule. He fell to the ground and the ball popped away. The whole "he took 3 steps and was purposefully lunging for the endzone" seems way overblown.

Post #119 » by **humanrefutation** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:59 pm

ACGB wrote:When I finally got to see the Dez Bryant play after I got home from work I was pretty surprised after reading people compare it to the Calvin Johnson play. It just looked like a straight up non-catch to me. Didn't even look like a technicality in the rule. He fell to the ground and the ball popped away. The whole "he took 3 steps and was purposefully lunging for the endzone" seems way overblown.

I've watched it several times, and if we ignore the process rule and just relied on the "I know one when I see one" rule, that was a catch. I mean, look at this gif:

It clearly looks to me like he grabbed it with both hands, secured it with both hands over his right shoulder, shifted it over to his left hand, and had possession of it in his left hand for a second as he went to the ground.

Again, I understand the process rule and I think it needs to be there. I also think, by that rule, it probably wasn't a catch. But I think if we're following playground rules, that's a straight up catch.

Profound23 · Post #120 » by **Profound23** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 6:04 pm

The way I look at it, if this was almost any team besides Dallas or New England (two teams that won Superbowls because of terrible calls by the refs) I would feel bad about it.

But considering our luck with bad calls (Fail Mary for example) and Dallas' good luck with calls, I will chalk it up to Karma. The funny thing is last week I was talking with a bunch of my Cowboy fan friends and we discussed how it was getting sad about the Lions. We stated an agreement that no matter what this week we wouldn't use excuses. No injury excuses, no weather excuses, and no referee excuses. Didn't take them very long to go back on that.

Not to mention there were a few bogus PI penalties on us. The one where Peppers almost tipped the ball wasn't PI, it was a terribly thrown ball and Williams was running the route of the wide receiver. He didn't even know the ball was thrown, let alone that terribly of an underthrown ball. However, their DBs were very aggressive with our receivers (especially Jordy) and nothing was called of course.

The late hit by Lang was because the Cowboys kept throwing our guys to the ground after the whistle. The whistle blew and three times they whipped Cobb and Adams to the ground afterwards. Lang had enough and they were whipping Adams when the play was blew dead.

Sure you can bring up the Clay Matthews late hit after the TD. Big deal, they enforce the late hit on the kickoff and that has no affect on the game.

I would never have even brought it up, but they want to whine about a call that has been stated to be correct over and over by the NFL. Dez said he didn't want to hear it being an error (like the call they benefitted from last week) well good for him they aren't, because it was the correct call.