Awkward: NJ Governor humps Jerry Jones' leg...

[KenJennings]

Cryant didn't have control "throughout the process". Isn't that the ruling?

 

I'm not sure myself tbh.

I think that the ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver doesn't use the ground to help him do so. The bobble happened after the ball had touched the ground and the runner was down. According to what I know (which isn't definitive by any means), he should have been ruled down inside the 1. This was the original ruling. Then you have the bias against overturning the call on the field, and I was surprised it was overturned.

 

 

I have the feeling that over the next 24 hours we'll all become more knowledgable about the details of this situation.

 

Read the actual rule. It was not a catch. Easy peasy.

 

Oh yeah, but Randall Cobb can pick the ball up off the ground, and it stands as a catch. Give me a break.

 

Dez's play was incomplete. Don't whine like an Eagles fan. It wasn't a catch period.

 

The "football move" argument is just an excuse for the NFL to make it up as they go.

 

There is no standard by which to make that call. It is just an excuse for the NFL to manipulate the game.

 

This is just as bad a call as was the Calvin Johnson 'process' call a few years ago. It was complete bull shit then, it is complete bull shit now. It has nothing to do with the teams involved.

 

On the other hand, when Randall Cobb picked a ball up off the ground, there WAS a standard that was simply ignored. So there, instead of manipulating the game based on a nonsense open ended rule that really doesn't mean anything, they just ignored the rules in favor of the Packers.

 

No, its the rule, and its clear, its not a catch. Its been cited all over the place so I dont need to walk you through it. Youre giving two examples, theres been others, and the reason no one likes the way its called is because the rule is stupid (IMO). If the ball doesnt hit the ground, I think it should be a catch, period.

 

The rule is not clear at all, and that's exactly why it's so stupid. It subjugates every catch to an entirely subjective judgment about what is our what is not a complete process.

 

To argue that Dez Bryant did not make 'a football move' is to ignore the fact that he lunged his arms toward the goal line. He absolutely made 'a football move' after reeling in possession- but the ref just decided he didn't. That's where the rule lies: not in what happened, but what in the ref decided happened.

[lerxt1990]

Cryant didn't have control "throughout the process". Isn't that the ruling?

 

I'm not sure myself tbh.

I think that the ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver doesn't use the ground to help him do so. The bobble happened after the ball had touched the ground and the runner was down. According to what I know (which isn't definitive by any means), he should have been ruled down inside the 1. This was the original ruling. Then you have the bias against overturning the call on the field, and I was surprised it was overturned.

 

 

I have the feeling that over the next 24 hours we'll all become more knowledgable about the details of this situation.

 

Read the actual rule. It was not a catch. Easy peasy.

 

Oh yeah, but Randall Cobb can pick the ball up off the ground, and it stands as a catch. Give me a break.

 

Dez's play was incomplete. Don't whine like an Eagles fan. It wasn't a catch period.

 

The "football move" argument is just an excuse for the NFL to make it up as they go.

 

There is no standard by which to make that call. It is just an excuse for the NFL to manipulate the game.

 

This is just as bad a call as was the Calvin Johnson 'process' call a few years ago. It was complete bull shit then, it is complete bull shit now. It has nothing to do with the teams involved.

 

On the other hand, when Randall Cobb picked a ball up off the ground, there WAS a standard that was simply ignored. So there, instead of manipulating the game based on a nonsense open ended rule that really doesn't mean anything, they just ignored the rules in favor of the Packers.

I missed it... was that Cobb play challenged?

I believe he's referring to the first half catch (near the end of the half), and it was within the last two minutes, after Garrett completely f-ed up that Dallas drive that could have put them up two scores.

Either way, to think the NFL would rather have GB in there over Dallas is hysterical. Sounds like the ranting of a blind bias. If you listened to any NFL discussion... hell, even the Fox postgame, it was obvious who they wanted to win... could barely tell the Packers won the game with the amount of Dallas praise being dished out.

To be fair probably the team they'd want in there second most is GB. The Cowboys draw the highest ratings but the Pack is a close second.

 

I know Aikman has Cowboy ties but if you want to ruin the Cowboys you could make him their coach. His idea of kicking the FG on the Cowboys' last drive from 51 on a sloppy field with a kicker who had missed badly earlier was ludicrous.

NFL is about making money, and would favor the highest revenue generating team (Dallas) over the #12. I would think NY teams should easily be ahead of the Packers too

Where'd you get your stats, thinkprogress.com?

 

Just kidding, but I wouldn't mind knowing. I would be shocked if the Packers were that low. I think the Girls, Steelers, Patsies, and Pack would be four of the top five. I could see the Broncos and Giants up there too and the Bears when they're good, but 11 teams sell more than the Pack?

 

With the Super Bowl being the #1 watched show every year, does it matter if the teams have bigger fan bases or TV markets? Is a close game worth more than a NY team being in it, etc.?

[Lost In Xanadu]

Cryant didn't have control "throughout the process". Isn't that the ruling?

 

I'm not sure myself tbh.

I think that the ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver doesn't use the ground to help him do so. The bobble happened after the ball had touched the ground and the runner was down. According to what I know (which isn't definitive by any means), he should have been ruled down inside the 1. This was the original ruling. Then you have the bias against overturning the call on the field, and I was surprised it was overturned.

 

 

I have the feeling that over the next 24 hours we'll all become more knowledgable about the details of this situation.

 

Read the actual rule. It was not a catch. Easy peasy.

 

Oh yeah, but Randall Cobb can pick the ball up off the ground, and it stands as a catch. Give me a break.

 

Dez's play was incomplete. Don't whine like an Eagles fan. It wasn't a catch period.

 

The "football move" argument is just an excuse for the NFL to make it up as they go.

 

There is no standard by which to make that call. It is just an excuse for the NFL to manipulate the game.

 

This is just as bad a call as was the Calvin Johnson 'process' call a few years ago. It was complete bull shit then, it is complete bull shit now. It has nothing to do with the teams involved.

 

On the other hand, when Randall Cobb picked a ball up off the ground, there WAS a standard that was simply ignored. So there, instead of manipulating the game based on a nonsense open ended rule that really doesn't mean anything, they just ignored the rules in favor of the Packers.

I missed it... was that Cobb play challenged?

I believe he's referring to the first half catch (near the end of the half), and it was within the last two minutes, after Garrett completely f-ed up that Dallas drive that could have put them up two scores.

Either way, to think the NFL would rather have GB in there over Dallas is hysterical. Sounds like the ranting of a blind bias. If you listened to any NFL discussion... hell, even the Fox postgame, it was obvious who they wanted to win... could barely tell the Packers won the game with the amount of Dallas praise being dished out.

To be fair probably the team they'd want in there second most is GB. The Cowboys draw the highest ratings but the Pack is a close second.

 

I know Aikman has Cowboy ties but if you want to ruin the Cowboys you could make him their coach. His idea of kicking the FG on the Cowboys' last drive from 51 on a sloppy field with a kicker who had missed badly earlier was ludicrous.

NFL is about making money, and would favor the highest revenue generating team (Dallas) over the #12. I would think NY teams should easily be ahead of the Packers too

 

Revenue generation had nothing over gambling proceeds. Teams that outperform expectations always get rough calls.

 

I dont believe any of the conspiracy tripe... but GB was giving 6 werent they? :) You still won if you bet Dallas....

Can't reason with blind hate

[lerxt1990]

Cryant didn't have control "throughout the process". Isn't that the ruling?

 

I'm not sure myself tbh.

I think that the ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver doesn't use the ground to help him do so. The bobble happened after the ball had touched the ground and the runner was down. According to what I know (which isn't definitive by any means), he should have been ruled down inside the 1. This was the original ruling. Then you have the bias against overturning the call on the field, and I was surprised it was overturned.

 

 

I have the feeling that over the next 24 hours we'll all become more knowledgable about the details of this situation.

 

Read the actual rule. It was not a catch. Easy peasy.

 

Oh yeah, but Randall Cobb can pick the ball up off the ground, and it stands as a catch. Give me a break.

 

Dez's play was incomplete. Don't whine like an Eagles fan. It wasn't a catch period.

 

The "football move" argument is just an excuse for the NFL to make it up as they go.

 

There is no standard by which to make that call. It is just an excuse for the NFL to manipulate the game.

 

This is just as bad a call as was the Calvin Johnson 'process' call a few years ago. It was complete bull shit then, it is complete bull shit now. It has nothing to do with the teams involved.

 

On the other hand, when Randall Cobb picked a ball up off the ground, there WAS a standard that was simply ignored. So there, instead of manipulating the game based on a nonsense open ended rule that really doesn't mean anything, they just ignored the rules in favor of the Packers.

 

No, its the rule, and its clear, its not a catch. Its been cited all over the place so I dont need to walk you through it. Youre giving two examples, theres been others, and the reason no one likes the way its called is because the rule is stupid (IMO). If the ball doesnt hit the ground, I think it should be a catch, period.

 

The rule is not clear at all, and that's exactly why it's so stupid. It subjugates every catch to an entirely subjective judgment about what is our what is not a complete process.

 

To argue that Dez Bryant did not make 'a football move' is to ignore the fact that he lunged his arms toward the goal line. He absolutely made 'a football move' after reeling in possession- but the ref just decided he didn't. That's where the rule lies: not in what happened, but what in the ref decided happened.

 

Its a bullshit rule. But I saw plenty of calls like that this year (not in that game) where a bobble with outstretched arms was ruled incomplete. So I have no sympathy except that the rule is idiotic. If the ball doesnt touch the damn ground, then IMO possesion wasnt lost, I dont care if he jugles the damn thing on his fingertips.

 

Ill be honest, between that, running in to the kicker, and the BS roughing the passer calls, Im thinking the next step is to just hand tampons to the players, and have them throw them at each others, and settles ties with a f-cking tickle fight. Theyre ruining the game.

[lerxt1990]

Cryant didn't have control "throughout the process". Isn't that the ruling?

 

I'm not sure myself tbh.

I think that the ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver doesn't use the ground to help him do so. The bobble happened after the ball had touched the ground and the runner was down. According to what I know (which isn't definitive by any means), he should have been ruled down inside the 1. This was the original ruling. Then you have the bias against overturning the call on the field, and I was surprised it was overturned.

 

 

I have the feeling that over the next 24 hours we'll all become more knowledgable about the details of this situation.

 

Read the actual rule. It was not a catch. Easy peasy.

 

Oh yeah, but Randall Cobb can pick the ball up off the ground, and it stands as a catch. Give me a break.

 

Dez's play was incomplete. Don't whine like an Eagles fan. It wasn't a catch period.

 

The "football move" argument is just an excuse for the NFL to make it up as they go.

 

There is no standard by which to make that call. It is just an excuse for the NFL to manipulate the game.

 

This is just as bad a call as was the Calvin Johnson 'process' call a few years ago. It was complete bull shit then, it is complete bull shit now. It has nothing to do with the teams involved.

 

On the other hand, when Randall Cobb picked a ball up off the ground, there WAS a standard that was simply ignored. So there, instead of manipulating the game based on a nonsense open ended rule that really doesn't mean anything, they just ignored the rules in favor of the Packers.

I missed it... was that Cobb play challenged?

I believe he's referring to the first half catch (near the end of the half), and it was within the last two minutes, after Garrett completely f-ed up that Dallas drive that could have put them up two scores.

Either way, to think the NFL would rather have GB in there over Dallas is hysterical. Sounds like the ranting of a blind bias. If you listened to any NFL discussion... hell, even the Fox postgame, it was obvious who they wanted to win... could barely tell the Packers won the game with the amount of Dallas praise being dished out.

To be fair probably the team they'd want in there second most is GB. The Cowboys draw the highest ratings but the Pack is a close second.

 

I know Aikman has Cowboy ties but if you want to ruin the Cowboys you could make him their coach. His idea of kicking the FG on the Cowboys' last drive from 51 on a sloppy field with a kicker who had missed badly earlier was ludicrous.

NFL is about making money, and would favor the highest revenue generating team (Dallas) over the #12. I would think NY teams should easily be ahead of the Packers too

 

Revenue generation had nothing over gambling proceeds. Teams that outperform expectations always get rough calls.

 

I dont believe any of the conspiracy tripe... but GB was giving 6 werent they? :) You still won if you bet Dallas....

Can't reason with blind hate

 

I loathe the Cowboys. I am overjoyed they lost, overjoyed Dez got f-cked, and am glad the NJ Governor had to go home with only his dick in his hand, and Jerry Jones got f-cked again. Overjoyed, almost giddy. But.. I dont believe the game was fixed, only that the gray and douchier areas of the game are becoming more prevalent.

[laughedatbytime]

Cryant didn't have control "throughout the process". Isn't that the ruling?

 

I'm not sure myself tbh.

I think that the ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver doesn't use the ground to help him do so. The bobble happened after the ball had touched the ground and the runner was down. According to what I know (which isn't definitive by any means), he should have been ruled down inside the 1. This was the original ruling. Then you have the bias against overturning the call on the field, and I was surprised it was overturned.

 

 

I have the feeling that over the next 24 hours we'll all become more knowledgable about the details of this situation.

 

Read the actual rule. It was not a catch. Easy peasy.

 

Oh yeah, but Randall Cobb can pick the ball up off the ground, and it stands as a catch. Give me a break.

 

Dez's play was incomplete. Don't whine like an Eagles fan. It wasn't a catch period.

 

The "football move" argument is just an excuse for the NFL to make it up as they go.

 

There is no standard by which to make that call. It is just an excuse for the NFL to manipulate the game.

 

This is just as bad a call as was the Calvin Johnson 'process' call a few years ago. It was complete bull shit then, it is complete bull shit now. It has nothing to do with the teams involved.

 

On the other hand, when Randall Cobb picked a ball up off the ground, there WAS a standard that was simply ignored. So there, instead of manipulating the game based on a nonsense open ended rule that really doesn't mean anything, they just ignored the rules in favor of the Packers.

I missed it... was that Cobb play challenged?

I believe he's referring to the first half catch (near the end of the half), and it was within the last two minutes, after Garrett completely f-ed up that Dallas drive that could have put them up two scores.

Either way, to think the NFL would rather have GB in there over Dallas is hysterical. Sounds like the ranting of a blind bias. If you listened to any NFL discussion... hell, even the Fox postgame, it was obvious who they wanted to win... could barely tell the Packers won the game with the amount of Dallas praise being dished out.

To be fair probably the team they'd want in there second most is GB. The Cowboys draw the highest ratings but the Pack is a close second.

 

I know Aikman has Cowboy ties but if you want to ruin the Cowboys you could make him their coach. His idea of kicking the FG on the Cowboys' last drive from 51 on a sloppy field with a kicker who had missed badly earlier was ludicrous.

NFL is about making money, and would favor the highest revenue generating team (Dallas) over the #12. I would think NY teams should easily be ahead of the Packers too

Where'd you get your stats, thinkprogress.com?

 

Just kidding, but I wouldn't mind knowing. I would be shocked if the Packers were that low. I think the Girls, Steelers, Patsies, and Pack would be four of the top five. I could see the Broncos and Giants up there too and the Bears when they're good, but 11 teams sell more than the Pack?

 

With the Super Bowl being the #1 watched show every year, does it matter if the teams have bigger fan bases or TV markets? Is a close game worth more than a NY team being in it, etc.?

The Super Bowl broke records last year with Denver and Seattle. Two years after NYG and New England were in the game the Saints and Colts broke viewership records. It doesn't matter, unlike with MLB.

 

Of course some people would say it broke records because it was played in NY.

[KenJennings]

Cryant didn't have control "throughout the process". Isn't that the ruling?

 

I'm not sure myself tbh.

I think that the ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver doesn't use the ground to help him do so. The bobble happened after the ball had touched the ground and the runner was down. According to what I know (which isn't definitive by any means), he should have been ruled down inside the 1. This was the original ruling. Then you have the bias against overturning the call on the field, and I was surprised it was overturned.

 

 

I have the feeling that over the next 24 hours we'll all become more knowledgable about the details of this situation.

 

Read the actual rule. It was not a catch. Easy peasy.

 

Oh yeah, but Randall Cobb can pick the ball up off the ground, and it stands as a catch. Give me a break.

 

Dez's play was incomplete. Don't whine like an Eagles fan. It wasn't a catch period.

 

The "football move" argument is just an excuse for the NFL to make it up as they go.

 

There is no standard by which to make that call. It is just an excuse for the NFL to manipulate the game.

 

This is just as bad a call as was the Calvin Johnson 'process' call a few years ago. It was complete bull shit then, it is complete bull shit now. It has nothing to do with the teams involved.

 

On the other hand, when Randall Cobb picked a ball up off the ground, there WAS a standard that was simply ignored. So there, instead of manipulating the game based on a nonsense open ended rule that really doesn't mean anything, they just ignored the rules in favor of the Packers.

I missed it... was that Cobb play challenged?

I believe he's referring to the first half catch (near the end of the half), and it was within the last two minutes, after Garrett completely f-ed up that Dallas drive that could have put them up two scores.

Either way, to think the NFL would rather have GB in there over Dallas is hysterical. Sounds like the ranting of a blind bias. If you listened to any NFL discussion... hell, even the Fox postgame, it was obvious who they wanted to win... could barely tell the Packers won the game with the amount of Dallas praise being dished out.

To be fair probably the team they'd want in there second most is GB. The Cowboys draw the highest ratings but the Pack is a close second.

 

I know Aikman has Cowboy ties but if you want to ruin the Cowboys you could make him their coach. His idea of kicking the FG on the Cowboys' last drive from 51 on a sloppy field with a kicker who had missed badly earlier was ludicrous.

NFL is about making money, and would favor the highest revenue generating team (Dallas) over the #12. I would think NY teams should easily be ahead of the Packers too

 

Revenue generation had nothing over gambling proceeds. Teams that outperform expectations always get rough calls.

 

I dont believe any of the conspiracy tripe... but GB was giving 6 werent they? :) You still won if you bet Dallas....

Can't reason with blind hate

 

Do you honestly believe you've been the voice of unbiased reason here?

 

Not to mention you're completely ignoring futures bets.

[lerxt1990]

Cryant didn't have control "throughout the process". Isn't that the ruling?

 

I'm not sure myself tbh.

I think that the ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver doesn't use the ground to help him do so. The bobble happened after the ball had touched the ground and the runner was down. According to what I know (which isn't definitive by any means), he should have been ruled down inside the 1. This was the original ruling. Then you have the bias against overturning the call on the field, and I was surprised it was overturned.

 

 

I have the feeling that over the next 24 hours we'll all become more knowledgable about the details of this situation.

 

Read the actual rule. It was not a catch. Easy peasy.

 

Oh yeah, but Randall Cobb can pick the ball up off the ground, and it stands as a catch. Give me a break.

 

Dez's play was incomplete. Don't whine like an Eagles fan. It wasn't a catch period.

 

The "football move" argument is just an excuse for the NFL to make it up as they go.

 

There is no standard by which to make that call. It is just an excuse for the NFL to manipulate the game.

 

This is just as bad a call as was the Calvin Johnson 'process' call a few years ago. It was complete bull shit then, it is complete bull shit now. It has nothing to do with the teams involved.

 

On the other hand, when Randall Cobb picked a ball up off the ground, there WAS a standard that was simply ignored. So there, instead of manipulating the game based on a nonsense open ended rule that really doesn't mean anything, they just ignored the rules in favor of the Packers.

I missed it... was that Cobb play challenged?

I believe he's referring to the first half catch (near the end of the half), and it was within the last two minutes, after Garrett completely f-ed up that Dallas drive that could have put them up two scores.

Either way, to think the NFL would rather have GB in there over Dallas is hysterical. Sounds like the ranting of a blind bias. If you listened to any NFL discussion... hell, even the Fox postgame, it was obvious who they wanted to win... could barely tell the Packers won the game with the amount of Dallas praise being dished out.

To be fair probably the team they'd want in there second most is GB. The Cowboys draw the highest ratings but the Pack is a close second.

 

I know Aikman has Cowboy ties but if you want to ruin the Cowboys you could make him their coach. His idea of kicking the FG on the Cowboys' last drive from 51 on a sloppy field with a kicker who had missed badly earlier was ludicrous.

NFL is about making money, and would favor the highest revenue generating team (Dallas) over the #12. I would think NY teams should easily be ahead of the Packers too

Where'd you get your stats, thinkprogress.com?

 

Just kidding, but I wouldn't mind knowing. I would be shocked if the Packers were that low. I think the Girls, Steelers, Patsies, and Pack would be four of the top five. I could see the Broncos and Giants up there too and the Bears when they're good, but 11 teams sell more than the Pack?

 

With the Super Bowl being the #1 watched show every year, does it matter if the teams have bigger fan bases or TV markets? Is a close game worth more than a NY team being in it, etc.?

The Super Bowl broke records last year with Denver and Seattle. Two years after NYG and New England were in the game the Saints and Colts broke viewership records. It doesn't matter, unlike with MLB.

 

Of course some people would say it broke records because it was played in NY.

 

Thats what I thought.

[laughedatbytime]

Cryant didn't have control "throughout the process". Isn't that the ruling?

 

I'm not sure myself tbh.

I think that the ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver doesn't use the ground to help him do so. The bobble happened after the ball had touched the ground and the runner was down. According to what I know (which isn't definitive by any means), he should have been ruled down inside the 1. This was the original ruling. Then you have the bias against overturning the call on the field, and I was surprised it was overturned.

 

 

I have the feeling that over the next 24 hours we'll all become more knowledgable about the details of this situation.

 

Read the actual rule. It was not a catch. Easy peasy.

 

Oh yeah, but Randall Cobb can pick the ball up off the ground, and it stands as a catch. Give me a break.

 

Dez's play was incomplete. Don't whine like an Eagles fan. It wasn't a catch period.

 

The "football move" argument is just an excuse for the NFL to make it up as they go.

 

There is no standard by which to make that call. It is just an excuse for the NFL to manipulate the game.

 

This is just as bad a call as was the Calvin Johnson 'process' call a few years ago. It was complete bull shit then, it is complete bull shit now. It has nothing to do with the teams involved.

 

On the other hand, when Randall Cobb picked a ball up off the ground, there WAS a standard that was simply ignored. So there, instead of manipulating the game based on a nonsense open ended rule that really doesn't mean anything, they just ignored the rules in favor of the Packers.

I missed it... was that Cobb play challenged?

I believe he's referring to the first half catch (near the end of the half), and it was within the last two minutes, after Garrett completely f-ed up that Dallas drive that could have put them up two scores.

Either way, to think the NFL would rather have GB in there over Dallas is hysterical. Sounds like the ranting of a blind bias. If you listened to any NFL discussion... hell, even the Fox postgame, it was obvious who they wanted to win... could barely tell the Packers won the game with the amount of Dallas praise being dished out.

To be fair probably the team they'd want in there second most is GB. The Cowboys draw the highest ratings but the Pack is a close second.

 

I know Aikman has Cowboy ties but if you want to ruin the Cowboys you could make him their coach. His idea of kicking the FG on the Cowboys' last drive from 51 on a sloppy field with a kicker who had missed badly earlier was ludicrous.

NFL is about making money, and would favor the highest revenue generating team (Dallas) over the #12. I would think NY teams should easily be ahead of the Packers too

Where'd you get your stats, thinkprogress.com?

 

Just kidding, but I wouldn't mind knowing. I would be shocked if the Packers were that low. I think the Girls, Steelers, Patsies, and Pack would be four of the top five. I could see the Broncos and Giants up there too and the Bears when they're good, but 11 teams sell more than the Pack?

forbes.com

Is that the "team valuation" list? I would put merchandise sales as the most appropriate measure, or maybe number of fans if determined objectively (and by that I DON'T mean subjectively, all BS aside.)

[Lost In Xanadu]

Cryant didn't have control "throughout the process". Isn't that the ruling?

 

I'm not sure myself tbh.

I think that the ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver doesn't use the ground to help him do so. The bobble happened after the ball had touched the ground and the runner was down. According to what I know (which isn't definitive by any means), he should have been ruled down inside the 1. This was the original ruling. Then you have the bias against overturning the call on the field, and I was surprised it was overturned.

 

 

I have the feeling that over the next 24 hours we'll all become more knowledgable about the details of this situation.

 

Read the actual rule. It was not a catch. Easy peasy.

 

Oh yeah, but Randall Cobb can pick the ball up off the ground, and it stands as a catch. Give me a break.

 

Dez's play was incomplete. Don't whine like an Eagles fan. It wasn't a catch period.

 

The "football move" argument is just an excuse for the NFL to make it up as they go.

 

There is no standard by which to make that call. It is just an excuse for the NFL to manipulate the game.

 

This is just as bad a call as was the Calvin Johnson 'process' call a few years ago. It was complete bull shit then, it is complete bull shit now. It has nothing to do with the teams involved.

 

On the other hand, when Randall Cobb picked a ball up off the ground, there WAS a standard that was simply ignored. So there, instead of manipulating the game based on a nonsense open ended rule that really doesn't mean anything, they just ignored the rules in favor of the Packers.

I missed it... was that Cobb play challenged?

I believe he's referring to the first half catch (near the end of the half), and it was within the last two minutes, after Garrett completely f-ed up that Dallas drive that could have put them up two scores.

Either way, to think the NFL would rather have GB in there over Dallas is hysterical. Sounds like the ranting of a blind bias. If you listened to any NFL discussion... hell, even the Fox postgame, it was obvious who they wanted to win... could barely tell the Packers won the game with the amount of Dallas praise being dished out.

To be fair probably the team they'd want in there second most is GB. The Cowboys draw the highest ratings but the Pack is a close second.

 

I know Aikman has Cowboy ties but if you want to ruin the Cowboys you could make him their coach. His idea of kicking the FG on the Cowboys' last drive from 51 on a sloppy field with a kicker who had missed badly earlier was ludicrous.

NFL is about making money, and would favor the highest revenue generating team (Dallas) over the #12. I would think NY teams should easily be ahead of the Packers too

 

Revenue generation had nothing over gambling proceeds. Teams that outperform expectations always get rough calls.

 

I dont believe any of the conspiracy tripe... but GB was giving 6 werent they? :) You still won if you bet Dallas....

Can't reason with blind hate

 

Do you honestly believe you've been the voice of unbiased reason here?

 

Not to mention you're completely ignoring futures bets.

of course I am biased... just not nearly as biased as you are being. To have Det say the game was fixed FOR Dal last week, and now it was fixed against Dal this week? Pure insanity.

[KenJennings]

of course I am biased... just not nearly as biased as you are being. To have Det say the game was fixed FOR Dal last week, and now it was fixed against Dal this week? Pure insanity.

 

If I have any bias in the Detroit game, it was for Detroit. I'm actually a big fan of Stafford and Calvin; though I very much dislike their dirty play of late.

 

I've disliked the Cowboys my whole life. I still hate them for Drew Pearson's uncalled Pass Int. I've always thought Tony Romo was overrated, and I think Dez Bryant's a jackass. I have absolutely no love for them.

 

Admittedly, I do hate the Packers. I've hated them since they showed Favre the door, and I will always hate them for that.

 

But that does not change the fact that Brandon Pettigrew pulled on Anthony Hitchens' shoulder/helmet and committed offensive pass int.

 

That does not change the fact that Randall Cobb was allowed to catch a ball off the ground (even after a clear review) which led to a Packer's score.

 

And that does not change the fact that Dez Bryant came down with the ball, made a football move toward the endzone, and had the play mysteriously called otherwise.

 

The NFL did everything they could to play to the Packers' advantage. It was the profitable thing to do, even if they came up short of the spread in the end.

[Lost In Xanadu]

of course I am biased... just not nearly as biased as you are being. To have Det say the game was fixed FOR Dal last week, and now it was fixed against Dal this week? Pure insanity.

 

If I have any bias in the Detroit game, it was for Detroit. I'm actually a big fan of Stafford and Calvin; though I very much dislike their dirty play of late.

 

I've disliked the Cowboys my whole life. I still hate them for Drew Pearson's uncalled Pass Int. I've always thought Tony Romo was overrated, and I think Dez Bryant's a jackass. I have absolutely no love for them.

 

Admittedly, I do hate the Packers. I've hated them since they showed Favre the door, and I will always hate them for that.

 

But that does not change the fact that Brandon Pettigrew pulled on Anthony Hitchens' shoulder/helmet and committed offensive pass int.

 

That does not change the fact that Randall Cobb was allowed to catch a ball off the ground (even after a clear review) which led to a Packer's score.

 

And that does not change the fact that Dez Bryant came down with the ball, made a football move toward the endzone, and had the play mysteriously called otherwise.

 

The NFL did everything they could to play to the Packers' advantage. It was the profitable thing to do, even if they came up short of the spread in the end.

Watch the super slo video, can find it on YouTube if you need to see it again. A football move cannot happen until he has possession. The ball was hit in his hands, he technically only got 1 foot down after securing the ball before going to the ground. Clearly lost the ball when it hit the ground.

[KenJennings]

of course I am biased... just not nearly as biased as you are being. To have Det say the game was fixed FOR Dal last week, and now it was fixed against Dal this week? Pure insanity.

 

If I have any bias in the Detroit game, it was for Detroit. I'm actually a big fan of Stafford and Calvin; though I very much dislike their dirty play of late.

 

I've disliked the Cowboys my whole life. I still hate them for Drew Pearson's uncalled Pass Int. I've always thought Tony Romo was overrated, and I think Dez Bryant's a jackass. I have absolutely no love for them.

 

Admittedly, I do hate the Packers. I've hated them since they showed Favre the door, and I will always hate them for that.

 

But that does not change the fact that Brandon Pettigrew pulled on Anthony Hitchens' shoulder/helmet and committed offensive pass int.

 

That does not change the fact that Randall Cobb was allowed to catch a ball off the ground (even after a clear review) which led to a Packer's score.

 

And that does not change the fact that Dez Bryant came down with the ball, made a football move toward the endzone, and had the play mysteriously called otherwise.

 

The NFL did everything they could to play to the Packers' advantage. It was the profitable thing to do, even if they came up short of the spread in the end.

Watch the super slo video, can find it on YouTube if you need to see it again. A football move cannot happen until he has possession. The ball was hit in his hands, he technically only got 1 foot down after securing the ball before going to the ground. Clearly lost the ball when it hit the ground.

 

He had possession the entire time he went to the ground. He took the ball with two hands, moved it into one hand, and reached forward to the endzone.

 

I count three steps and a reach with possession before the ground dislodged the ball. That is plenty of 'football movement'.

 

 

Pay special attention to the laces of the football as he goes down. They aren't moving erratically. He has control of the football immediately, and moves toward the endzone.

 

He had control, the ground dislodged the ball, and then he maintained control.

 

At worst, that's ball down inside the one.

Edited January 13, 2015 by KenJennings

[Lost In Xanadu]

of course I am biased... just not nearly as biased as you are being. To have Det say the game was fixed FOR Dal last week, and now it was fixed against Dal this week? Pure insanity.

 

If I have any bias in the Detroit game, it was for Detroit. I'm actually a big fan of Stafford and Calvin; though I very much dislike their dirty play of late.

 

I've disliked the Cowboys my whole life. I still hate them for Drew Pearson's uncalled Pass Int. I've always thought Tony Romo was overrated, and I think Dez Bryant's a jackass. I have absolutely no love for them.

 

Admittedly, I do hate the Packers. I've hated them since they showed Favre the door, and I will always hate them for that.

 

But that does not change the fact that Brandon Pettigrew pulled on Anthony Hitchens' shoulder/helmet and committed offensive pass int.

 

That does not change the fact that Randall Cobb was allowed to catch a ball off the ground (even after a clear review) which led to a Packer's score.

 

And that does not change the fact that Dez Bryant came down with the ball, made a football move toward the endzone, and had the play mysteriously called otherwise.

 

The NFL did everything they could to play to the Packers' advantage. It was the profitable thing to do, even if they came up short of the spread in the end.

Watch the super slo video, can find it on YouTube if you need to see it again. A football move cannot happen until he has possession. The ball was hit in his hands, he technically only got 1 foot down after securing the ball before going to the ground. Clearly lost the ball when it hit the ground.

 

He had possession the entire time he went to the ground. He took the ball with two hands, moved it into one hand, and reached forward to the endzone.

 

I count three steps and a reach with possession before the ground dislodged the ball. That is plenty of 'football movement'.

We must have watched different plays. The play I watched it has the caught ball being hit by the defender, and he only gets one foot down after reigning the ball in securely. Edited January 13, 2015 by Lost In Xanadu

[KenJennings]

 

He gets control of the ball at 0:06 with one foot down in bounds. His second foot is down at 0:10, and he begins to make a football move (lunging/reaching with one arm) toward the endzone (he even has the control to transfer the ball to the reaching hand). At this point the process of the catch is complete. From 0:15 through to 0:20 you can see that the ball is firmly grasped in his hand, under control, as the laces don't move. At 0:23, the ground dislodges the ball- down inside the 1yd line.

 

I think it's pretty clear cut. I really don't know how this is even questionable.

Edited January 13, 2015 by KenJennings

[lerxt1990]

of course I am biased... just not nearly as biased as you are being. To have Det say the game was fixed FOR Dal last week, and now it was fixed against Dal this week? Pure insanity.

 

If I have any bias in the Detroit game, it was for Detroit. I'm actually a big fan of Stafford and Calvin; though I very much dislike their dirty play of late.

 

I've disliked the Cowboys my whole life. I still hate them for Drew Pearson's uncalled Pass Int. I've always thought Tony Romo was overrated, and I think Dez Bryant's a jackass. I have absolutely no love for them.

 

Admittedly, I do hate the Packers. I've hated them since they showed Favre the door, and I will always hate them for that.

 

But that does not change the fact that Brandon Pettigrew pulled on Anthony Hitchens' shoulder/helmet and committed offensive pass int.

 

That does not change the fact that Randall Cobb was allowed to catch a ball off the ground (even after a clear review) which led to a Packer's score.

 

And that does not change the fact that Dez Bryant came down with the ball, made a football move toward the endzone, and had the play mysteriously called otherwise.

 

The NFL did everything they could to play to the Packers' advantage. It was the profitable thing to do, even if they came up short of the spread in the end.

Watch the super slo video, can find it on YouTube if you need to see it again. A football move cannot happen until he has possession. The ball was hit in his hands, he technically only got 1 foot down after securing the ball before going to the ground. Clearly lost the ball when it hit the ground.

 

He had possession the entire time he went to the ground. He took the ball with two hands, moved it into one hand, and reached forward to the endzone.

 

I count three steps and a reach with possession before the ground dislodged the ball. That is plenty of 'football movement'.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n051cY3xbGo

 

Pay special attention to the laces of the football as he goes down. They aren't moving erratically. He has control of the football immediately, and moves toward the endzone.

 

He had control, the ground dislodged the ball, and then he maintained control.

 

At worst, that's ball down inside the one.

 

Yes, he lost possession, per the rules, when he hit the ground, so they may rule it isnt a catch.

[KenJennings]

of course I am biased... just not nearly as biased as you are being. To have Det say the game was fixed FOR Dal last week, and now it was fixed against Dal this week? Pure insanity.

 

If I have any bias in the Detroit game, it was for Detroit. I'm actually a big fan of Stafford and Calvin; though I very much dislike their dirty play of late.

 

I've disliked the Cowboys my whole life. I still hate them for Drew Pearson's uncalled Pass Int. I've always thought Tony Romo was overrated, and I think Dez Bryant's a jackass. I have absolutely no love for them.

 

Admittedly, I do hate the Packers. I've hated them since they showed Favre the door, and I will always hate them for that.

 

But that does not change the fact that Brandon Pettigrew pulled on Anthony Hitchens' shoulder/helmet and committed offensive pass int.

 

That does not change the fact that Randall Cobb was allowed to catch a ball off the ground (even after a clear review) which led to a Packer's score.

 

And that does not change the fact that Dez Bryant came down with the ball, made a football move toward the endzone, and had the play mysteriously called otherwise.

 

The NFL did everything they could to play to the Packers' advantage. It was the profitable thing to do, even if they came up short of the spread in the end.

Watch the super slo video, can find it on YouTube if you need to see it again. A football move cannot happen until he has possession. The ball was hit in his hands, he technically only got 1 foot down after securing the ball before going to the ground. Clearly lost the ball when it hit the ground.

 

He had possession the entire time he went to the ground. He took the ball with two hands, moved it into one hand, and reached forward to the endzone.

 

I count three steps and a reach with possession before the ground dislodged the ball. That is plenty of 'football movement'.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n051cY3xbGo

 

Pay special attention to the laces of the football as he goes down. They aren't moving erratically. He has control of the football immediately, and moves toward the endzone.

 

He had control, the ground dislodged the ball, and then he maintained control.

 

At worst, that's ball down inside the one.

 

Yes, he lost possession, per the rules, when he hit the ground, so they may rule it isnt a catch.

 

The catch was completed when he lunged toward the endzone. He caught the ball and made a clear football move.

 

Hell, he had enough presence and control to shift the ball to his left hand in order to make a clear reach.

Edited January 13, 2015 by KenJennings

[lerxt1990]

of course I am biased... just not nearly as biased as you are being. To have Det say the game was fixed FOR Dal last week, and now it was fixed against Dal this week? Pure insanity.

 

If I have any bias in the Detroit game, it was for Detroit. I'm actually a big fan of Stafford and Calvin; though I very much dislike their dirty play of late.

 

I've disliked the Cowboys my whole life. I still hate them for Drew Pearson's uncalled Pass Int. I've always thought Tony Romo was overrated, and I think Dez Bryant's a jackass. I have absolutely no love for them.

 

Admittedly, I do hate the Packers. I've hated them since they showed Favre the door, and I will always hate them for that.

 

But that does not change the fact that Brandon Pettigrew pulled on Anthony Hitchens' shoulder/helmet and committed offensive pass int.

 

That does not change the fact that Randall Cobb was allowed to catch a ball off the ground (even after a clear review) which led to a Packer's score.

 

And that does not change the fact that Dez Bryant came down with the ball, made a football move toward the endzone, and had the play mysteriously called otherwise.

 

The NFL did everything they could to play to the Packers' advantage. It was the profitable thing to do, even if they came up short of the spread in the end.

Watch the super slo video, can find it on YouTube if you need to see it again. A football move cannot happen until he has possession. The ball was hit in his hands, he technically only got 1 foot down after securing the ball before going to the ground. Clearly lost the ball when it hit the ground.

 

He had possession the entire time he went to the ground. He took the ball with two hands, moved it into one hand, and reached forward to the endzone.

 

I count three steps and a reach with possession before the ground dislodged the ball. That is plenty of 'football movement'.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n051cY3xbGo

 

Pay special attention to the laces of the football as he goes down. They aren't moving erratically. He has control of the football immediately, and moves toward the endzone.

 

He had control, the ground dislodged the ball, and then he maintained control.

 

At worst, that's ball down inside the one.

 

Yes, he lost possession, per the rules, when he hit the ground, so they may rule it isnt a catch.

 

The catch was completed when he lunged toward the endzone. He caught the ball and made a clear football move.

 

Hell, he had enough presence and control to shift the ball to his left hand in order to make a clear reach.

 

Looked like all one motion to me, and he loses possession per the dumb rule, I dont see it the way you do. Apparently the refs, upon seeing it close, agree with me.

[KenJennings]

I don't actually want you to answer this, so much as I want you to just consider it... but seriously: looking at that video... do you REALLY not see him move the ball to his left hand and make a controlled reaching motion??

 

Because I honestly, sincerely, completely without a shred of rhetoric or bullshit: do not know how you can't see it that way.

[lerxt1990]

I don't actually want you to answer this, so much as I want you to just consider it... but seriously: looking at that video... do you REALLY not see him move the ball to his left hand and make a controlled reaching motion??

 

Because I honestly, sincerely, completely without a shred of rhetoric or bullshit: do not know how you can't see it that way.

Yes and lose control of the ball. The rule allows them to make that call. As I've said, I think its BS.

[Lost In Xanadu]

I don't actually want you to answer this, so much as I want you to just consider it... but seriously: looking at that video... do you REALLY not see him move the ball to his left hand and make a controlled reaching motion??

 

Because I honestly, sincerely, completely without a shred of rhetoric or bullshit: do not know how you can't see it that way.

Do you honestly not see Shields hit the ball, which starts it moving in Bryant's hands, causing him to have to re-secure the ball?

[Syrinx]

Let's face it, us Cowboys fans are going to see it one way and Cowboys haters will see it another way. Like most questionable calls. I think we can all agree the rule is total BS. That was a spectacular catch whether they want to recognize it or not.

[Syrinx]

And by the way, I don't think we lost the game on that call. I believe GB would have marched down the field for the winning score. That would have been a much more palatable loss.

[KenJennings]

I don't actually want you to answer this, so much as I want you to just consider it... but seriously: looking at that video... do you REALLY not see him move the ball to his left hand and make a controlled reaching motion??

 

Because I honestly, sincerely, completely without a shred of rhetoric or bullshit: do not know how you can't see it that way.

Do you honestly not see Shields hit the ball, which starts it moving in Bryant's hands, causing him to have to re-secure the ball?

 

If he has to 're'-secure it, that means he already had it secure, and the catch was complete.

Edited January 13, 2015 by KenJennings

[Lost In Xanadu]

I don't actually want you to answer this, so much as I want you to just consider it... but seriously: looking at that video... do you REALLY not see him move the ball to his left hand and make a controlled reaching motion??

 

Because I honestly, sincerely, completely without a shred of rhetoric or bullshit: do not know how you can't see it that way.

Do you honestly not see Shields hit the ball, which starts it moving in Bryant's hands, causing him to have to re-secure the ball?

 

If he has to 're'-secure it, that means he already had it secure, and the catch was complete.

Incorrect. Anyone can secure the ball and get one foot down. DOES NOT make the catch complete. NFL requires 2 feet down with the ball secured.

 

So, he caught the ball, Shields knocked it free (obvious because the ball was rotating) and by the time he locks it in, the first foot was off the ground. Hell, even Cris Carter said the same effing thing, and I think he knows what he's talking about.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Lost In Xanadu