I think they have the ability to adjust it so that it never gives an advantage to the team that is trailing. If the defense commits a penalty against a team trying to run out the clock, they run the clock. If the offense commits a penalty when they're trying to make a comeback, they run the clock (10 second run-off). I haven't seen your circumstance above... but if the offense was indeed trying to run out the clock, and committed a penalty, they'd stop the clock.
He didn't take any real steps, he was falling down. I actually don't hate the cowboys like many here do, but that was the right call.
Understood under the current rule. But, I don't think 3 steps should be considered falling down. That's beyond falling down. Should change the rule to make falling down be 2 steps or less imo. I thought that is what it was originally. Otherwise, you are saying a player could be off balance falling down but get 5 or 10 steps in...in the process of falling down. It doesn't make much sense. He was trying to stretch the play and that is why he was falling down.
If he really had the ability to tipi-toe 5 steps, with possession of the ball, it's a catch... he caught the ball after leaping 8 feet into the air, then as he's coming down he's already losing his balance. As Major said, the steps were part of the "fall"... and when he finally hits the ground, the ball pops loose. I'd be pissed if this affected my team as well... but you can't say its a mis-application of the rules. And as far as changing the "rule" goes, keep in mind that they put it in for situations exactly like this... so that there would be no grey area. I wish they could get more hard-fast rules for pass interference to take the guess-work out of it... i.e. - no face guarding or you get a flag.
Falling down is falling down... and Dez was falling down in the process of attempting to make the catch. If he wasn't falling down, he would have simply walked into the end zone.
That makes sense. Whenever I saw it (not sure if it was college or NFL), it was with 3 or 4 minutes to go, so I wonder if the rules are different outside of 2 minutes? I just remember thinking it was ridiculous and that the offense should just keep committing false starts and run out the clock that way.
It is so weird IF he goes out of bounds before hitting the ground . .. it is probably called a catch but Because he tries to lunge for the TD . .it isn't a catch Rocket River
Dez was in control with two steps coming down. He was only falling down when he lunged for the goal line. I now think it was a bad call. Initially, I thought it was not a catch. But, after watching the replay about twenty times, I saw him take two steps under control (not falling down) and then lunge for the goal line with a third step. They construed that as "falling down" and "in the process" of the catch. We wuz robbed. lol
The fact that he didn't go out of bounds has nothing to do with it. It wasn't a catch because they didn't see his streth for the endzone as enough of a "football move". It's a tough loss, but honestly, this is the first time in a long time that I'll actually have high hopes going into next season. Resign Murray and Dez. Get their linebackers healthy and bring in a pass rusher and this Cowboys team is in really good shape.
No... if he falls out of bounds, and the ball comes loose in the same manner, its not a catch. He fell in-bounds, ball came loose, not a catch.
It was a tough call. I can see it both ways...as in my post before. I'm like flipping back and forth because it is confusing. But, it is what it is. It's done.
Why would he lunge for the goal-line when there wasn't another Packer near him (except for his defender who also fell/made contact with him, but wasn't getting up to "tackle" him). He was FALLING... unfortunate that once his arm hit the ground with the ball, it popped out... but that's not a catch.
Yea...if there was a little more time in between the catch and lunge...then it would have been a catch. But, after flipping back and forth, I agree. I thought I saw something else on a certain angle of the replay. Dez is a great receiver but he has a knack for messing up his own great catches. The other one I can think of is when he caught a seemingly miraculous TD game winning catch at home versus the Giants. It looked like a catch but, then on the replay, he put his hand down to break his fall. He just so put his hand down out of bounds. This reminds me of that play. Dez was more focused on getting the TD end result then pulling it in...and it cost him a great catch yet again. But, as the competitor that he is, it's hard to blame him for it. You could say those were mental lapses but those plays are so instinctual...there is little time for the mental part to be a factor. They are split second plays.
So it turns out that question about the repeated false starts has been asked before. http://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the...-after-a-false-start-or-delay-of-game-penalty Q: Why doesn't the clock stop in the NFL after a false start or delay of game penalty? Theoretically, if you had a lead to start the 3rd quarter, couldn't you run one play, take about 20 consecutive delay of game penalties and run the clock down for the entire quarter, and just take the ball on the one-inch-line to start the 4th quarter? Are there any rules against this? A: Fantastic question. The NFL actually addressed this point with a 2009 rule change - but previously, what you suggest would have been theoretically possible. Today, a team can only take two consecutive delay of game penalties on a down. Third time triggers an unsportsmanlike consult penalty, which stops the game clock. Just for kicks, here are some other recently changed rules (and why): http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2009/08/blogging-nfl-rule-book-2009-changes.html So it turns out, at one point, it might have been possible. Here is the official rule now: If the game clock is stopped after a down in which there was a foul by either team, following enforcement or declination of a penalty, the game clock will start as if the foul had not occurred, except that the clock will start on the snap if: (1) the foul occurs after the two-minute warning of the first half; (2) the foul occurs inside the last five minutes of the second half; or (3) a specific rule prescribes otherwise. So maybe it was college that I saw it, since it was in the last 3 or 4 minutes of the game. But it does seem to suggest that if you're up by 21 with 20 minutes to go, you could run the clock all the way to 5 minutes left by committing endless false starts before you have to run another play.
It should be unanimous now: Those of us who want the Pats to lose should hope the Colts hang on. Broncos would have no chance at NE next week. Colts might make a game of it.
Luck is amazing. Colts as a franchise is damn lucky! In regards to the cowboys/packers, I agree it wasn't a catch under the rules and obviously so. Great game by Rodgers on one good leg. Personally I'm rooting for a packers colts Superbowl! Wouldn't mind either team winning.
