Terry Glenn didn't even catch the ball!

[Funk-d-fied]

http://s89.photobucket.com/albums/k215/eduncan22/?action=view&current=NoCatch2.flv


Ball hit the ground, should of not been even ruled a catch....

[Phil C]

That's what those part time NFL referees will do for you.

[Phil C]

O'PIOUS SPECTACLE! :(

[spiveyrat]

...and they reviewed that play too! :rolleyes: :doh:

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
...and they reviewed that play too! :rolleyes: :doh:

too busy trying to figure out if it was a safety or a touchdown to even notice that it wasn't a completion. I mean did he make a football move?? :rolleyes: What a crock!

I can't believe we are still talking about this 4 days later. *sigh* :(

[BTEXDAD]

Originally posted by Funk-d-fied
http://s89.photobucket.com/albums/k215/eduncan22/?action=view&current=NoCatch2.flv


Ball hit the ground, should of not been even ruled a catch....

I kind of thought same thing that day.
The announcers said replay booth was reviewing WHOLE play, but if I understand it correctly, coach's challenge can't just review everything. Has to be a specific thing (spot of ball, stepping out of bounds, catch or not), but not the entire play.
Parcells apparently thought best thing to challenge was whether ball was safety or TD. Had best chance to win that challenge.
I'm not positive about replay rules tho.

WE WAS ROBBED!!!!

[kaorder1999]

was it a coaches challenge for a booth review?

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
was it a coaches challenge for a booth review?

pretty sure it was a coaches challenge, but go back and listen to what the ref says "reviewing the play that it is a CATCH and a fumble for a TD" :rolleyes: ARGH!!! :crazy1:

[kaorder1999]

if that is the case the above poster is right...he cant challenge the entire play. It has to be very specific. If it was ruled a catch and fumble and a TD or safety then Parcells could of challenged whether or not it was a catch and if ruled a dropped pass then the safety or TD would be eliminated by the challenge of it being a catch.

[tree8400]

are you kidding me. That was a catch he took three steps and tried to avoid the defender if that is not a football move then i do not know what is. Come on why are we making excusess if the boys would have won ya'll would not even be talking about it.

[Phil C]

They need to change the rules that when a play is reviewed you can reveiw the entire play. Come on NFL. A mistake is a mistake.

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by tree8400
... if the boys would ave won ya'll would not even be talking about it. Well DUH!!! LMAO

[sinfan75]

i don't know how ya'll figure that's not a catch. i watched it 5 times and its still acatch. and yes i'm a cowboys fan.

[bobcat1]

Originally posted by tree8400
are you kidding me. That was a catch he took three steps and tried to avoid the defender if that is not a football move then i do not know what is. Come on why are we making excusess if the boys would have won ya'll would not even be talking about it. Yea I guess that was a football move, going to one knee trying to control a ball before it hit the ground, one hand coming partially off. Yea that was a catch and the pope ain't catholic too. :rolleyes:

[kaorder1999]

i havent seen it so I dont know.

It doesnt matter how many steps are taken though. If he doesnt secure possession then it isnt a catch...

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
i havent seen it so I dont know.

It doesnt matter how many steps are taken though. If he doesnt secure possession then it isnt a catch...
correct. Also, in the NFL the booth can't call for a review outside of the final 2 minutes and I believe this took place before then. As others have said, the coach has to state "what he wants to challenge" and if the guys upstairs told him to challenge the fumble then he wouldn't even worry about if it was a catch or not.

[Phil C]

Originally posted by sinfan75
i don't know how ya'll figure that's not a catch. i watched it 5 times and its still acatch. and yes i'm a cowboys fan.

Hey 75 time for eye examination. :D

[Phil C]

Well them's the breaks. :(

[sinfan75]

ok he catches the ball tries to take off, slips , ball still in hand.notice left fingers still under the ball when he's goin to the ground. uses the ball to get upright, starts to run ball is knocked loose. catch then fumble.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by sinfan75
ok he catches the ball tries to take off, slips , ball still in hand.notice left fingers still under the ball when he's goin to the ground. uses the ball to get upright, starts to run ball is knocked loose. catch then fumble.


While I am not saying it was not a catch...one finger under ball does not constitute control

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
As others have said, the coach has to state "what he wants to challenge" and if the guys upstairs told him to challenge the fumble then he wouldn't even worry about if it was a catch or not.



Not true the Ref said it was a catch then a fumble. So that means he reviewed the catch to see if he had control.

[Buccaneer]

No way it was a catch! But even if it didn't happen. The Cowboys would have found another way to lose this game!

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Not true the Ref said it was a catch then a fumble. So that means he reviewed the catch to see if he had control.

Well if they were determining if it was a TD or safety then the ref is assuming that those 1st two things are a given for the end result to be a TD or safety. There's no way for us to know what he was/wasn't reviewing. Since the Cows didn't seem overly distraught with the ruling (other than that it potentially cost them their season)...then one would most likely assume that they agreed it was a fumble (which means it was also a catch because you can't fumble a forward pass until you catch it) and wanted a ruling on if it was a TD or safety.

[CenTexSports]

I hate instant replay. But on this one I think everything was done properly. I also think the entire play would have had to be reviewed to get it right. If Parcells said I want to challenge the touchdown, then they would have had to :

1) Confirm a catch
2) Confirm a fumble
3) Confirm that the ball remained in play
4) Confirm at what point possession changed hands if it did (and in this case it never did because the Seahawk player was out of bounds when he held the ball prior to throwing it back into the endzone)

The review I thought was BS was the review of the forward progress of the tight end at the one yard line. I am still not a Cowboy fan until JJ is gone but I think they got hosed on that one. No conclusive evidence to over rule a referee that was within 3 yards of the play.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Adidas410s
Well if they were determining if it was a TD or safety then the ref is assuming that those 1st two things are a given for the end result to be a TD or safety. There's no way for us to know what he was/wasn't reviewing. Since the Cows didn't seem overly distraught with the ruling (other than that it potentially cost them their season)...then one would most likely assume that they agreed it was a fumble (which means it was also a catch because you can't fumble a forward pass until you catch it) and wanted a ruling on if it was a TD or safety.


My point is if he did not review the catch why does he mention it in the reason for his ruiling? He would have just began his reasoning at the point of the ball being thrown back in play

I also thought that if the ref went under the hood to review, then he would review anything he saw and if he could overturn it then he would whether the coach asked for that specific incident in the play or not.

[GWOOD]

Saw the replay, read all the replies, and it looks like a catch to me.

Maybe we need a poll? Catch/no catch?

[GOFOR2]

I really didnt need to see that. Now I am convinced the fix was on, amongst the officials. I mean, how could anyone miss all of those holding calls (Seattle) and have so many phantom calls against the Boys. I will have this bitter taste in my mouth until next season. I hope Seattle beats Chicago and then gets their faces wiped with the Saints or Eagles butts.

[Astrosdawg07]

Originally posted by Funk-d-fied
http://s89.photobucket.com/albums/k215/eduncan22/?action=view&current=NoCatch2.flv


Ball hit the ground, should of not been even ruled a catch....

IDK, I would rule that inconclusive...

[football4life]

i want to see that last hail mary play where terry just stood and watched the ball fall like 5 feet away from him.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by football4life
i want to see that last hail mary play where terry just stood and watched the ball fall like 5 feet away from him.


You know I thought the exact same thing..then said no I was just seeing things.

[GOFOR2]

Originally posted by football4life
i want to see that last hail mary play where terry just stood and watched the ball fall like 5 feet away from him.

Thats what I thought. How bout making an effort.?

[tiger_94]

Maybe it was a backwards pass?