Zeke Suspended for 6 Games.. are the Cowboys Fucked This Year?

That Jones punt fake was pretty good!

And what we all take from this is ZEKE IS BACK!

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/12/17/16788458/jesse-james-touchdown-replay-overturned-steelers-patriots


It was a catch and a TD

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/completing-a-catch/

RULE 8 SECTION 1 ARTICLES 3-4

He caught ball had control when his knee/thigh went down to make his initial contact with the ground. See Item 1. Player Going To The Ground.

He however was NOT down by contact and could advance the ball and break the plane of the end zone.

He lost control after that.

Here is Rule # 11.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2017-nfl-rulebook/#rule11 Originally Posted by grean

Dean Blandino will disagree with you

Look under special section created after the dez catch against Green Bay. Lol

This was the dez rule. He caught it, lunged for end zone (football move).

This lost me my fantasy football matchup this week. Lost by 5 points. Had rotten burger as qb. Took 6-7 points off the board when they called back the TD and then the int on top of it. . Urgg.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/12/17/16788458/jesse-james-touchdown-replay-overturned-steelers-patriots


It was a catch and a TD

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules...eting-a-catch/

RULE 8 SECTION 1 ARTICLES 3-4

He caught ball had control when his knee/thigh went down to make his initial contact with the ground. See Item 1. Player Going To The Ground.

He however was NOT down by contact and could advance the ball and break the plane of the end zone.

He lost control after that.

Here is Rule # 11.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules...lebook/#rule11 Originally Posted by grean

Dean Blandino will disagree with you Originally Posted by Boltfan

Then Dean can't read the fucking rules.


Per the rulebook.

A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional step.


If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his INTITIAL contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

He controlled the ball through his initial contact with the ground. At that point he could have tucked the ball away.
His initial contact was with the knee and thigh.

Instead, he chose another viable "football move" to make when he turned it up field by extending the ball.

It was after he made that "football move" AND AFTER he crossed the plane of the end zone that a secondary point of contact with the ground made him lose control.


Had he lost control prior to crossing the plain with the ball, it would have been a fumble.

It’s the dez rule. Dez took three steps and extended the ball.

This is a rule, like the tuck rule, that will be eventually changed imo.

It’s the dez rule. Dez took three steps and extended the ball.

This is a rule, like the tuck rule, that will be eventually changed imo. Originally Posted by dallasfan

I think by the rules at the time Dez made a catch and now since it says actually take additional steps.

He had control and made a number of steps.

However, the catch yesterday met the requirements of the dez rule, "avoid or ward of contact, tuck or turn up field.

He was tucking it as he caught it. He then purposefully moved his arms forward to extend the ball up field. By the fucking rules, he caught the goddamn ball and crossed into the end zone.

They should put that players must remain control until all involuntary movement caused by inertia has stopped if they want to call that not a catch.

You have to :

catch it.

Stop moving completely while inbounds and remaining in control through intial and all subsequent contacts with the ground until the play is called dead.

Then Dean can't read the fucking rules.


Per the rulebook.

A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional step.


If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his INTITIAL contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

He controlled the ball through his initial contact with the ground. At that point he could have tucked the ball away.
His initial contact was with the knee and thigh.

Instead, he chose another viable "football move" to make when he turned it up field by extending the ball.

It was after he made that "football move" AND AFTER he crossed the plane of the end zone that a secondary point of contact with the ground made him lose control.


Had he lost control prior to crossing the plain with the ball, it would have been a fumble. Originally Posted by grean

You went from rule to your opinion. He did not control it through his contact with the ground, because they consisently have ruled contact is not ONLY his knee/thigh, it is his hands with the ball.

The announcers knew it as soon as they saw the replay. You act as if this is something new man.

Randy Galloway called. He wants his "cowsheep" moniker back....you've borrowed it way too long, troll. Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

The embalmed Galloway would approve of me using cowsheep as often as it is required by the cowsheep acting like petulant little girls. However, the term sheeppeople was probably not penned by Galloway. I know I have used it for over 25 years, long before I was forced to move to DFW.

......long before I was forced to move to DFW. Originally Posted by pyramider

If "was forced" was via a job transfer, you could have simply quit and gone to work for someone else.

If "was forced" was via marriage (or any other SO-related reason), you could have simply divorced / dropped the bitch and found another one.

No matter....

If you don't like being in Texas (Dallas specifically) then it's simple.....leave. And don't let the door hit you in the ass, fool. This bit you've created on this site has grown old no matter who came up with the nonsensical sheepeople......

You went from rule to your opinion. He did not control it through his contact with the ground, because they consisently have ruled contact is not ONLY his knee/thigh, it is his hands with the ball.

The announcers knew it as soon as they saw the replay. You act as if this is something new man. Originally Posted by Boltfan

Really???

There were two separate movements. He first caught and controlled the ball by tucking it in. He then extended the ball across the plane.

A player becomes a runner when...he is capable of TUCKING the ball in.

He caught it. Tucked it. Then extended it with his arms.

Had he not croseed it into the endzone, it would have been a fumble.


Have you actually read the rule?

Damn bucs! 3 points, if 3 points keeps the Cowboys out of the playoffs....

Falcons will lose, I HOPE, to the saints and the panthers.

Really???

There were two separate movements. He first caught and controlled the ball by tucking it in. He then extended the ball across the plane.

A player becomes a runner when...he is capable of TUCKING the ball in.

He caught it. Tucked it. Then extended it with his arms.

Had he not croseed it into the endzone, it would have been a fumble.


Have you actually read the rule? Originally Posted by grean

Yes I have read the rule. And more importantly, I have seen the enforcement. You keep ignoring how it has been interpreted and enforced. Dont be so ignorant about the matter. Romo and Nance, who have watched much more football than you or I, knew it right away.

No where have I said it isnt a bad rule, as others have also suggested. I am just not acting like a moron and being shocked at the call.

If "was forced" was via a job transfer, you could have simply quit and gone to work for someone else.

If "was forced" was via marriage (or any other SO-related reason), you could have simply divorced / dropped the bitch and found another one.

No matter....

If you don't like being in Texas (Dallas specifically) then it's simple.....leave. And don't let the door hit you in the ass, fool. This bit you've created on this site has grown old no matter who came up with the nonsensical sheepeople...... Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

Butt one does not have to live in Dallas to post in Dallas. You are just feeling inferior due to all the inbreeding among cowsheep. Not to fear, at least you get to park in the handicapped spaces.