Staff Interviews - Tiberius

[Tiberius]

As for the bad call, was that because the ball the receiver caught touched the ground just before the end zone? If so, then I'd accept the call being reversed. It's a tough one really isn't it: on the one hand you've got what what's technically correct, in light of video evidence etc, but on the other hand they did make a call and I take it what you mean is that this decision wasn't reversed until long after the game? In which case I'd understand the team being pissed off on a technicality. But nonetheless I think the only fair way is to go with the video evidence, even if it does mean reversing a call long after the game. How many times have England played and there been clear evidence after the fact that it was a bad call but nothing anyone could do about it? So I'm definitely in favour of calls being challengeable after the fact.

So, back when the play happened, in order to make a legal "catch" you had to secure the ball and make a "football move", but the rules didn't define what that was. If the football move was getting tackled and/or going to the ground, you had to keep control of the ball while doing so.

What the refs argued was that Dez was going to the ground and he didn't control the ball (it was bobbling and it touched the ground and came free for a moment, though he secured it again).

What fans argued after was that he'd already caught and secured the ball, and was trying to get to the endzone to score a touchdown, which would make him an established runner. Now, an established runner can fumble (lose control of the ball) and recover it again, and nothing else happens.

So the question that got asked for days and days was: had Dez Bryant caught the ball and established himself as a runner, then fumbled and recovered the ball, or did he ever have control of the ball enough for it to be considered a catch in the first place.

The original ruling on the field was a catch, but then the other team challenged the ruling, and it was reviewed and reversed on the field, which basically cost the Cowboys the game.

[emjay]

I loved the bisexual episode (what a surprise )... "that was the bad thing" And strangely came out of that with a real crush on Johnson, just the same as Mark (sort of) did

Lol yeah. Used to have the first 7 series on DVD, watched them all repeatedly. Know them so well.

You seen series 3 yet? Lol the one where they do magic mushrooms is fucking hilarious.

It's all on Netflix  Yeah I'm up to series 5 so I have seen the magic mushrooms one, was that the one where they locked him in his room, and ended with him shitting on the bog?

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol yes.

[emjay]

Is the caracas part based on a place? I'm sure there's a place in South America called caracas.

LOL... yes, there is such a place.
No, it's not based on that place's name.
It's based on a portuguese word: caraças (the ç reads like ss, but I chose not to include non-ASCII characters because... the internet was young and full of terrors, back when I made it)

hehe so what does it mean then?

[Edwardo Piet]

[emjay]

er... okay. Did you read what I wrote? Really read it?

Hehe, yes. Hockety-punktuss is just joking around, don't mind him.

ETA: Hockety-punktuss:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC4rEWpMumw

I was planning on making that joke in the mafia game when he first brought it up; 'first an o, then a's all the way' but I didn't see that game to the end. So this was a golden opportunity to use it but it didn't quite get the reaction I was hoping for

[emjay]

As for the bad call, was that because the ball the receiver caught touched the ground just before the end zone? If so, then I'd accept the call being reversed. It's a tough one really isn't it: on the one hand you've got what what's technically correct, in light of video evidence etc, but on the other hand they did make a call and I take it what you mean is that this decision wasn't reversed until long after the game? In which case I'd understand the team being pissed off on a technicality. But nonetheless I think the only fair way is to go with the video evidence, even if it does mean reversing a call long after the game. How many times have England played and there been clear evidence after the fact that it was a bad call but nothing anyone could do about it? So I'm definitely in favour of calls being challengeable after the fact.

So, back when the play happened, in order to make a legal "catch" you had to secure the ball and make a "football move", but the rules didn't define what that was. If the football move was getting tackled and/or going to the ground, you had to keep control of the ball while doing so.

What the refs argued was that Dez was going to the ground and he didn't control the ball (it was bobbling and it touched the ground and came free for a moment, though he secured it again).

What fans argued after was that he'd already caught and secured the ball, and was trying to get to the endzone to score a touchdown, which would make him an established runner. Now, an established runner can fumble (lose control of the ball) and recover it again, and nothing else happens.

So the question that got asked for days and days was: had Dez Bryant caught the ball and established himself as a runner, then fumbled and recovered the ball, or did he ever have control of the ball enough for it to be considered a catch in the first place.

The original ruling on the field was a catch, but then the other team challenged the ruling, and it was reviewed and reversed on the field, which basically cost the Cowboys the game.

Right... so a bit more involved than I thought. How would you call it? He did look like he was kind of tip toeing a bit... sort of stumbling, so not 'sure of feet' which could count as not being in control?

[Tiberius]

In my opinion it probably wasn't a catch. I think you highlighted the key thing; he was coming down from a jump, so to establish yourself as a runner you have to get your feet down and start running. He got his feet down, but was going down to the ground at the same time. It's the same as a leaping catch, and when you're doing that, you have to control the ball as you go down. The ball clearly came out slightly when he hit the ground, so no catch.

[Jackalope]

In my opinion it probably wasn't a catch. I think you highlighted the key thing; he was coming down from a jump, so to establish yourself as a runner you have to get your feet down and start running. He got his feet down, but was going down to the ground at the same time. It's the same as a leaping catch, and when you're doing that, you have to control the ball as you go down. The ball clearly came out slightly when he hit the ground, so no catch.

Yeah, as described, that's a no-catch. Let the butthurt flow in Dallas.

BTW, as far as calls being reversible / reviewable after the fact - regardless of the idea's merit, it won't happen any time soon in the NFL. Once the next snap occurs, anything that happened prior is immutable. Otherwise you'll end up with the possibility of every single questionable call being reviewed after the fact. I seriously doubt you could find a significant amount of support in the organization for such a thing.

[pocaracas]

LOL... yes, there is such a place.
No, it's not based on that place's name.
It's based on a portuguese word: caraças (the ç reads like ss, but I chose not to include non-ASCII characters because... the internet was young and full of terrors, back when I made it)

hehe so what does it mean then?

Wouldn't you want to know?
The word is the plural of caraça, which usually means "mask".
But, however, in this particular expression, "vai para o caraças", shortened to "p'ó caraças" in verbal discourse, it means... some place nasty. Never gets a proper definition, just a vague enough one for the expression to be slang, but one of the milder forms of slang.
You can say it in front of kids, but not write it down in any form of formal document.
In english, you'd use it in the same sort of situations as you use a "go to hell", or a "go F*** yourself" or something similar...