I do not see any difference between that play and the Dez play in 2014 *merged*

[DogFace]

I keep seeing these posts trying to justify the catch, and as they include moment by moment bullet points with excuses about football moves and driving to the end zone, I do not see one of these posts which brings up Shield's leg wrapping around Dez's leg and him tilting and falling, which negates all the BS excuses because that meant he had to control the ball to the ground.

The elbow on the turf does not kill the play. The continuation to hold onto the ball and it popping out because it contacted the ground is why this was not a catch.

Back in the day I bartended in this place when the Cowboys lost to the Stealers for the first time in the Super Bowl. At my bar there were fans who replayed that game in a conversation for six months and the Cowboys won every time.

Yet when you look at the record books the Stealers won. Just like this play. It has been rewritten so many times by people who refuse to look and see why it was not a catch. Yet in the record books it was not a catch.

Isn’t that exactly what happens in the case book example?

 

[DogFace]

We’ve reached the point where the idiot patrol is starting to form. It took 40+ pages but you just knew it was coming.

We never doubted your ability to rally the troops.

Quit bragging and lead them!!!!

 

[blindzebra]

Isn’t that exactly what happens in the case book example?

Let's sum up the thread.

But he was going to the ground.
The case book play says it doesn't trump the catch process.
But he was going to the ground, and the case book play just says lunge.
The case book play says the brace and lunge was not part of the catch process i.e. player was a runner, in other words it was an act common to the game completing the process.
But he was going to the ground.
Yes he was as a RUNNER.

 

[DogFace]

Let's sum up the thread.

But he was going to the ground.
The case book play says it doesn't trump the catch process.
But he was going to the ground, and the case book play just says lunge.
The case book play says the brace and lunge was not part of the catch process i.e. player was a runner, in other words it was an act common to the game completing the process.
But he was going to the ground.
Yes he was as a RUNNER.

Yes, but he was going to the ground!

I haven’t seen an argument against the case play you posted because, as you said, it’s nearly identical to the Dez play.

 

[MarcusRock]

When the receiver hits the ground in the end zone, it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of the catch.

The process of the catch already includes a requirement for an act common to the game. Why would a specific act common to the game not be part of the catch process, one part of which is required to be an act common to the game? The answer is that lunging is a separate act on its own according to the caseplay itself. True in 2014. True in 2015.

This is why Blandino, Steratore, and Pereira were probably all asked about whether Dez executed a lunge (and all said he didn't execute one). They know the rules.

 

[TwoDeep3]

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out.
Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The pass is complete. When the receiver hits the ground in the end zone, it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of the catch. Since the ball crossed the goal line, it is a touchdown. If the ball is short of the goal line, it is a catch, and A2 is down by contact.

And yet, it still is not a catch.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Let's sum up the thread.

But he was going to the ground.
The case book play says it doesn't trump the catch process.
But he was going to the ground, and the case book play just says lunge.
The case book play says the brace and lunge was not part of the catch process i.e. player was a runner, in other words it was an act common to the game completing the process.
But he was going to the ground.
Yes he was as a RUNNER.

And is still isn't a catch. All your what if doesn't change the fact it was not a catch.

 

[MarcusRock]

Yes, but he was going to the ground!.

And that is what kills all these phantom football moves people say happened. Because unless Pereira is a bold faced liar, going to the ground trumps the 3-part process. He made direct linkage to the Dez play.

 

[DogFace]

The process of the catch already includes a requirement for an act common to the game. Why would a specific act common to the game not be part of the catch process, one part of which is required to be an act common to the game? The answer is that lunging is a separate act on its own according to the caseplay itself. True in 2014. True in 2015.

This is why Blandino, Steratore, and Pereira were probably all asked about whether Dez executed a lunge (and all said he didn't execute one). They know the rules.

No. It requires time for an act.

 

[DogFace]

And that is what kills all these phantom football moves people say happened. Because unless Pereira is a bold faced liar, going to the ground trumps the 3-part process. He made direct linkage to the Dez play.

Compare what you and Pereiria say to the case book example.

Explain how it is unlike the Dez catch.

The only difference is Dez had more time and actually did at least two acts common to the game to demonstrate that.

I’ve listed them before.

 

[percyhoward]

I have a question regarding your signature.

Do i understand you right that Dez Bryant is an average top 10 WR and should be paid like one and not like a top 3 WR ?

No, that's just saying Dez didn't see any more uncatchable balls than the average outside WR with a ton of targets.

 

[blindzebra]

And yet, it still is not a catch.

The discussion is should it have been, not let's go back in time and change it.

 

[DogFace]

The process of the catch already includes a requirement for an act common to the game. Why would a specific act common to the game not be part of the catch process, one part of which is required to be an act common to the game? The answer is that lunging is a separate act on its own according to the caseplay itself. True in 2014. True in 2015.

This is why Blandino, Steratore, and Pereira were probably all asked about whether Dez executed a lunge (and all said he didn't execute one). They know the rules.

Yes. In the example the lunge is not part of the process because, as it says, the time requirement was already satisfied.

 

[percyhoward]

It says it has to be the contact that causes him to go to the ground...

(from Item 1) "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent)..."

 

[MarcusRock]

N

No. It requires time for an act.

It requires EITHER. See c) and Note 1 in blue below.

In 2015, Note 1 was deleted and language was put in about a player being "upright long enough." Note 1 was about TIME. "Upright long enough" is about TIME. The 3-part process of a catch has always been about control, two feet, and TIME. So the rule didn't change. The wording did because people "couldn't understand."

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. 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 throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

 

[blindzebra]

The process of the catch already includes a requirement for an act common to the game. Why would a specific act common to the game not be part of the catch process, one part of which is required to be an act common to the game? The answer is that lunging is a separate act on its own according to the caseplay itself. True in 2014. True in 2015.

This is why Blandino, Steratore, and Pereira were probably all asked about whether Dez executed a lunge (and all said he didn't execute one). They know the rules.

Because it completed the process under the 2014 rules, by your argument the James play should have been a catch because he lunged, so why wasn't it? No, that is not what they said, they said reaching out with one hand wasn't enough of a football move, which like everything else they said is complete BS.

 

[DogFace]

It requires EITHER. See c) and Note 1 in blue below.

In 2015, Note 1 was deleted and language was put in about a player being "upright long enough." Note 1 was about TIME. "Upright long enough" is about TIME. The 3-part process of a catch has always been about control, two feet, and TIME. So the rule didn't change. The wording did because people "couldn't understand."

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. 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 throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.QUOTE]
So he satisfied the time requirement before the lunge. Making it not part of the process. That’s according to the case book example.
Which are examples to make the application of the rules more clear.

@blindzebra is right and I missed that. That’s the 2015 rules which had no bearing on 2014.

 

[blindzebra]

It requires EITHER. See c) and Note 1 in blue below.

In 2015, Note 1 was deleted and language was put in about a player being "upright long enough." Note 1 was about TIME. "Upright long enough" is about TIME. The 3-part process of a catch has always been about control, two feet, and TIME. So the rule didn't change. The wording did because people "couldn't understand."

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. 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 throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

That isn't the 2015 rule.

 

[goshan]

The play can be argued equally well on both sides. I can see why people say catch, and people say no catch. He was going to the ground, but during that, he had enough ability and balance to make a football move. The ball definitely hit the ground as he fell. But given it was called complete on the field, it should have stayed that way. Too close to reverse.

 

[MarcusRock]

Yes. In the example the lunge is not part of the process because, as it says, the time requirement was already satisfied.

The time element is satisfied because he executed a lunge, which the case says is separate from the process of a catch. The caseplay explains itself.