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

[blindzebra]

Here's an example of a player making a football move while going to the ground in 2009.

Here's another example from 2014. Go to 1:15.

Now, find one example of a football move not counting because the player was going to the ground. Just one, prior to 2015.

Good luck.

Percy, a wise man would stop trying to debate this with you...what are the odds that they stop?

 

[MarcusRock]

It means a player who lunged was considered "upright long enough" to be a runner in 2015, and a player who lunged was considered to have performed an act common to the game in 2014.

Are you trying to say that any act common to the game means the player is upright long enough? Elaborate.

Go back to when I addressed this case play's wording. It says that the act of a lunge is separate from ("not part of") the process of a catch. Again I will cut and paste:

If the casebook play is an example of a player completing the process of a catch while falling then they could do it in 2014 AND in 2015 since it appeared in both years' rules, right? There's no getting around that. And it means that nothing changed from 2014 to 2015 like you are attempting to shoehorn with the rule language.

 

[blindzebra]

Calvin Johnson in 2010?

Endzone, no football moves because he can't become a runner.

 

[MarcusRock]

I still haven't heard from anyone on the examples I cited:

A WR catches a pass facing a QB, gets hit immediately from behind, they hit the ground, the ball pops out, no catch. Same situation but the defender holds up the runner, tries to strip the ball out, isn't successful, then just completes the tackle and the ball pops when hitting the ground again. In the second case, the official has to judge whether the WR had time enough to make a football move as the defender held him up (2014). In 2015, the official can deem him clearly a runner because he was held and prevented from making a football move. It is STILL a time determination the same as it was in 2014.

 

[blindzebra]

Go back to when I addressed this case play's wording. It says that the act of a lunge is separate from ("not part of") the process of a catch. Again I will cut and paste:

If the casebook play is an example of a player completing the process of a catch while falling then they could do it in 2014 AND in 2015 since it appeared in both years' rules, right? There's no getting around that. And it means that nothing changed from 2014 to 2015 like you are attempting to shoehorn with the rule language.

LOL,
It is not part of the catch process because he is a runner. The the brace ended the 3 step process of control, 2 feet, and football act.

 

[KJJ]

Just getting around to this. That 2nd link is a good one because it addresses the phantom football moves people are trying to shoehorn in and provides a clear cut example of when Dez performed an actual lunge vs. his failed attempt in Green Bay. But of course to catch theorists, Blandino is lying to cover up the CONSPIRACY! that the NFL hates the Cowboys. Same circle of victimhood over and over again.

Right, everyone who thinks we got screwed which is the majority of Cowboys Nation will continue to think we got screwed and will continue to point the finger at Blandino and the league. Those who think there’s a conspiracy against the Cowboys will continue to think that. Nothing that’s posted is going to change anyone’s views on this play. What everyone thought three years ago they think the same today.

I’m making the same arguments I made three years ago on this board and those who had opposing views are making the same exact arguments. The opinion fans had after that ruling they’ll take the same opinions to their graves. We all keep going at it here as if it’s going to change someone’s mind or it’s going to magically reverse that call.

 

[MarcusRock]

You specifically said, overturning a misapplied rule. That is not reviewable.

When they were reviewing whether the pass was complete, there are multiple parts in doing so. The 3-part rule and going to the ground. If one is was ruled incorrectly when the other one actually applied, you go with the correct one.

 

[percyhoward]

See, this is what muddies the water. In my opinion Fitz was going to the ground. I would have ruled that as incomplete. Per the rule.

They went with the ruling on the field there. Interesting, huh?

“The official on the field ruled that the player had the ball long enough to be a runner, and if it’s not clear and obvious that he was not a runner, then the call on the field must stand,” Blandino said.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rms-what-could-be-new-approach-to-catch-rule/

 

[Cowpolk]

Right, everyone who thinks we got screwed which is the majority of Cowboys Nation will continue to think we got screwed and will continue to point the finger at Blandino and the league. Those who think there’s a conspiracy against the Cowboys will continue to think that. Nothing that’s posted is going to change anyone’s views on this play. What everyone thought three years ago they think the same today.

I’m making the same arguments I made three years ago on this board and those who had opposing views are making the same exact arguments. The opinion fans had after that ruling they’ll take the same opinions to their graves. We all keep going at it here as if it’s going to change someone’s mind or it’s going to magically reverse that call.

The call will never be reversed but that will never change the fact that it was a bad call

 

[BlindFaith]

Here's an example of a player making a football move while going to the ground in 2009.

Here's another example from 2014. Go to 1:15.

Now, find one example of a football move not counting because the player was going to the ground. Just one, prior to 2015.

Good luck.

I don't know what the ruling on the field was for the first one, but I would call that a touchdow. And it has nothing to do with a football move. He maintained possession after contacting the ground. Sure, it popped out shortly after. But I would say it was a catch.

 

[KJJ]

See, this is what muddies the water. In my opinion Fitz was going to the ground. I would have ruled that as incomplete. Per the rule.

But all he has to do is tuck the ball away instead of reaching out.

It’s close but his feet never left the ground to make the catch and he made a turn up field. According to the league that established him as a runner. Once a receiver establishes themselves as a runner it’s a catch regardless if they go to the ground immediately afterwords. Going to the ground has to be a one piece act during the process of trying to make a catch.

 

[blindzebra]

The call will never be reversed but that will never change the fact that it was a bad call

It is more fun for some to use it as a way to feel superior to we mere fans, even if all the facts are against their stance.

 

[percyhoward]

Of course emotional Cowboys fans are going to cry CONSPIRACY! the same way Steelers fans would if they re-word the rule this offseason.

Okay, you've got CAPS, and you've got exclamation points.

I notice that what you don't have is an explanation as to why Blandino looked for a football move that you say didn't matter.

 

[KJJ]

I would if everything was the same it was a catch no matter who did it or what team they played for

That’s easy for you to say because it didn’t happen to the Packers it happened to us.

 

[KJJ]

The call will never be reversed but that will never change the fact that it was a bad call

It wasn’t a bad call it’s a bad rule. The call was made according to the rule and the rule sucks.

 

[MarcusRock]

Right, everyone who thinks we got screwed which is the majority of Cowboys Nation will continue to think we got screwed and will continue to point the finger at Blandino and the league. Those who think there’s a conspiracy against the Cowboys will continue to think that. Nothing that’s posted is going to change anyone’s views on this play. What everyone thought three years ago they think the same today.

I’m making the same arguments I made three years ago on this board and those who had opposing views are making the same exact arguments. The opinion fans had after that ruling they’ll take the same opinions to their graves. We all keep going at it here as if it’s going to change someone’s mind or it’s going to magically reverse that call.

What are you going to do. CONSPIRACY! conveniently doesn't require even a shred of proof. It's merely an emotional opinion in hyperdrive.

 

[Cowpolk]

It wasn’t a bad call it’s a bad rule. The call was made according to the rule and the rule sucks.

It was a bad call it was a catch

 

[percyhoward]

That's why the rules are the same for those 2 years.

Oh yeah, identical. Nothing to see here.

2015
Item 1. Player Going to the Ground.
A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. 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 initial contact with the ground.

2014
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.

Still waiting for you to post Blandino's comments about Dez's lunge, by the way.

 

[Cowpolk]

It is more fun for some to use it as a way to feel superior to we mere fans, even if all the facts are against their stance.

False

 

[BlindFaith]

Here's an example of a player making a football move while going to the ground in 2009.

Here's another example from 2014. Go to 1:15.

Now, find one example of a football move not counting because the player was going to the ground. Just one, prior to 2015.

Good luck.

The second one of Thomas, even Blandino doesn't say anything about making a move while going to the ground. I think you have some mental block here. And not saying this in a derogatory way.

Thomas, in Blandinos eyes, was not going to the ground until AFTER he already became a runner.

Now, with that said, we get into the judgment part of this. Deciding if and/or when is a player going to the ground. That play to me was very boarderline. About as close as you will see.

The Ertz play was more clear than that. Clearly becoming a runner.

The Fitz play posted earlier, to me, was less clear and I would have actually ruled that one incomplete. Based on the rules.