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

[blindzebra]

Are we still talking about the casebook scenario that's under the heading, "Act common to the game", or is it some other one?

Since your last appearance I have covered every case play, including one about going to the ground to review a fumble.

 

[blindzebra]

Are we still talking about the casebook scenario that's under the heading, "Act common to the game", or is it some other one?

I even posted every case play from 2014, rules 3-2-7 and 8-1 from 2012 through 2017 and they are still accusing us of cherry picking.

 

[percyhoward]

I asked because if it's about the one called "Act Common to the Game," that question has been answered at least three times. Twice by me.

You should take some time off, LOL.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Not sure about thread of the off season, but it sure qualifies for most one-sided butt whooping in rules schooling in a long, long time.

 

[KJJ]

The only butt whipping going on is amongst Cowboys Nation continuing to beat themselves up over a ruling for the third consecutive offseason that the league confirmed to be correct. The last three VPs of officiating confirmed the ruling to be correct. Everyone who gets paid to talk football agrees the ruling was correct under the rule. The catch is still being officiated the same way it was in 2010. Fans here are making up their own rules. We’ve reached the point where some are beating the case play to death. Where else is anyone talking about the case play?

 

[kskboys]

76 pages of "Nuh uh"......"Uh huh".

 

[Aviano90]

76 pages of "Nuh uh"......"Uh huh".

The funny part is the people engaged in the debate appear to be intelligent people. I am more interested in seeing how much longer they can bang their heads against the wall before realizing the inevitable...neither side is going to agree with the other.

 

[KJJ]

76 pages of "Nuh uh"......"Uh huh".

This whine fest has had more pages and chapters over the past three years than War and Peace. Not even Debbie Does Dallas had as many sequels to it as this.

 

[kskboys]

The funny part is the people engaged in the argument appear to be intelligent people. I am more interested in seeing how much longer they can bang their heads against the wall before realizing the inevitable...neither side is going to agree with the other.

Yeah, and they're now reduced to simply repeating themselves. I mean, this is worse than any QB thread, and those are bad!!!

 

[blindzebra]

This whine fest has had more pages and chapters over the past three years than War and Peace. Not even Debbie Does Dallas had as many sequels to it as this.

The only whining going on in the thread has been by you. Boring same old topic, stupid fans, stop picking on me...sound familiar?

 

[BlindFaith]

I give Percy and blindzebra credit. They have gone into case plays that very few have really even looked at.

I don't clearly know the impact of case plays as the relate to enforcing the actual rules. If they are so important, why not write them as specific rules in a way that's clear and precise?

My only thought is that they tried to keep in some way of qualifying a catch that looks like a catch, but didn't want to clearly state what that means.

The case does elude to some element being fulfilled while going to the ground. They confuse it up by adding in language like regaining balance and bracing and while being contacted.

If you go strictly by the written rule there is no question that it wasn't a catch. If you start applying the case plays it does leave questions. Questions that have since been corrected somewhat with the updated rules themselves.

The rules need a major overhaul in how they are written. The judgement calls that are still in play need to be more consistantly enforced. And if they do want to allow some action or time to be allowed while going to the ground they will need to be crystal clear in what they allow.

Hats off to all those involved in this discussion. My final answer is that the NFL tried to have it both ways. The Dez call backed them into a corner. Blandino started talking about the case plays and then the dialog sharply turned to only the rules as written. I do question why Pereira still stands by the call if the case play had merit. Unless it has far less merit than the actual written rule.

I still stand by the call as it was made. But I look more at the intent part. And how that relates to the written rule. Based on that intent, a falling player can not be a runner until after contacting the ground. It only makes logical sense. So how they could have case plays that make exceptions to that I'll never know.

 

[MarcusRock]

What was your question?

Here's the post chain. My question is in bold.

The football moved was removed from the rule book as the standard for becoming a runner and replaced by "upright long enough" in 2015.

You've found a few hypothetical plays that are examples of an official not being able to look at a football move.

I'm supposed to be foolish enough to think there's some kind of connection?

No. Instead of "performing an act common to the game," part c of the 3-part process was re-worded as "clearly becoming a runner." Are there observable acts an official can see that someone has clearly become a runner?

Then Note 1 in the 2014 rule ("time enough" to perform an act common to the game) was moved into Item 1 of the rule to note that going to the ground kicks in if he is not upright "long enough" to demonstrate he is clearly a runner. How do you demonstrate that? By EITHER those observable acts or in the examples I cite where he might be restricted from performing one of those observable acts by a defender and he is deemed a runner by time alone.

So tell me where football move was "removed" from the rule book as the standard for becoming a runner. I just showed you how it's still there.

 

[blindzebra]

Yeah, and they're now reduced to simply repeating themselves. I mean, this is worse than any QB thread, and those are bad!!!

That is only because of the tag-team approach the overturn supporters run, with each one demanding the case play or rule over and over. They have been repeating themselves since page one, while we have added post after post of rule support, only to have them dodge and hide, and misrepresent the truth.

 

[MarcusRock]

So let's see the rule that says lunging is a special entity.

The ruling in A.R. 8.12. I've explained it several times including in the post you quoted.

 

[MarcusRock]

I give Percy and blindzebra credit. They have gone into case plays that very few have really even looked at.

I don't clearly know the impact of case plays as the relate to enforcing the actual rules. If they are so important, why not write them as specific rules in a way that's clear and precise?

My only thought is that they tried to keep in some way of qualifying a catch that looks like a catch, but didn't want to clearly state what that means.

The case does elude to some element being fulfilled while going to the ground. They confuse it up by adding in language like regaining balance and bracing and while being contacted.

If you go strictly by the written rule there is no question that it wasn't a catch. If you start applying the case plays it does leave questions. Questions that have since been corrected somewhat with the updated rules themselves.

The rules need a major overhaul in how they are written. The judgement calls that are still in play need to be more consistantly enforced. And if they do want to allow some action or time to be allowed while going to the ground they will need to be crystal clear in what they allow.

Hats off to all those involved in this discussion. My final answer is that the NFL tried to have it both ways. The Dez call backed them into a corner. Blandino started talking about the case plays and then the dialog sharply turned to only the rules as written. I do question why Pereira still stands by the call if the case play had merit. Unless it has far less merit than the actual written rule.

I still stand by the call as it was made. But I look more at the intent part. And how that relates to the written rule. Based on that intent, a falling player can not be a runner until after contacting the ground. It only makes logical sense. So how they could have case plays that make exceptions to that I'll never know.

The only way the case play provides a bailout is via a properly executed lunge. It says that it fulfills the time element, not the football move element. This is what Dez didn't do. It's clear it's what he intended, but did not execute which was his undoing. His only other out was to not let the ball hit the ground because that would have been a catch no matter what rule was applied and likewise would have fulfilled the time element in the absence of a football move.

 

[BlindFaith]

The only way the case play provides a bailout is via a properly executed lunge. It says that it fulfills the time element, not the football move element. This is what Dez didn't do. It's clear it's what he intended, but did not execute which was his undoing. His only other out was to not let the ball hit the ground because that would have been a catch no matter what rule was applied and likewise would have fulfilled the time element in the absence of a football move.

Like I said. It is poorly written and ambiguous at best. Which is exactly why they didn't write it as an actual rule but rather stuck it on page 241 of a 250+ rule/case book.

And I'm certainly not going to start debating both sides now. lol

I've said my piece. Extended the olive branch and am done with this.

 

[blindzebra]

I give Percy and blindzebra credit. They have gone into case plays that very few have really even looked at.

I don't clearly know the impact of case plays as the relate to enforcing the actual rules. If they are so important, why not write them as specific rules in a way that's clear and precise?

My only thought is that they tried to keep in some way of qualifying a catch that looks like a catch, but didn't want to clearly state what that means.

The case does elude to some element being fulfilled while going to the ground. They confuse it up by adding in language like regaining balance and bracing and while being contacted.

If you go strictly by the written rule there is no question that it wasn't a catch. If you start applying the case plays it does leave questions. Questions that have since been corrected somewhat with the updated rules themselves.

The rules need a major overhaul in how they are written. The judgement calls that are still in play need to be more consistantly enforced. And if they do want to allow some action or time to be allowed while going to the ground they will need to be crystal clear in what they allow.

Hats off to all those involved in this discussion. My final answer is that the NFL tried to have it both ways. The Dez call backed them into a corner. Blandino started talking about the case plays and then the dialog sharply turned to only the rules as written. I do question why Pereira still stands by the call if the case play had merit. Unless it has far less merit than the actual written rule.

I still stand by the call as it was made. But I look more at the intent part. And how that relates to the written rule. Based on that intent, a falling player can not be a runner until after contacting the ground. It only makes logical sense. So how they could have case plays that make exceptions to that I'll never know.

Blindfaith, I will say that for the most part you have been the most open-minded of the overturn supporters, and asked intelligent questions and looked for things other than because they said it was correct to defend your stance.

A little lesson about how officiating works. Officials tend to have three books to go by: 1. The rule book, which is obviously the rules. 2. the official's manual, which deals with mechanics, responsibilities, and signals. 3. The case book which is a supplement for the rule book.
The case book does tie into individual rules. The catch rules are rule eight in the rule book, each rule has sections and articles and then items and/or notes. Our discussion is rule 8, section 1, article 3 or 8.3.1 and sometimes the rules will refer you to another section, in more recent rule books 8.3.1 refers you to 3.2.7 which deals with gaining control by performing certain acts.

If you noticed the case play is AR 8.## it is giving you the section of the rule book that the rule is under. The NFL doesn't go as far as HS and collage basketball which gives the entire rule numbers, so if our rule was for basketball it would be AR: 8.1.3.##. As I have said a few times in an ideal world everything would be explicitly spelled out and every possible scenario would have its own case play, but to do that the rule book would be huge and the case book would be unbelievably large. It would not be hyperbole to say the rule book would likely be well over 1,000 pages and the case book in the hundreds of thousands of pages. So the case book will rarely have a 100% match to a specific play, so officials need to understand the intent and spirit of the rule, know what rules need to come together for a given play, and have some common sense to apply a less than 100% case play to another situation within that rules set.

 

[blindzebra]

The only way the case play provides a bailout is via a properly executed lunge. It says that it fulfills the time element, not the football move element. This is what Dez didn't do. It's clear it's what he intended, but did not execute which was his undoing. His only other out was to not let the ball hit the ground because that would have been a catch no matter what rule was applied and likewise would have fulfilled the time element in the absence of a football move.

Still waiting for that rule support for your magical lunge.
Let's think about what you said, Dez intended to lunge, and your magical secret lunge rule nobody has seen, says a lunge is not part of a catch, means that whatever Dez was doing was also not part of the catching of a football, right?

 

[blindzebra]

The ruling in A.R. 8.12. I've explained it several times including in the post you quoted.

That is a case play, show me the RULE that says it is a special move that stops going to the ground. Where is the rule support to explain the case play.
When I used that case play I used rule support. 8.1.3.a.b.c, 3.2.7 to explain it. Show me your rules savvy.

 

[blindzebra]

Like I said. It is poorly written and ambiguous at best. Which is exactly why they didn't write it as an actual rule but rather stuck it on page 241 of a 250+ rule/case book.

And I'm certainly not going to start debating both sides now. lol

I've said my piece. Extended the olive branch and am done with this.

BF, it is where it is at because the NFL combined the rule and case book in 2014. The rule set ( 8.1.3) corresponds with the case play at AR: 8.12, it wasn't hidden, that is exactly how a case book works. They are usually in two separate books. Although most are digital now a days.