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

[texbumthelife]

Just wanted to make my presence felt in this albatross 125 page thread.

How is this not in drama zone yet?

Carry on.

 

[percyhoward]

Not really, there are plenty of folks who know what the rule is and has been.

What is the difference between a "runner" and a "receiver" as those terms relate to possession, and how have their definitions changed since 2014?

 

[BlindFaith]

You may not even be interested in knowing this, but that's why Blandino never used terms like "upright," "balance," or "on his feet" in any of his explanations of these types of plays prior to 2015, and why he always emphasized the catch process instead. Because at that time, control + 2 feet + the football move is what established a player as a runner. It's what completed the catch process.

"Upright long enough" didn't come along until later.

So at what point would you say Dez caught the ball under your new rules?

 

[BlindFaith]

What is the difference between a "runner" and a "receiver" as those terms relate to possession, and how have their definitions changed since 2014?

Yawn.

 

[rkell87]

Except the rule book doesn't say that, and the officials who are trained to enforce the rulebook didn't say that either.

 

[MarcusRock]

This thread is still alive..wow.. The plays were not that similar really, but I had to see why this thread was still going and be part of it.

Just wanted to make my presence felt in this albatross 125 page thread.

How is this not in drama zone yet?

Carry on.

No need to scroll through 126 pages. Let me summarize what catch theorists have said over the 3 years concerning this play up until now and the answers they've received before shifting to the next version.

1. “The ball never hit the ground”
Check the reverse angle

2. “No, no, Dez was running upright and got tripped”
Contact from a defender is irrelevant in going to the ground

3. “No, no, Dez reached or lunged or something”
He intended to lunge but did not execute

4. “No, no, Dez performed a bajillion football moves before that though”
Going to the ground trumps the 3-part process (unless they do something other than fall per A.R. 8.12 & 15.95)

5. “No, no, the replay wasn’t conclusive. The call should have stood.”
Replay confirmed that going to the ground should have been applied instead

6. “No, no, they took away the A.R. rule enabling an act on the way to the ground after the fact”
The rule was there in 2014 and 2015.

7. “No, no, they changed the catch rule in 2015 so refs can’t look for football moves to call someone a runner”
A ref can judge that one has performed acts or had time to “clearly become a runner.” Same as before. Same rule, different wording.

8. "Oh yeah? Well, CONSPIRACY!"
Of course! How did we miss that?

 

[percyhoward]

When Blandino said "yeah, absolutely". the question wasn't if Dez reaching could have been considered a football move and therefore could have established him as a runner, the question was whether he even looked at that, and his response was that he did look at it, and rejected it, again saying that it was all done in the process of going to the ground. He flat out said the fact Dez was in the process of going to the ground negated the reach as a possible football move, and therefore Dez was required to maintain possession all the way through the play.

He never said that until months later when the season was over and they'd already changed the rule, so that it would fit the overturn. When the overturn happened and in the days following, the NFL and Blandino were in full spin mode trying to prove Dez didn't make a football move. Why would they go to all that trouble if the football move didn't matter? Common sense says it must have mattered.

"In his Jan. 12 “Official Review” segment on the NFL Network’s “NFL Total Access,” Dean Blandino, the NFL’s vice president of officiating, addressed the controversial call that overturned Bryant’s apparent goal-line reception. The issue: whether Bryant performed an “act common to the game.” Under the rules, that could have made the play qualify as a catch, and the key question was whether Bryant was doing so by clearly reaching for the goal line."

That was published at NFL Ops six days after the overturn. The league's own website.

You: "The question wasn't if Dez reaching could have been considered a football move and therefore could have established him as a runner."
NFL: "The issue: whether Bryant performed an “act common to the game.” Under the rules, that could have made the play qualify as a catch."

Prior to 2015, if the player performed a football move, even while going to the ground, that completed the catch process and made him a runner. That's why I keep saying, "Look at the 2015 rule change" and you'll understand this a lot better. Listen to Blandino's analyses of similar plays prior to 2015, and how he constantly harps on the catch process and the football move, just as he does in the interview on the day of the overturn, and you'll have a much better grasp of this stuff. Read the casebook scenarios provided by @blindzebra . It's all there, for anybody with an open mind.

 

[DogFace]

What are you bringing to the debate minus others' statements that have been repeated ad nauseam? All you ever post is "What he said."

What are you bringing to the debate period. You’re not even trying to explain in another way what your others are saying.

You simply post demeaning remarks in some feeble attempt to put others down. It’s not offensive. Mostly because the put downs are repetetive. You’ve said others are parroting what others are saying.

What’s one point you’ve made?

I’m disqualifying your idiotic attempts at humor that should be embarrassing to you. I think we can both agree that, thankfully, they are now and that’s progress.

 

[DogFace]

Did he regain his balance? No, he fell to the ground and did not maintain possession.

Ummm...

That seems like something blindfaith already said.

So that means you’re repeating what others have said. You seem very much against that throughout this thread and have repeatedly called others out for. L That seems to be your main contribution which you heard Marcus say and repeated it.

We, of course, are not speaking of the idiotic joke posts and thank you for not doing that anymore.

You later tell a poster that you notice a pattern in his post. (a misguided thought). There is one now though

Can you find it?

 

[DogFace]

Give me one example of this ever happening throughout the entire history of the NFL and we can then talk about the "hypothetical". A player is not going to stumble for 7 yards and magically regain their balance. Did Dez? No.

If Dez would have regained his balance while taking those two stumbling steps, then it would have been a catch. Try shifting your argument to that. Unless you don't think he was ever going to the ground to begin with. I can't keep up with the various misunderstandings being promoted hear.

Actually, percy posted a picture of Dez being more off balance than he was in the Green Bay play and he regained his balance. He did stumble more than 7 yards.

 

[DogFace]

Zzzzzzzz

That is a little better, but I’m going to have to ask you to stop anyway.

 

[G2]

What are you bringing to the debate period. You’re not even trying to explain in another way what your others are saying.

You simply post demeaning remarks in some feeble attempt to put others down. It’s not offensive. Mostly because the put downs are repetetive. You’ve said others are parroting what others are saying.

What’s one point you’ve made?

I’m disqualifying your idiotic attempts at humor that should be embarrassing to you. I think we can both agree that, thankfully, they are now and that’s progress.

Shhhhhhhhh. There are adults talking! In the over 120 pages I've posted numerous points, opinions etc. Phone a friend and go back and have them read them to you instead of asking stupid questions.

 

[DogFace]

Shhhhhhhhh. There are adults talking! In the over 120 pages I've posted numerous points, opinions etc. Phone a friend and go back and have them read them to you instead of asking stupid questions.

Define numerous

 

[G2]

Define numerous

Google it

 

[MarcusRock]

You may not even be interested in knowing this, but that's why Blandino never used terms like "upright," "balance," or "on his feet" in any of his explanations of these types of plays prior to 2015, and why he always emphasized the catch process instead. Because at that time, control + 2 feet + the football move is what established a player as a runner. It's what completed the catch process.

"Upright long enough" didn't come along until later.

You're right, I'm not interested in lies, just the truth about the rules. Cut and paste special:


http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy

"Establishing oneself as a runner now becomes the crucial element of maintaining possession."

"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

 

[TexasBoys2288]

After skying high to catch the ball and coming down to the ground with each step. He had possession, 2 feet but did not make the football move that would have undone the going to the ground rule. There was no lunge. He intended it but did not execute. Therefore, once the ball hit the ground and came loose, there was no catch. There are rules that govern this.

Check your eyeglass prescription, you are blind. Dez clearly executed the lunge on the 3rd step, we were screwed once again by the NFL.

 

[G2]

Check your eyeglass prescription, you are blind. Dez clearly executed the lunge on the 3rd step, we were screwed once again by the NFL.

Incorrect.

 

[OmerV]

So you can't point to me saying that (hint: it's not in what you quoted)? Until you can, you're a liar.

You seem to think me saying the contact was irrelevant to the ruling in the case play and that one foot and contact doesn't equal a catch is somehow the same as me saying the case play didn't mention one foot and contact...which is absurd.
The entire quotes identify it. You said I said something I didn't. You quote me saying somethimg different from what you said. How else do I identify except by pointing to the entirety of the quotes which are absent of what you say I said?

This actually is starting to make me laugh out loud. I directly cited the post where you said it. You're whole schtick is to be vague, give no explanations and make no effort at reason or original thought, but claim you have. I directly posted what you said, and I explained myself, yet you apparently are clueless on how to do that on your side.

 

[BlindFaith]

Actually, percy posted a picture of Dez being more off balance than he was in the Green Bay play and he regained his balance. He did stumble more than 7 yards.

A still photo? Post the full video.

I have yet to see in my entire time of watching football, someone who appears to be going to the ground, stumble for 7 yards and then regain their balance. 99% of the time if you are falling you fall. In the 1% of time that you are falling and yet somehow mange to regain your balance, you do so relatively quickly.

That is exactly why these types of catches are very far and few between.

 

[BlindFaith]

Check your eyeglass prescription, you are blind. Dez clearly executed the lunge on the 3rd step, we were screwed once again by the NFL.

IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!

He was going to the ground and never regained his balance.