News: ESPN: NFL owners OK new catch rule by 32-0 vote

[percyhoward]

No, I’m saying Dez DID have a second foot down before he reached, that’s my point. He took three steps before he reached. In the video Mr_C provided, Blandino said had Calvin Johnson got both feet down prior to the reach for the endzone it would have been a completed pass. Dez got both feet down prior to reaching for the end zone but his was ruled incomplete. Blandino provided a second set of eyes on that play.

Blandino had different explanations for all these rulings. What’s been perfectly clear is that when a receiver was going to the ground during the catch process and lost the ball when contacting the ground everyone of those plays were ruled incomplete regardless if the receiver got both feet down.

He had the same explanation for the Bryant play as he did for the Johnson play (falling reach = catch), then changed it the next day (gather and lunge = catch).

The Thomas play you've been talking about is an example of a receiver making a falling reach, then losing the ball and it's ruled a catch. The Cruz play from 2013 (below) is another one (Go to :23). In both cases, the player established himself as a runner by completing the catch process with a reach. So even though he was falling, and even though he lost the ball when he hit the ground, the fact he was considered a runner (not a receiver) meant he didn't have to survive the ground.

 

[KJJ]

First I provided the Calvin Johnson play. I He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.

That was about the Calvin Johnson play.


Please be an honest debater. You owe it to the site and yourself.

Here’s the first Calvin Johnson play from 2010. He has both feet down but it was still ruled incomplete because he was going to the ground during the catch process and didn’t hold onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Dez had both feet down and even took a third step but it was ruled incomplete because he was going to the ground during the process of making the catch and the ball came loose when he contacted the ground. The call was consistently officiated that way. Two feet down didn’t matter if the receiver was ruled going to the ground during the process of making the catch.

 

[KJJ]

He had the same explanation for the Bryant play as he did for the Johnson play (falling reach = catch), then changed it the next day (gather and lunge = catch).

The Thomas play you've been talking about is an example of a receiver making a falling reach, then losing the ball and it's ruled a catch. The Cruz play from 2013 (below) is another one (Go to :23). In both cases, the player established himself as a runner by completing the catch process with a reach. So even though he was falling, and even though he lost the ball when he hit the ground, the fact he was considered a runner (not a receiver) meant he didn't have to survive the ground.

Blandino has explained the play numerous times and his explanations have varied but he remained consistent that if a receiver is going to the ground during the process of making a catch they must maintain possession through the contact of the ground. It’s been consistently officiated that way since at least 2010. He made no mention in that video of Dez getting both feet down, his focus was on him going to the ground during the process of making the catch. The Julius Thomas play was different. He caught the ball with both feet on the ground, turned upfield and became a runner PRIOR to going to the ground. He was NOT going to the ground during the process of making the catch.

 

[blindzebra]

Here’s the first Calvin Johnson play from 2010. He has both feet down but it was still ruled incomplete because he was going to the ground during the catch process and didn’t hold onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Dez had both feet down and even took a third step but it was ruled incomplete because he was going to the ground during the process of making the catch and the ball came loose when he contacted the ground. The call was consistently officiated that way. Two feet down didn’t matter if the receiver was ruled going to the ground during the process of making the catch.

What part of end zone being different don't you get? What football move is he gonna do?

Yeah, you understand the rules.

 

[blindzebra]

No, I’m saying Dez DID have a second foot down before he reached, that’s my point. He took three steps before he reached. In the video Mr_C provided, Blandino said had Calvin Johnson got both feet down prior to the reach for the endzone it would have been a completed pass. Dez got both feet down prior to reaching for the end zone but his was ruled incomplete. Blandino provided a second set of eyes on that play.

Blandino had different explanations for all these rulings. What’s been perfectly clear is that when a receiver was going to the ground during the catch process and lost the ball when contacting the ground everyone of those plays were ruled incomplete regardless if the receiver got both feet down.

You do realize you just said based on the Johnson play Dez' play should have been a catch right?

 

[KJJ]

What part of end zone being different don't you get? What football move is he gonna do?

Yeah, you understand the rules.

You don’t understand anything which is why at least 80% of your post count the past 3 years has been arguing this topic. You’ve been caught countless times not knowing the rule. Julius Thomas wasn’t going to the ground during the process of making the catch but you didn’t know that. That was a great example of you getting caught not knowing the rule.

 

[blindzebra]

You don’t understand anything which is why at least 80% of your post count the past 3 years has been arguing this topic. You’ve been caught countless times not knowing the rule.

What does post count have to do with understanding? And you saying I don't understand the rules is hysterical, since you have said one ridiculous thing after another. Do I need to link the last time I made you look silly? The one where you said the new rule has brand new football move examples, the one where they are exactly the same as they were in 2016?

 

[KJJ]

You do realize you just said based on the Johnson play Dez' play should have been a catch right?

That’s your interpretation because you have an agenda. Anything to keep arguing. Mr_C kept harping on the comment that Blandino made about Johnson not having both feet down as the reason his catch was ruled incomplete. That pass was ruled incomplete because Johnson was going to the ground during the process of making the catch and didn’t maintain possession through the contact of the ground.

The Dez play proves it. Dez did get both feet down but the catch was ruled incomplete because he was going to the ground during the process of making the catch and didn’t survive the ground.

 

[blindzebra]

That’s your interpretation because you have an agenda. Anything to keep arguing. Mr_C kept harping on the comment that Blandino made about Johnson not having both feet down as the reason his catch was ruled incomplete. That pass was ruled incomplete because Johnson was going to the ground during the process of making the catch and didn’t maintain possession through the contact of the ground.

The Dez play proves it. Dez did get both feet down but the catch was ruled incomplete because he was going to the ground during the process of making the catch and didn’t survive the ground.

Thanks again for proving you have absolutely no rule knowledge what so ever.

2010 a reach ended going to the ground in the SB, 2013 Blandino clearly states that a football move ends going to the ground. Two plays where a football move was involved. What football move can happen in the endzone, old rule expert?

 

[KJJ]

What does post count have to do with understanding? And you saying I don't understand the rules is hysterical, since you have said one ridiculous thing after another. Do I need to link the last time I made you look silly? The one where you said the new rule has brand new football move examples, the one where they are exactly the same as they were in 2016?

If you understood the rule your post count wouldn’t be near as high as it is on this topic. You only show up for this topic. You’ve been on this board ever since it was created in 2004 and you only have just over 11,000 posts and most of them are on this topic. The only ones who are looking silly are you and Percy who keep arguing this topic with copied material you paste from previous Dez catch arguments. lol You claimed the new rule is like the old rule they had many years ago. How about proving it? The rule they just got rid of, bringing the ball in, reaching and a third step didn’t matter if a receiver was going to the ground during the process of making a catch.

 

[KJJ]

Thanks again for proving you have absolutely no rule knowledge what so ever.

2010 a reach ended going to the ground in the SB, 2013 Blandino clearly states that a football move ends going to the ground. Two plays where a football move was involved. What football move can happen in the endzone, old rule expert?

If you knew the rule how come you pointed to the Julius Thomas play in 2013 when I asked to show me a receiver who was ruled going to the ground during the process of making a catch, then lost the ball and it was ruled a catch? Thomas wasn’t ruled going to the ground. With the new rule bringing the ball in will be a football move. All you want to do is argue.

 

[blindzebra]

If you understood the rule your post count wouldn’t be near as high as it is on this topic. You only show up for this topic. You’ve been on this board ever since it was created in 2004 and you only have just over 11,000 posts and most of them are on this topic. The only ones who are looking silly are you and Percy who keep arguing this topic with copied material you paste from previous Dez catch arguments. lol You claimed the new rule is like the old rule they had many years ago. How about proving it? The rule they just got rid of, bringing the ball in, reaching and a third step didn’t matter if a receiver was going to the ground during the process of making a catch.

I rarely post here because of people like you.

 

[blindzebra]

If you knew the rule how come you pointed to the Julius Thomas play in 2013 when I asked to show me a receiver who was ruled going to the ground during the process of making a catch, then lost the ball and it was ruled a catch? Thomas wasn’t ruled going to the ground. With the new rule bringing the ball in will be a football move. All you want to do is argue.

You are outright lying about the Thomas play and what Blandino said. What Blandino said was that he completed the catch process WHILE GOING TO THE GROUND which made him a runner.
If you had a clue about the rules you'd understand the difference.

 

[KJJ]

I rarely post here because of people like you.

Then you don’t like hearing the truth.

 

[blindzebra]

Then you don’t like hearing the truth.

Not getting any from you, that is for sure. I enjoy insightful football knowledge, I hate false, uninformed, and negative nonsense.

 

[KJJ]

You are outright lying about the Thomas play and what Blandino said. What Blandino said was that he completed the catch process WHILE GOING TO THE GROUND which made him a runner.
If you had a clue about the rules you'd understand the difference.

You’re wrong once again. Blandino’s exact words were “he was not going to the ground in the process of making the catch.” You’ve been accused of lying by others and end up getting caught in more lies. If you knew about the rules you wouldn’t keep being caught not knowing the rules and wouldn’t have to keep lying. You claimed the new rule is like the old rule that was around prior to the rule the league just got rid of. I want you to prove it’s the same rule.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

 

[KJJ]

Not getting any from you, that is for sure. I enjoy insightful football knowledge, I hate false, uninformed, and negative nonsense.

If I didn’t know what I was talking about I wouldn’t be batting over 900 on this board. Posters can lie but their archives don’t. You don’t like hearing the truth and you don’t like being proven wrong. You want to be around those who see things the way you do. Read it and weep.

 

[DogFace]

That’s your interpretation because you have an agenda. Anything to keep arguing. Mr_C kept harping on the comment that Blandino made about Johnson not having both feet down as the reason his catch was ruled incomplete. That pass was ruled incomplete because Johnson was going to the ground during the process of making the catch and didn’t maintain possession through the contact of the ground.

The Dez play proves it. Dez did get both feet down but the catch was ruled incomplete because he was going to the ground during the process of making the catch and didn’t survive the ground.

Nooooooooooooooo!!! The Johnson pass from the 2013 video was ONLY incomplete because he didn’t get two feet down prior to the reach even though he was going to the ground the entire time.

Concentrate on this part only from Dean:

Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.

Do you see how he’s saying if he would’ve had two feet down how it would’ve been ruled?

I’m not sure why you’re not understanding this. I’m not being a smart*** or trying to be rude, but you may be experiencing denial. You’re just not seeing what is written despite it being very clear.

 

[KJJ]

Nooooooooooooooo!!! The Johnson pass from the 2013 video was ONLY incomplete because he didn’t get two feet down prior to the reach even though he was going to the ground the entire time.

Concentrate on this part only from Dean:

Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.

Do you see how he’s saying if he would’ve had two feet down how it would’ve been ruled?

I’m not sure why you’re not understanding this. I’m not being a smart*** or trying to be rude, but you may be experiencing denial. You’re just not seeing what is written despite it being very clear.

Explain why Blandino never talked about two feet down with Dez? All he kept talking about was that Dez was going to the ground during the process of making the catch, despite the fact he both feet down, took three steps and reached for the endzone. Again, you keep focusing on the wording Blandino used in the Calvin Johnson video. You continue going back to that video and that particular explanation he gave. The point I’m trying to make is that if Calvin Johnson got two feet down and it would have been a catch then how come Dez’s wasn’t a catch even though he got two feet down?

Dez got both feet down prior to his reach. Do you see what I’m saying? Blandino’s comment on the Calvin Johnson play doesn’t make sense when you apply it to the Dez play because he did what Johnson didn’t do prior to his reach but it was still ruled not a catch. It was all because he was going to the ground during the process of making the catch.

 

[blindzebra]

You’re wrong once again. Blandino’s exact words were “he was not going to the ground in the process of making the catch.” You’ve been accused of lying by others and end up getting caught in more lies. If you knew about the rules you wouldn’t keep being caught not knowing the rules and wouldn’t have to keep lying. You claimed the new rule is like the old rule that was around prior to the rule the league just got rid of. I want you to prove it’s the same rule.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

By all means everyone watch the link and see which of us is telling the truth.