So just ignore the video completely, huh? LOL. I would too because it overrides everything you just mentioned.
Yes, because it is unnecessary to interpret the words of the rule as written within the context of the play in question. It's irrelevant.
You can't explain what the rule says while changing the words of the rule in your explanation. This is what I mean by fans just not understanding the rules in question and then going to a CONSPIRACY! fallback when they can't explain them in the face of someone who can.
I didn't change the words of the rule you straw-man inducing obfuscator. I used the words of the rule to show how they did or didn't apply to the Dez catch/non-catch such that it was a catch. Learn the point of an argument.
And I never mentioned the word "conspiracy". The colloquial term "robbed" doesn't necessarily imply a conspiracy.
The process of contacting the ground means the player's initial impact with the ground and the entire aftermath.
ORLY? Where does it say that in the rule? What does it mean by "entire aftermath"? Where does the act of catching the ball on the "process of contacting the ground" terminate?
If you've followed this rule since Calvin Johnson's play you'll know the intent. Its intent is to determine a catch when the main rule isn't or can't be satisfied (in the case of "can't" it's when a player dives or lays out to make a catch - so 2 feet can't come down). The phrase "surviving the ground" has been used which means the ball can't hit the ground and then pop out of a player's possession.
"Followed the rule"? Who follows a rule? Everyone knows what the intent of the rule is: to determine what is a legitimate catch. The purpose of the item is to determine if the player has control without any type of move common to the game, like situations where a player is in the air and can't actually execute them as in a diving catch. In the process of the catch Calvin Johnson clearly
pinned the ball against the ground with one hand and then lost it after doing so where the ball hit the ground
again. Neither of those situations applies to Dez.
By your own words, "... part of the ball touching the ground ..." and "It was only through the rest of the process of contacting the ground after that did he lose control of the ball such that one could see a visible bobble in the air ..." Do you see it now? And the part about being touched by the DB is irrelevant because per the verbatim rule: "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent) ..." So you can't just gloss over what the rules actually say.
No. I said the only "disputable" part of the catch is the "part of the ball touching the ground" meaning that it is
unclear that it even touched the ground because it also appeared to be secured in his forearm. And because it is disputable, then the criteria for overturn has not been met. It was only after that happened that it is indisputable that the ball was bobbled after the reach and his forward momentum caused him to roll over and lose the ball in the air which he subsequently secured before the ball touched the ground. The fact that the ball touches the ground does not make the pass incomplete as the item says. It is if the receiver does not maintain control through the process of the catch and the ball hits the ground that renders it incomplete: "If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete".
And (c) didn't happen. Catching the ball was (a), 2 steps was (b). No one "switches" the ball from 2 to 1 hand, they take one hand off (that's not even a football move). None of those even count when going to the ground applies anyway just like the video says. The only thing Dez could have done was execute a proper lunge to qualify as a football move and he didn't. I showed video comparisons. Your only comment was that the 2 were not the same situations and avoided the rest. Of course they weren't the same. But were they even remotely close lunges or a reaching out of the ball? That's this play in a nutshell because you lose trying to get out of Item 1. This is why all catch theorists try to maintain Dez was "upright" when he was falling the whole way. That means "going to the ground" applied. And by your own words, he didn't meet the requirements. Incomplete pass. But back to the question you avoided: Did Dez make as demonstrative a lunge OR a reaching out of the ball as the other player I showed in those posted clips? Yes or no.
Yes, it is arguable that c) did happen and I gave the reasons for it. It's irrelevant if no one actually literally "switches" the ball from two hands to one like they do from one arm to the other. I never implied that he did and that is ignoring the point. The receiver has to have control of the ball to move the ball from two hands into the a single forearm to even make the attempt at a goal lunge which is what Dez was clearly doing. It doesn't matter whether the act doesn't match the extent of other goal line lunges because the rule says nothing about that. It says acts common to the game, and it is maintaining control long enough to
enable him to do those things. It doesn't even say the receiver has to be in the act of doing them.
.
