Dean Blandino's explanation

percyhoward · Feb 8, 2017

KJJ said:
That picture wasn't photoshopped...

I know. I'm saying that the whole "ball touched the ground" issue has nothing to do with the catch process, and had nothing to do with the call on the field. It's a red herring.

Obviously the ball touched the ground, but Dez was originally ruled down by contact at that spot -- whether the ball touches the ground or not is irrelevant.

KJJ · Feb 8, 2017

LandryFan said:
The question of the ball hitting the ground is really irrelevant if you look at what Dez did on that play.
1. He caught and controlled the football (I don't think anybody, Blandino included, disputes that)
2. Got both feet down in bounds (thus establishing possession in the field of play) Nobody disputes that.
3. Made a football move. That completed the entire process and made the point of the football touching the ground completely irrelevant.

Your analysis is proof positive you don't understand the RULE or are one of many here who are STILL in denial over the RULE. Everyone including Blandino, the league and the fans around the country could easily see that Dez caught the ball and there's no one that's disputing that but he didn't catch the ball under the RULE because he didn't complete the process. The ball was never controlled until Dez brought it to his shoulders and by that time his momentum was taking him to the ground, therefore he had to complete the process and hang onto the ball all the way through the contact of the ground. According to the league a "football move" can't be made if a receiver is deemed "going to the ground."

The steps Dez took and the reach towards the goal line were all trumped once he was deemed "going to the ground." The ball can come loose but it can't touch the ground. When Dez reached and slammed the ball towards the goal line, the ball popped up from impacting the ground and as soon as that happened, it was an incomplete catch. Some have brought up the Larry Fitzgerald catch from 2015 in the playoffs that was ruled a catch even though he lost the ball at the end.

On the Fitz play, he never left the ground to make the catch and as soon as he caught the ball he made a slight turn up field, which the NFL deemed a "football move" and once he made that slight turn up field even though he started to stumble to the ground and the ball came loose, it was still ruled a catch. The same thing happened on the Julius Thomas play a few years ago. He never left the ground to make the catch and made a slight turn up field, then began to stumble and lost the ball at the end. It was properly ruled a catch under the RULE because he made a "football move" which established possession.

31smackdown · Feb 8, 2017

Plumfool said:
The Butler call was not correct by rule. The rule also states that communication with players in the huddle has to take place. It did not.

Rule 5. Offensive Substitutions
Article 8.PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL SUBSTITUTION OR WITHDRAWAL
e. For an offensive substitute who moves onto the field inside the field numerals and leaves without participating in one play: Unsportsmanlike Conduct. See 5-2-5 Note.

You are thinking of 5.2.5 which the note section is referenced, but it is actually a totally seperate rule, not part of the requirement for the penalty.
ARTICLE 5. OFFENSIVE SUBSTITUTIONS
The following are applicable to any offensive substitute who is entering the game:

He must move onto the field of play or the end zone as far as the inside of the field numerals prior to the snap to be a legal substitution. If he does not, and is on the field of play or end zone at the time of a legal snap, he is an illegal substitute.
If he approaches the huddle and communicates with a teammate, he is required to participate in at least one play before being withdrawn. Violations of this rule may be penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Note: The intent of the rule is to prevent teams from using simulated substitutions to confuse an opponent, while still permitting a player (or players) to enter and leave without participating in a play in certain situations, such as a change in a coaching decision on fourth down, even though he has approached the huddle and communicated with a teammate. Similarly, if a player who participated in the previous play leaves the playing field by mistake, and returns to the playing field prior to the snap, he is not required to reach the inside of the field numerals, provided that the defense has the opportunity to match up with him. However, a substitute (i.e., someone who did not participate in the previous play) is required to reach the inside of the field numerals.

The Key point is this part of the note: The intent of the rule is to prevent teams from using simulated substitutions to confuse an opponent, while still permitting a player (or players) to enter and leave without participating in a play in certain situations, such as a change in a coaching decision on fourth down, even though he has approached the huddle and communicated with a teammate.

The ref made the determination somehow that this was a simulated substitution or ignored that the player should be allow to leave based on a coaching decision change without penalty even if they engage in the huddle.

KJJ · Feb 8, 2017

percyhoward said:
I know. I'm saying that the whole "ball touched the ground" issue has nothing to do with the catch process, and had nothing to do with the call on the field. It's a red herring.

Obviously the ball touched the ground, but Dez was originally ruled down by contact at that spot -- whether the ball touches the ground or not is irrelevant.

We're not going to keep going through this, we've been there and done it probably more than a hundred times the past 2 years. The ball touching the ground wasn't the issue, it was the ball coming loose when it touched the ground that was the issue and made the catch incomplete under the RULE. Dez was originally awarded the catch and ruled down by contact because everything happened so quick and it took instant replay to see that he didn't complete the process under the RULE. Once it could be clearly seen on replay that his momentum was taking him to the ground, he had to hang onto the ball all the way through the contact of the ground. Had Dez held the ball above the ground when it came loose and reestablished control, it would have been a catch.

Go back to the play on opening day vs the Giants in the endzone that was initially ruled a TD. Dez caught the ball but as he was going to the ground the ball came loose at the very end but it never touched the ground. Unfortunately by the time he reestablished control his shoulder was OB and it was correctly ruled incomplete. He's had trouble completing the process of making these catches. He does the hardest part by winning the battle and making the catch but the impact of the ground causes him to lose the ball. He's got hands the size of a tennis racket so it's hard to figure why he continues to lose the ball at the very end when he impacts the ground. The defender can't jar the ball away from him, his enemy has been the ground.

percyhoward · Feb 8, 2017

KJJ said:
The ball touching the ground wasn't the issue, it was the ball coming loose when it touched the ground that was the issue and made the catch incomplete under the RULE.

The part of the rule book you're referring to only applies when a player goes to the ground while still in the process of making a catch. Before "going to the ground" even comes into play, there is a 3-part catch process which must have NOT been completed.

Since the ruling on the field was a catch and down by contact, there had to be indisputable evidence that the catch process wasn't completed. IOW, they had to prove that Dez was a receiver going to the ground, and not a runner, as the field official had ruled.

Since Blandino couldn't prove Dez hadn't become a runner, he started off his explanation by assuming that Dez hadn't become a runner, then applied a rule for players who haven't become runners. That was the slight of hand that has you (and others) talking about "going to the ground" instead of the catch process.

KJJ · Feb 8, 2017

percyhoward said:
The part of the rule book you're referring to only applies when a player goes to the ground while still in the process of making a catch. Before "going to the ground" even comes into play, there is a 3-part catch process which must have NOT been completed.

Since the ruling on the field was a catch and down by contact, there had to be indisputable evidence that the catch process wasn't completed. IOW, they had to prove that Dez was a receiver going to the ground, and not a runner, as the field official had ruled.

Since Blandino couldn't prove Dez hadn't become a runner, he started off his explanation by assuming that Dez hadn't become a runner, then applied a rule for players who haven't become runners. That was the slight of hand that has you (and others) talking about "going to the ground" instead of the catch process.

We've ALREADY been over that more times than I can count.

Sage3030 · Feb 8, 2017

KJJ said:
We've ALREADY been over that more times than I can count.

And you've been wrong every time.

percyhoward · Feb 8, 2017

KJJ said:
We've ALREADY been over that more times than I can count.

Show where Blandino proved that Dez hadn't yet become a runner, and you've shown how "going to the ground" applies to this play.

Plumfool · Feb 8, 2017

31smackdown said:
Rule 5. Offensive Substitutions
Article 8.PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL SUBSTITUTION OR WITHDRAWAL
e. For an offensive substitute who moves onto the field inside the field numerals and leaves without participating in one play: Unsportsmanlike Conduct. See 5-2-5 Note.

You are thinking of 5.2.5 which the note section is referenced, but it is actually a totally seperate rule, not part of the requirement for the penalty.
ARTICLE 5. OFFENSIVE SUBSTITUTIONS
The following are applicable to any offensive substitute who is entering the game:

He must move onto the field of play or the end zone as far as the inside of the field numerals prior to the snap to be a legal substitution. If he does not, and is on the field of play or end zone at the time of a legal snap, he is an illegal substitute.

If he approaches the huddle and communicates with a teammate, he is required to participate in at least one play before being withdrawn. Violations of this rule may be penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Note: The intent of the rule is to prevent teams from using simulated substitutions to confuse an opponent, while still permitting a player (or players) to enter and leave without participating in a play in certain situations, such as a change in a coaching decision on fourth down, even though he has approached the huddle and communicated with a teammate. Similarly, if a player who participated in the previous play leaves the playing field by mistake, and returns to the playing field prior to the snap, he is not required to reach the inside of the field numerals, provided that the defense has the opportunity to match up with him. However, a substitute (i.e., someone who did not participate in the previous play) is required to reach the inside of the field numerals.

The Key point is this part of the note: The intent of the rule is to prevent teams from using simulated substitutions to confuse an opponent, while still permitting a player (or players) to enter and leave without participating in a play in certain situations, such as a change in a coaching decision on fourth down, even though he has approached the huddle and communicated with a teammate.

The ref made the determination somehow that this was a simulated substitution or ignored that the player should be allow to leave based on a coaching decision change without penalty even if they engage in the huddle.

That's the penalty for violation of the rule. Not the rule.

KJJ · Feb 8, 2017

Sage3030 said:
And you've been wrong every time.

LOL The only ones who've been wrong are FANS like you who keep crying and living in denial over a call from 2 years ago that replay conclusively proved was correctly overturned and the league CONFIRMED it was correctly overturned. Some of you must love making yourselves look foolish.

KJJ · Feb 8, 2017

percyhoward said:
Show where Blandino proved that Dez hadn't yet become a runner, and you've shown how "going to the ground" applies to this play.

The replay proved Dez never became a "runner" because his momentum was taking him to the ground and a receiver can't establish themselves as a "runner" or complete a "football move" while stumbling to the ground. Everything Dez did was in one piece, no turn of the body. Blandino explained Dez wasn't upright and his momentum was taking him to the ground. AGAIN we've been over this.

skinsscalper · Feb 8, 2017

Carharris2 said:
The fun way to handle @KJJ is to debate him into submission and make him ignore you. You have to stoop to his level and some are above that and rightfully so. I have free time at work so I feel it's my duty. It's not hard I've done it twice and it was as joyful each time.

Ask him about his pattern for not posting, at all, during the 2014 win streak and hardly posting during this years streak. It's revealing. As sick as it is he just like bothering true fans of this team. If he's truly a fan of the Cowboys it's sadly even more sick.

There are realists and there's this guy. He's unique.

I've got a couple of douchebags on my ignore list. This guy earned his spot at the top. Legend in in his own mind and a clown in every one else'.

KJJ · Feb 8, 2017

percyhoward said:
Show where Blandino proved that Dez hadn't yet become a runner, and you've shown how "going to the ground" applies to this play.

"Going to the ground" does apply to this play because Dez's momentum/body lean was taking him to the ground in one piece. You obviously either can't see it or refuse to see it or you're in denial over it because you enjoy arguing about it.

KJJ · Feb 8, 2017

skinsscalper said:
I've got a couple of douchebags on my ignore list. This guy earned his spot at the top. Legend in in his own mind and a clown in every one else'.

Pretty easy hiding behind your computer referring to me and others as "douchebags." With comments like that and some of the other offensive remarks you've posted about members here, you're the last one who should be calling anyone a "douchebag."

percyhoward · Feb 8, 2017

KJJ said:
"Going to the ground" does apply to this play because Dez's momentum/body lean was taking him to the ground in one piece.

There is nothing in the catch process that refers to body position or momentum.

1 control
2 two feet
3 football move

KJJ · Feb 8, 2017

percyhoward said:
Since the ruling on the field was a catch and down by contact, there had to be indisputable evidence that the catch process wasn't completed.

There was INDISPUTABLE evidence which is why the call on the field was overturned. Dez was ruled down by contact because you couldn't see the ball come loose as it hit the ground until it was reviewed. Once it was determined that Dez was "going to the ground" he had to complete a step by step process which included hanging onto the ball through the contact of the ground and he didn't.

KJJ · Feb 8, 2017

percyhoward said:
There is nothing in the catch process that refers to body position or momentum.

1 control
2 two feet
3 football move

Body position and a receivers momentum is part of what determines if they're "going to the ground." Dez's momentum/body lean was taking him to the ground, therefore he had to complete the process of hanging onto the ball through the contact of the ground. The replay clearly shows all of this.

KJJ · Feb 8, 2017

percyhoward said:
1 control
2 two feet
3 football move

There was no "football move" because Dez was ruled "going to the ground" so two feet down, control and the reach had to be followed by hanging onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Everything happened in ONE PIECE, there was no turn of the body upfield that would have established a "football move." Some will argue that Dez turned his body upfield but it wasn't enough of a turn and by the time he gained full control of the ball he was on his way to the ground. Compare the Dez catch with the Fitz catch. Everything with Dez happened in one piece with no turn of the body upfield at the time he had full control of the ball. As Fitz caught the ball he made a noticeable turn upfield with both foot down "just prior" to going to the ground, which established a "football move" so even though the ball came loose when he hit the ground it was still a legal catch under the RULE.

percyhoward · Feb 8, 2017

KJJ said:
Body position and a receivers momentum is part of what determines if they're "going to the ground."

I know, but as I said, that has nothing to do with the catch process. They had to prove Dez hadn't completed the catch process before he went to the ground.

KJJ · Feb 8, 2017

percyhoward said:
I know, but as I said, that has nothing to do with the catch process. They had to prove Dez hadn't completed the catch process before he went to the ground.

The replay proved he hadn't completed the process which is why the call on the field was overturned.

Dean Blandino's explanation

Research Tool

You Have an Axe to Grind

Well-Known Member

You Have an Axe to Grind

Research Tool

You Have an Axe to Grind

Well-Known Member

Research Tool

Well-Known Member

You Have an Axe to Grind

You Have an Axe to Grind

Well-Known Member

You Have an Axe to Grind

You Have an Axe to Grind

Research Tool

You Have an Axe to Grind

You Have an Axe to Grind

You Have an Axe to Grind

Research Tool

You Have an Axe to Grind