Twitter: Competition Committee says Dez caught it **merged**

[PA Cowboy Fan]

I told you we were robbed.

 

[percyhoward]

And Blandino did not follow the rule at the time, he made his own rule and then attempted to justify his error by taking away good catches from other players the next three years.

Absolutely.

When they stopped trying to determine when the catch was made, it stopped being about the catch anymore.

 

[percyhoward]

You think they'll go back to that? I think they want to remove the going to the ground part of it. That would open up a whole other can of worms, but it would take out any necessity for a football move, clearly becoming a runner, etc. If you demonstrate that you have control of the ball before you go to the ground, then it's a catch because the ground doesn't matter.

That's the way it worked until they added the "upright long enough" sentence and took the football move out of the catch process in 2015.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of having to hold onto the ball when you hit the ground, as long as you really haven't caught it yet. It's saying that you have to be upright in order to catch it that gives "going to the ground" way too much jurisdiction. Players who aren't upright make catches on a routine basis.

 

[blindzebra]

People get so invested and dug into an argument or point of view that they will ask for specific things to counter their point, when they get what they ask for they move the goal posts and ignore the evidence in front of their faces rather than admit that they were wrong. Sometimes they will also argue a point in minutia of semantics that when you argue a general point and they understand the general point they continue to argue the very small point that boils down to a word or two to prove they are right vs wrong.

After someone asks for some info and you give it to them and they continue the arguing for no other reason than to argue...

After a while of doing this you just have to walk away and chalk it up to not being able to change their minds because they are not willing to change their minds no matter the evidence presented to them.

Walking away, not wasting anymore time on it.

And you are wise in using the ignore button.
I wish I could at times.

Been these guys MO since day one. At this point all they are doing is trolling.

 

[blindzebra]

Just to make sure this gets in here...Percy's post from the other thread:

A.R. 15.95 in its 2015 version is almost unrecognizable compared to 2014.

2014
A.R. 15.95
Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.
In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not
have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

2015
A.R. 15.95
Does not become runner prior to going to ground
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then, still in control of the ball, he reached out for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A20.
In this situation, the receiver had not clearly become a runner before going to the ground. In order to complete the catch, he must maintain control until after his
initial contact with the ground. The act of reaching out with the ball does not trump the requirement to maintain control of the ball when he lands.

So when you hear they didn't change the rule from the Blandino Boys, here is your smoking gun.

Facts are that under the 2014 rules Dez completed the catch process and was down by contact. They got it wrong and changed the rule to make the overturn seem correct.

 

[Kevinicus]

Even Stephen Jones admitted the call was right at the time:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/22/stephen-jones-admits-dez-bryant-call-was-correct/

But this got explained away in the other thread as a "PR move." LOL.

It was a PR move. Not something silly like some claim...such as a CONSPIRACY!

As wrong as you have been on this play, you appear to be correct concerning these statements. They are not admitting the call was wrong (it was and they should), but rather saying plays like that should be catches and unfortunately the rules didn't/don't reflect that (they did, but they botched it and changed it) and they hope to adjust the language of the rules so that they are catches in the future.

 

[gimmesix]

I told you what the indisputable evidence was by the rules but you don't want to accept it. That's your right and choice.

And Steratore told you why the officials changed the call and you don't want to accept it. Your right and choice, but it doesn't change his reasoning. They looked for an act common to the game and it was their "judgment" that Dez didn't make one. If something needs "judgment," it is disputable. The word "indisputable" means without a shadow of a doubt, uncontestable, undeniable.

 

[CowboyStar88]

Yep, I’ve got nothing.

 

[blindzebra]

That's the way it worked until they added the "upright long enough" sentence and took the football move out of the catch process in 2015.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of having to hold onto the ball when you hit the ground, as long as you really haven't caught it yet. It's saying that you have to be upright in order to catch it that gives "going to the ground" way too much jurisdiction. Players who aren't upright make catches on a routine basis.

Not only is upright long enough vague, but where is upright defined? Does that mean if you are on two feet but bent at the waist you are not upright? It was language pulled from thin air to cover their butts, nothing more. What amazes me is that anyone is gullible enough to buy Blandino's BS.

 

[MarcusRock]

And Steratore told you why the officials changed the call and you don't want to accept it. Your right and choice, but it doesn't change his reasoning. They looked for an act common to the game and it was their "judgment" that Dez didn't make one. If something needs "judgment," it is disputable. The word "indisputable" means without a shadow of a doubt, uncontestable, undeniable.

There is judgment all over the catch rule, whether it's the 3-part process or going to the ground.

Do you recall where Steratore said the ball clearly hit the ground? You combine no act common to the game with the ball hitting the ground and you have a solid case for going to the ground. That's what they went with. You disagree but a fan's "judgment" doesn't hold much weight compared to those whose job it is interpret the rules. Pereira said during the broadcast that he would overturn it even before Steratore announced it. If he could see it, how is it hard that those looking at the play wouldn't see it?

And why not comment on the rest of my post? It laid everything out clearly.

 

[blindzebra]

It was a PR move. Not something silly like some claim...such as a CONSPIRACY!

As wrong as you have been on this play, you appear to be correct concerning these statements. They are not admitting the call was wrong (it was and they should), but rather saying plays like that should be catches and unfortunately the rules didn't/don't reflect that (they did, but they botched it and changed it) and they hope to adjust the language of the rules so that they are catches in the future.

What I love is they are pointing to this as proof. Blandino comes into the committee meeting and explains his interpretation of the rule, so Jones accepts it. Does it say Stephen read the rule book from 2014, along with the case book, and based on his expert officiating knowledge agrees it was the right call?

 

[Gator88]

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted
by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right
arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the
goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out.
Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The pass is complete. When the receiver hits the ground in the end
zone, it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of
the catch. Since the ball crossed the goal line, it is a touchdown. If the ball is short of the goal line, it is a catch,
and A2 is down by contact.​

So note here that bracing and lunging is what gets this receiver a completed pass. Also in the play, notice that the receiver catches the ball and then moves the ball to his left hand, then braces and lunges. Why isn't the act of moving the ball that "act common to the game" that makes this a completed pass? Yet, that act is ignored even though it would be a much shorter route to saying it was a completed pass.

I don't think you understand the case play very well. The act of changing hands with the ball is ignored because it doesn't happen. This is at least the 3rd time I've corrected your misreading something, I'm curious if you will continue to bat 1.000 in ignoring me when I poke holes in your theories.

 

[percyhoward]

And Steratore told you why the officials changed the call and you don't want to accept it. Your right and choice, but it doesn't change his reasoning. They looked for an act common to the game and it was their "judgment" that Dez didn't make one. If something needs "judgment," it is disputable. The word "indisputable" means without a shadow of a doubt, uncontestable, undeniable.

Great post. The second they said the reach needed to be "more obvious", they were admitting they'd seen the reach.

 

[Gator88]

Just to make sure this gets in here...Percy's post from the other thread:

A.R. 15.95 in its 2015 version is almost unrecognizable compared to 2014.

2014
A.R. 15.95
Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.
In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not
have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

2015
A.R. 15.95
Does not become runner prior to going to ground
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then, still in control of the ball, he reached out for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A20.
In this situation, the receiver had not clearly become a runner before going to the ground. In order to complete the catch, he must maintain control until after his
initial contact with the ground. The act of reaching out with the ball does not trump the requirement to maintain control of the ball when he lands.

So when you hear they didn't change the rule from the Blandino Boys, here is your smoking gun.

Facts are that under the 2014 rules Dez completed the catch process and was down by contact. They got it wrong and changed the rule to make the overturn seem correct.

Is that really the exact case rule? Because it wouldn't surprise me that they failed to do a complete edit.

 

[MarcusRock]

I don't think you understand the case play very well. The act of changing hands with the ball is ignored because it doesn't happen. This is at least the 3rd time I've corrected your misreading something, I'm curious if you will continue to bat 1.000 in ignoring me when I poke holes in your theories.

The only thing accurate in your post is that I understand the case play very well. To poke holes in anything I say, you'd have to understand what I'm explaining but I don't think you do.

 

[gimmesix]

So you say he didn't tuck, others say he did tuck. There's even dispute about what Dez even did or didn't do. All those people who disagree don't matter. You're talking about feelings. I'm talking about a black and white rule book. And when going to the ground kicks in, those rules apply and the ball can't hit the ground and come loose. Dez never got traction to push off and reach all the way out.

Again, you make this about feelings when those debating you are talking about the rule book. The rule book at the time said the receiver had to do "an act common to the game." That is a gray area within that black and white rule book. Even you acknowledge here that Dez reached out by saying he didn't "reach all the way out." You are making a judgment call about his reach, which is what the officials did instead of sticking with the original call because who's to say how much reaching out is enough to be considered a football move. The rule book says that there has to be "indisputable evidence" to overturn the call and acknowledging that he was reaching out, which both you and the officials have done, is acknowledging that there was disputable evidence.

Can you quantify when reaching out for the goal line becomes a lunge? Because I can't. I've seen players reach for the goal line in a myriad number of ways from sticking the ball out in front of them with both hands to sticking it out there in one hand like Dez did. In fact, I believe Miles Austin reached out similarly on his Superman catch if I'm remembering right.

 

[Gator88]

The only thing accurate in your post is that I understand the case play very well. To poke holes in anything I say, you'd have to understand what I'm explaining but I don't think you do.

You were the one that said in the case play that he moved the ball to his left hand which was switching hands, when there was nothing in the case play that mentioned anything about switching hands. You then doubled down on it by asking why switching hands didn't complete the catch process. Can you point out where he switched hands in the case play? Because it wasn't when he braced his left hand to dove for the endzone.

 

[MarcusRock]

It was a PR move. Not something silly like some claim...such as a CONSPIRACY!

As wrong as you have been on this play, you appear to be correct concerning these statements. They are not admitting the call was wrong (it was and they should), but rather saying plays like that should be catches and unfortunately the rules didn't/don't reflect that (they did, but they botched it and changed it) and they hope to adjust the language of the rules so that they are catches in the future.

I know I'm right. As I've said, when people are in emotional frenzies, they don't even read the fine print and go straight to "we wuz robbed."

 

[blindzebra]

Is that really the exact case rule? Because it wouldn't surprise me that they failed to do a complete edit.

The 2014 rule had act common to the game and the player completed the process and it was a catch. In 2015 they removed act common to the game and removed and altered the case play to match their post game not enough of a football move reach to make it incomplete.

But if upright long enough before going to the ground was indeed part of the rule in 2014, why was the 2014 case play complete because that player did not complete the catch process before he started going to the ground?

 

[MarcusRock]

Again, you make this about feelings when those debating you are talking about the rule book. The rule book at the time said the receiver had to do "an act common to the game." That is a gray area within that black and white rule book. Even you acknowledge here that Dez reached out by saying he didn't "reach all the way out." You are making a judgment call about his reach, which is what the officials did instead of sticking with the original call because who's to say how much reaching out is enough to be considered a football move. The rule book says that there has to be "indisputable evidence" to overturn the call and acknowledging that he was reaching out, which both you and the officials have done, is acknowledging that there was disputable evidence.

Can you quantify when reaching out for the goal line becomes a lunge? Because I can't. I've seen players reach for the goal line in a myriad number of ways from sticking the ball out in front of them with both hands to sticking it out there in one hand like Dez did.

Blandino did in this video, but again, no one wants to accept it so they come up with all sorts of excuses as to why he's automatically wrong with nothing more than what they "feel." I get it. What do you say from watching it?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00457361/Dean-Blandino-reviews-Bryant-s-catch