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

[percyhoward]

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.

Blandino actually used the word indisputable (the day after, when he switched from "reach not obvious enough" to "lunge not clear enough").

1/12/15
NFLN: "You've been very consistent all season long, saying that if you're going to overturn a call there has to be indisputable evidence. So you saw indisputable evidence here, is what you're pointing to."

Blandino: "This was indisputable to us that he did not perform an act common to the game. That has to be an act where I gather myself and I lunge."

 

[blindzebra]

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.

He said you did not understand it, not that you did.

Guess it is hard to read from way up on that high horse you ride on, huh?

 

[MarcusRock]

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

Here's a hint. One says reach, the other one says lunge.

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.

So the receiver caught the ball with one hand?
Also, this exact same caseplay A.R. 8.12 I quoted is in the 2014 Rulebook AND the 2015 Rulebook. Nothing changed but wording to make it easier for others to understand.

 

[rynochop]

Does anyone think we would have stopped Rodgers on the next drive? My only hope was that they would have scored so fast it would have given Romo a minute or so to do something

 

[blindzebra]

Here's a hint. One says reach, the other one says lunge.



So the receiver caught the ball with one hand?
Also, this exact same caseplay A.R. 8.12 I quoted is in the 2014 Rulebook AND the 2015 Rulebook. Nothing changed but wording to make it easier for others to understand.

That was not in a rule book, AR 8.12 is a case play from the case book, but please keep enlightening us with your accuracy.

Oh, and just an FYI, both a reach and a lunge are acts common to the game.

 

[Gator88]

Here's a hint. One says reach, the other one says lunge.

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?

I was referring to what I highlighted which was how they still said it was 1st and 10 in the 2015 case play when it should have been 4th and 10.

So the receiver caught the ball with one hand?
Also, this exact same caseplay A.R. 8.12 I quoted is in the 2014 Rulebook AND the 2015 Rulebook. Nothing changed but wording to make it easier for others to understand.

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.

 

[percyhoward]

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?

Doesn't say anything about "gathering" or bracing" himself either. It basically just describes what happened in Green Bay, probably better than any other case play.

 

[percyhoward]

Here's a hint. One says reach, the other one says lunge.

So why change it? What was wrong with it saying "lunge?"

 

[gimmesix]

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.

My second response covered everything I think was vital in that post, but it's clear to me that this is going nowhere.

Officials make mistakes pretty much every game, and that includes Fox's paid official. Just because they say it doesn't mean they are right. I could sit down in a room with them and by the league's rule book show them why they should not have overturned the call, and I could be correct (which I believe I am based on the wording of the rule), and that doesn't mean that they would admit.

Clearly we disagree on Dez making a football move despite you and Steratore both saying he "reached." Clearly we disagree that reaching is an act common to the game, which keeps the ground from being a factor. Clearly we disagree about what constitutes indisputable evidence despite that fact that officials have refused to overturn calls with much less disputable evidence in games, citing the need for it to be indisputable.

It seems to be your mission to stick to your guns on this and believe that anyone who isn't with you is only basing their position on emotion, so I won't waste any more of your or my time debating with you..

 

[Soth]

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.

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.

These guys don't understand facts. If the wording a rule is amended THEN THE RULE CHANGED. But some posters here just follow whatever the NFL says. Oh we are amending the rule, but we are just clarifying! If they wanted to clarify the rule they could have just added more examples, or provided better training to the referees. What they did in 2015 was AMEND the actual rule in the rulebook which is the same thing as changing it. THE WORDS IN THE RULE WERE MODIFIED. Of course, in the NFL's opinion, the modification to the wording is considered a clarification but that is irrelevant. The NFL can say whatever they want, the fact is that they modified the rule.

This is from the same posters that argue that the ruling was correct because Blandino and Steratore said so lol. Come on! Have you ever heard about bias?

I have to be audited at my job and it would be great if I could judge my own decisions. In my opinion, all of my decisions were correct! done, end of audit! I am an expert on my own field, so who better than me to judge whether my own decisions were correct huh?

 

[percyhoward]

Oh, and just an FYI, both a reach and a lunge are acts common to the game.

On the day of the game, Blandino said "in order for it to be a football move, it's got to be more obvious than that. Reaching with two hands, extending the ball."

So reaching with two hands or extending one arm with the ball were both acts common to the game.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I I knew it was a catch when i saw it. I knew it was a catch when i reviewed it. I knew I'd die believing it was a catch.

Nothing to see here.

 

[MarcusRock]

My second response covered everything I think was vital in that post, but it's clear to me that this is going nowhere.

Officials make mistakes pretty much every game, and that includes Fox's paid official. Just because they say it doesn't mean they are right. I could sit down in a room with them and by the league's rule book show them why they should not have overturned the call, and I could be correct (which I believe I am based on the wording of the rule), and that doesn't mean that they would admit.

Clearly we disagree on Dez making a football move despite you and Steratore both saying he "reached." Clearly we disagree that reaching is an act common to the game, which keeps the ground from being a factor. Clearly we disagree about what constitutes indisputable evidence despite that fact that officials have refused to overturn calls with much less disputable evidence in games, citing the need for it to be indisputable.

It seems to be your mission to stick to your guns on this and believe that anyone who isn't with you is only basing their position on emotion, so I won't waste any more of your or my time debating with you..

If the rule was incorrectly called on the field, replay is there to make sure the right one is applied. This is what happened. So when it doesn't match what you want to have happen then of course they've made a mistake and are conspiring somehow to cover up the mistake. Again, like I said before, I get it. I know this rule. But people only accept the answer that gives them what they want so then you have the huge threads that stem from that. Your right and choice.

 

[gimmesix]

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

Blandino had every reason to defend the call. At least with Pereira you have a case for a lack of bias. The funny thing is that Pereira says the ball never touched the ground

Here's what Pereira said: The key point is even though the ball didn’t hit the ground, which I don’t think it did, it was loose in his hands while Dez was touching out of bounds.

Here's what Steratore said: We deemed that by our judgment to be the full process of the catch, and at the time he lands and the ball hits the ground, it comes loose as it hits the ground, which would make that incomplete; although he re-possesses it, it does contact the ground when he reaches so the repossession is irrelevant because it was ruled an incomplete pass when we had the ball hit the ground."

So you've got two of the guys explaining why it wasn't a catch who can't even agree on whether the ball hit the ground. I think you need to find some more reliable sources.

 

[MarcusRock]

Oh, and just an FYI, both a reach and a lunge are acts common to the game.

Which of these actually stops you from going to the ground?

 

[MarcusRock]

Blandino had every reason to defend the call. At least with Pereira you have a case for a lack of bias. The funny thing is that Pereira says the ball never touched the ground

Here's what Pereira said: The key point is even though the ball didn’t hit the ground, which I don’t think it did, it was loose in his hands while Dez was touching out of bounds.

LOL. Where did Dez ever touch out of bounds on that play? You must be pulling a wrong quote buddy. Link?

 

[gimmesix]

If the rule was incorrectly called on the field, replay is there to make sure the right one is applied. This is what happened. So when it doesn't match what you want to have happen then of course they've made a mistake and are conspiring somehow to cover up the mistake. Again, like I said before, I get it. I know this rule. But people only accept the answer that gives them what they want so then you have the huge threads that stem from that. Your right and choice.

One more time: Instant replay is there to be used when there is "indisputable evidence." When you have to use judgment to determine something because the evidence doesn't speak for itself, it is disputable.

I don't believe they are conspiring. I believe it's like anything else. If you are an official, when it comes to a judgment call, you side with the officials. It's human nature. You have a bias.

 

[MarcusRock]

I was referring to what I highlighted which was how they still said it was 1st and 10 in the 2015 case play when it should have been 4th and 10.

Again, I ask you, did the receiver in that case play catch the ball with one hand? It ends up in his right hand.

 

[MarcusRock]

One more time: Instant replay is there to be used when there is "indisputable evidence." When you have to use judgment to determine something because the evidence doesn't speak for itself, it is disputable.

I don't believe they are conspiring. I believe it's like anything else. If you are an official, when it comes to a judgment call, you side with the officials. It's human nature. You have a bias.

You side with the officials when they're right, not when they can't see that the ball clearly hit the ground and replay confirms it did.

 

[gimmesix]

LOL. Where did Dez ever touch out of bounds on that play? You must be pulling a wrong quote buddy. Link?

Whoops. You're right on that one. Looked up Dez Bryant TD and Mike Pereira, but he was talking about the one in the Giants game.

About the Green Bay catch, he said: "I don’t agree he made a football move, certainly not in the context of the rule. He’s going to the ground, the ball pops out then."

As I've said, I don't think that interpretation meets the context of "indisputable evidence" for the replay rule. Anyway, it's time for me to bow out and go to sleep since I said a few posts back that I'm done with this argument.

I hope you have a good night.