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

[MarcusRock]

Your inability to understand does not mean I did not address it. You did not correct a darn thing. You invented a make believe interpretation that has absolutely no rule support. I explained just how case book plays are used by officials several times in the other thread. To use your favorite line...go look.

Not what I asked you. Do you stand by your interpretation of those case plays in that link? Here it is again for reference.

 

[blindzebra]

Not what I asked you. Do you stand by your interpretation of those case plays in that link? Here it is again for reference.

The lunge was the act of a runner in that case play which is exactly what Percy and I had been telling you from the get go. You tried to shoot that down because the plays included that a lunge was not part of the catch process. The facts are in both the case play and Dez in GB they controlled the ball, had two feet down in bounds, and became a runner.

 

[MarcusRock]

The linked story you're referring to is a story about that penalty being called in error, so, no, I'm not suggesting anybody needs to look the other way when they spot fouls occurring. I'm suggesting they need to call games properly, and err on the side of not interfering with outcomes where possible. Officials do need to use better judgement in calling discretion penalties like the Butler call.

And it's common knowledge that officials call fewer penalties in postseason games than they do regular season games, or it should be. And the penalty data is available to back that up. So the idea that games are called differently when the stakes are different isn't revolutionary. When a number one seed doesn't get the benefit of that tendency in the first quarter of a home playoff game v. a team where there's a history of significant playoff officiating controversy, that team's fans have a right to not like it.

Yes, that article asks a question so they aren't on the hook for saying yeah, they definitely did it in error. There was another article from CBS that I debunked on the DC boards claiming that Green Bay did the exact same thing but when I watched the tape of the exact play, that player was already in the game versus Butler running in from the sideline having not been in the game. Likewise, that article referenced someone else who claimed this was true, not putting themselves on the hook. Again, it's a catchy headline designed to get people worked up on emotion rather than investigate. This thread is living proof of that technique and ensures that the media will never go out of business.

 

[MarcusRock]

The lunge was the act of a runner in that case play which is exactly what Percy and I had been telling you from the get go. You tried to shoot that down because the plays included that a lunge was not part of the catch process. The facts are in both the case play and Dez in GB they controlled the ball, had two feet down in bounds, and became a runner.

My question was of the yes/no variety. Spare me the evasive maneuvers. Is that a yes or a no?

 

[KJJ]

Are you saying Romo called the play?

Romo didn’t call the play but he made the decision to go to Dez on a 50-50 jump ball. He had options on that play and that was the one he chose. He was never the best decision maker. That was a manageable 4th and 2 with just over four minutes to play. It was far from a do or die situation. The smart decision would’ve been to go to Beasley or Witten and move the sticks.

Rodgers was dissecting our defense so we needed to take some time off the clock. Even had we scored on that play the Packers had plenty of time to answer. We had plenty of time to run the ball with Murray who was averaging 5 yards a carry. We could’ve possibly run the ball in and left ourselves with a fade to Dez in the endzone. He and Romo hooked up on several of those for scores during the 2014 season.

 

[Idgit]

Yes, that article asks a question so they aren't on the hook for saying yeah, they definitely did it in error. There was another article from CBS that I debunked on the DC boards claiming that Green Bay did the exact same thing but when I watched the tape of the exact play, that player was already in the game versus Butler running in from the sideline having not been in the game. Likewise, that article referenced someone else who claimed this was true, not putting themselves on the hook. Again, it's a catchy headline designed to get people worked up on emotion rather than investigate. This thread is living proof of that technique and ensures that the media will never go out of business.

It's not, but whatever. It's a legitimate question re: an official's decision to call a game altering penalty that affected the outcome of the season for at least two teams and whether that penalty was called in error or a discretion call. And, if a discretion call, whether it was an example of good discretion on the part of the official.

I'll leave the comment about the DC board debate where it is since I don't care what happened on the DC boards that no longer exist.

 

[DallasEast]

Romo threw a perfect deep pass to (supposedly) a top NFL wide receiver, who jumped and initially got both of his hands on the ball. The subsequent completion has been questioned ever since but, incredibly, Romo is still criticized for throwing, again, a picture perfect pass.

Back in the day, observers would criticize the receiver for not completing passes, especially passes that are perfectly placed. Nowadays? The finger is pointed at the quarterback.

I blame Terrell Owens. That one is for you @Bleu Star

 

[blindzebra]

My question was of the yes/no variety. Spare me the evasive maneuvers. Is that a yes or a no?

Yes, no, maybe. My position from day one is clear. That case play shows that an act common to the game, whether it was time to do so or an actual act, ends going to the ground. And in that case play the reason it said that a lunge was not part of the catch was because a lunge is the act of a runner. Again that has been my argument from day one.

 

[blindzebra]

Hey, mods. Since this is going nowhere I have a proposal. Let's have a mock trial with a poll. I present the it was a catch side and Marcus presents the the overturn was correct side and the forum decides in a vote, and the losing side gets, let's say, a six month ban.

 

[DallasEast]

Hey, mods. Since this is going nowhere I have a proposal. Let's have a mock trial with a poll. I present the it was a catch side and Marcus presents the the overturn was correct side and the forum decides in a vote, and the losing side gets, let's say, a six month ban.

 

[MarcusRock]

Yes, no, maybe. My position from day one is clear. That case play shows that an act common to the game, whether it was time to do so or an actual act, ends going to the ground. And in that case play the reason it said that a lunge was not part of the catch was because a lunge is the act of a runner. Again that has been my argument from day one.

So we know that a lunge ends going to the ground. Do you have any examples of another act common to the game ending going to the ground? Because I have a case play (A.R. 8.12) from 2014 and 2015 that shows "switching hands" does not end going to the ground. We already know that steps are irrelevant in going to the ground. Gee, why is that? Don't people also try to claim that Dez took an "extra step" to make it 3? What's different about a lunge that ends going to the ground that other "acts common to the game" do not?

A.R. 8.12 for reference:

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.​

 

[MarcusRock]

Hey, mods. Since this is going nowhere I have a proposal. Let's have a mock trial with a poll. I present the it was a catch side and Marcus presents the the overturn was correct side and the forum decides in a vote, and the losing side gets, let's say, a six month ban.

I'd try to get rid of me too if I were getting roasted in a debate. Must be annoying, huh? You can tap out now and bring me your ringleader if you wish. We both know that's where I'll end up anyway. You were both pinned in the other thread (actually you got banned, but same difference) and now want to ride an emotional wave to revive yourselves. The problem with the emotional crowd you want behind you is that they don't know the rules. So you can pander to them and they'll eat it up but when I question you, you can do your evasive maneuver dance like here.

 

[percyhoward]

Blandino was ASKED about a reach by Rich Eisen.

Right, and that was Blandino's perfect opportunity to say the reach didn't matter, if that had been true.

So why didn't he?

In the tutorial video "Explaining the Calvin Johnson Rule," the whole purpose of that presentation was to educate people on how "going to the ground" works. And in that video, he says a reach is an act common to the game that shows the catch process is completed and makes the player a runner.

If you want to know how such plays were ruled at the time, then refer to Blandino's tutorial. Case book plays aren't a comprehensive list of all possible scenarios, as you already know, so they don't prove a negative. That means you either have to find a case play that says a reach was not an act common to the game that could be performed while the player was falling, or some proof that the NFL said that.

The case book play being changed from a lunge to a reach is interesting, given the timing, don't you think? If the newer version of that case play had been in the book in 2014, that would have justified the overturn, but it would also have contradicted everything Blandino was saying at the time about a reach being an act common to the game that completed the catch process, even when a player was falling.

 

[KJJ]

I’ve been saying repeatedly for three years that eventually the NFL will get rid of the “going to the ground” part of the rule (check my archives) and it was reported yesterday the league is looking into doing just that. That’s the part of the rule that overturned the Calvin Johnson catch and the Dez catch. Forcing a receiver who clearly catches the ball and is falling to the ground to have to survive the ground with the ball secured is ridiculous.

The rule makes it increasingly difficult for a receiver who is reaching for the end zone or a first down marker with the ball in one hand to survive the impact of the ground without having the ball come loose. There’s no part of the rule that’s frustrated, angered and confused fans/media more than the “going to the ground” part of the rule. Eliminating it will dramatically improve the catch rule. Naturally you’ll still have to determine when the receiver has full control of the ball but if it looks like a catch, rule it a catch.

 

[Idgit]

I'd try to get rid of me too if I were getting roasted in a debate. Must be annoying, huh? You can tap out now and bring me your ringleader if you wish. You were both pinned in the other thread (actually you got banned, but same difference) and now want to ride an emotional wave to revive yourselves. The problem with the emotional crowd you want behind you is that they don't know the rules. So you can pander to them and they'll eat it up but when I question you, you can do your evasive maneuver dance like here.

If this were a pickup basketball game, you'd be the dude saying he's getting hacked when he's not, hacking when he shouldn't, jumping up and down declaring victory in the middle of the game, yelling at all the other team's best players, and then going home angry--and this is the best part--blaming your loss on the officials.

There aren't winners or losers in threads. It's just an exchange of opinions. You're fighting a losing battle putting forward an unpopular opinion. I probably know better than most what that's like. But you don't win points by declaring victories that haven't happened. All you can do is put out your argument and try to convince people you've got the better ideas.

 

[blindzebra]

I'd try to get rid of me too if I were getting roasted in a debate. Must be annoying, huh? You can tap out now and bring me your ringleader if you wish. We both know that's where I'll end up anyway. You were both pinned in the other thread (actually you got banned, but same difference) and now want to ride an emotional wave to revive yourselves. The problem with the emotional crowd you want behind you is that they don't know the rules. So you can pander to them and they'll eat it up but when I question you, you can do your evasive maneuver dance like here.

Funny you claim to be winning yet you are afraid to test it.

Got it.

 

[DallasEast]

 

[ScipioCowboy]

It's not, but whatever. It's a legitimate question re: an official's decision to call a game altering penalty that affected the outcome of the season for at least two teams and whether that penalty was called in error or a discretion call. And, if a discretion call, whether it was an example of good discretion on the part of the official.

I'll leave the comment about the DC board debate where it is since I don't care what happened on the DC boards that no longer exist.

The DC boards no longer exist because he debunked them. Oh, and stop being such a bully.

 

[Master22]

this is like an ex apologizing 4 years after cleaning you out in a divorce when they cheated.

Would love to like this post.

 

[nathanlt]

Not what I asked you. Do you stand by your interpretation of those case plays in that link? Here it is again for reference.

Just stop. The NFL rules committee is turning back the clock on your argument. Blandino tweets Dezcaughtit all the time, undercutting your argument. Periera now says it should have been a catch, undercutting your argument. The written language in the rulebook undercuts your argument, as has been explained many times to you.

Your only argument going forward is that "during the game in 2014, the unwritten intent applied, per NFL press conferences afterwards discussing damage control"

It's weak.

The NFL can never repay the damage done, no amount of draft picks (unoffered at present) will right the wrong that occurred that day. Referee interference during a playoff game destroyed the integrity of that game and the playoffs themselves.