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

[BlindFaith]

And yours, Blandino who was so bad at his job he no longer has it, who put himself in a compromising position with the party bus? Pereira who has done a complete 180 on his earlier comments. Yeah, that will be hard to overcome.

I could get countless for players, coaches, and officials.

Plus the rule is already on my side, because an act common to the game ends Item 1.

Pereira never once said that they blew the call. He's actually said the opposite many times.

And give me a name of any NFL official that has said the call was wrong.

Player's? I'm sure there are some that do think it was a catch. Because they don't know what the rules are.

Give me one coach that thinks it was a catch.

And simply saying something doesn't make you right. Nothing is on your side except for a few disgruntled and emotional fanboys.

 

[blindzebra]

You need to go away before you get kicked out of this thread. You’re nothing but trouble.

Report me, like you always do. You can't hack a debate so you run to the mods.

 

[blindzebra]

Pereira never once said that they blew the call. He's actually said the opposite many times.

And give me a name of any NFL official that has said the call was wrong.

Player's? I'm sure there are some that do think it was a catch. Because they don't know what the rules are.

Give me one coach that thinks it was a catch.

And simply saying something doesn't make you right. Nothing is on your side except for a few disgruntled and emotional fanboys.

He said they broke the rules and that what Dez did was a catch, but by all means keep lying about his latest stance. Ah yes the show me BS. Can't handle the facts so let's spin it.

You have the word of an idiot, your words describing Blandino, and what else?

 

[BlindFaith]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2015/10/01/pelissero-catch-rule-tyler-eifert/73166492/

“The intent of this (approved ruling) is that the receiver becomes a runner by putting his arm down and lunging for the goal line,” NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino said in a statement through Signora.

So you now agree with the rule?

You just recited AR 8.12. Bracing. 8.13 is regains balance. This is gathering.

You may want to treat him as a hostile witness.

 

[BlindFaith]

He said they broke the rules and that what Dez did was a catch, but by all means keep lying about his latest stance.

Link?

 

[blindzebra]

So you now agree with the rule?

You just recited AR 8.12. Bracing. 8.13 is regains balance. This is gathering.

You may want to treat him as a hostile witness.

He is describing an act common to the game, still waiting on that magical lunge citation.

 

[KJJ]

Report me, like you always do. You can't hack a debate so you run to the mods.

If you cross lines I will. There’s clearly something not right with you. This topic and my opinions have driven you over the edge.

 

[KJJ]

Wow, the Denver play they showed looks A LOT like the Dez play. Blandino says the Denver player was not going to the ground but he was stumbling. His knees were almost touching the ground and then he just reached for the goal line.

Look at that play and tell me that the Denver receiver would have been able to keep running another 10 yards. No way.

You’re referring to the Julius Thomas play which was almost identical to the Ertz play. Thomas had both feet firmly planted on the ground when he caught the ball, he made a turn up field and began to run, then stumbled to the ground and lost the ball. Once he caught the ball and turned and began to run that established him as a runner. He didn’t have to be able to run 10 yards. Once he caught the ball and turned up field and took a couple of steps that’s all he needed to establish himself as a runner. That play was very different from Dez’s play.

 

[BlindFaith]

The rule clearly states time to perform ANY ACT common to the game. Not a gather and a lunge.

You can't just keep making things up. You've been called out many times for this.

Where in the rules does it say that a player going to the ground can perform ANY act?

 

[percyhoward]

Wow, the Denver play they showed looks A LOT like the Dez play. Blandino says the Denver player was not going to the ground but he was stumbling. His knees were almost touching the ground and then he just reached for the goal line.

Before the 2015 rule change, an act common to the game (football move) made the player a runner, even if it happened when he was falling. Blandino says Thomas established himself as a runner because he reached for the goal line.

It's even more obvious in the play he showed before that one (Johnson) that he's saying the reach is a football move that makes it a catch. He points out that Johnson didn't establish himself as a runner because he only got one foot down before he reached. What difference would it make how many feet he got down before he reached, if the reach didn't even matter?

Same thing when he was asked about Dez's reach on the day of the overturn. Blandino said Dez needed to reach with two hands, or extend his arm. What difference would a two-handed reach (or a more extended reach) have made, if the reach didn't even matter?

Obviously, the reach mattered.

 

[BlindFaith]

Report me, like you always do. You can't hack a debate so you run to the mods.

Still waiting on that link that called me a liar.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

Somewhere along the lines they lumped in good catches...2 feet + control, in with what the original rule was intended to govern, which was diving catches at the ground. Yes, it needs to be fixed.

 

[KJJ]

Somewhere along the lines they lumped in good catches...2 feet + control, in with what the rule was intended to govern, which was diving catches at the ground. Yes, it needs to be fixed.

The rule was intended to make absolutely sure a receiver had full control of the football. Prior to this rule the controversy was trying to determine when a receiver had full control of the football. Almost all the controversy occurred when a receiver would go up in the air after the football. As they were coming down they would lose the football when they contacted the ground or somewhere in between. Some of these plays would be called fumbles and the argument would be that the receiver never had full control of the football, which resulted in this “going to the ground” part of the rule.

Since the Calvin Johnson play in 2010 the league has been forcing receivers who are going to the ground during the catch process to have to survive the ground with the ball. I challenge anyone to find a video since 2010 where a receiver went up in the air to make a catch and as they fell to the ground the ball popped out and it was ruled a catch. You won’t find one.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

The rule was intended to make absolutely sure a receiver had full control of the football. Prior to this rule the controversy was trying to determine when a receiver had full control of the football. Almost all the controversy occurred when a receiver would go up in the air after the football. As they were coming down they would lose the football when they contacted the ground or somewhere in between. Some of these plays would be called fumbles and the argument would be that the receiver never had full control of the football, which resulted in this “going to the ground” part of the rule.

Since the Calvin Johnson play in 2010 the league has been forcing receivers who are going to the ground during the catch process to have to survive the ground with the ball. I challenge anyone to find a video since 2010 where a receiver went up in the air to make a catch and as they fell to the ground the ball popped out and it was ruled a catch. You won’t find one.

That's an easy fix...the ground cannot cause a fumble, if the reciever was contacted by defender prior to hitting ground. If the reciever does fumble after two feet and control, it's a fumble even if instantaneous. Perhaps QB's wouldn't risk throwing to a reciever with a corner or safety bearing down, to avoid fumbles. Too high risk, low reward.

 

[KJJ]

That's an easy fix...the ground cannot cause a fumble, if the reciever was contacted by defender prior to hitting ground.

Once they take the going to the ground part out of the rule it’s going to eliminate most of the controversy. Since at least 2010 they’ve been allowing the ground to overturn obvious catches. If the ground can’t cause a fumble, the ground shouldn’t be able to cause an obvious catch to be overturned.

 

[BlindFaith]

The rule was intended to make absolutely sure a receiver had full control of the football. Prior to this rule the controversy was trying to determine when a receiver had full control of the football. Almost all the controversy occurred when a receiver would go up in the air after the football. As they were coming down they would lose the football when they contacted the ground or somewhere in between. Some of these plays would be called fumbles and the argument would be that the receiver never had full control of the football, which resulted in this “going to the ground” part of the rule.

Since the Calvin Johnson play in 2010 the league has been forcing receivers who are going to the ground during the catch process to have to survive the ground with the ball. I challenge anyone to find a video since 2010 where a receiver went up in the air to make a catch and as they fell to the ground the ball popped out and it was ruled a catch. You won’t find one.

There as always been the maintaining possession through contacting the ground.

2007 They removed make a football move.

2011 They added it back in as act common to the game.

2014 They introduced a time concept or gathering.

2015 They clarified the time or gathering to be upright long enough

Now they want to go back to the 2007 version but maybe not have in any reference to going to the ground. Should be interesting.

 

[Soth]

You’re referring to the Julius Thomas play which was almost identical to the Ertz play. Thomas had both feet firmly planted on the ground when he caught the ball, he made a turn up field and began to run, then stumbled to the ground and lost the ball. Once he caught the ball and turned and began to run that established him as a runner. He didn’t have to be able to run 10 yards. Once he caught the ball and turned up field and took a couple of steps that’s all he needed to establish himself as a runner. That play was very different from Dez’s play.

You are right. I just watched it again a second time. It looks similar to the Ertz play.

Dez's play is somewhere between the Calvin play and the Thomas play. Dez was caught it in the air, landed and took a couple of steps (while going to the ground) and then reached for the end zone.

It is clear the NFL is treating steps taken while going to the ground differently than steps taken by a player that caught the ball while running. I am not sure I see anything like this in the rules, but that is the position they have been taking.

But I guess the question then is, what does a receiver that jumps in the air and catches a ball need to do to establish himself as a runner? I don't think this was ever clear from previous rules or the new rules. If the receiver catches the ball while running, a few steps and a reach will do, but if the receiver jumps and then comes down with the ball, when do we consider such receiver a runner?

 

[DFWJC]

Free world, open forum, etc....but
I dont get the people who are so adamantly arguing that it wasn't a catch.
Unless you just love to argue...or maybe if you really were glad the Cowboys lost for some reason. Maybe it may have hurt arguments against certain players or coaches vs the "never could advance" crowd? I dont know.

Otherwise, in this forum, it seems those (blind) few who thought it wasn't a catch would say so and then just move on. Not argue so vehemently in a Cowboys forum.
Just seems strange unless there's an agenda.

 

[Gator88]

Pereira never once said that they blew the call. He's actually said the opposite many times.

And give me a name of any NFL official that has said the call was wrong.

Player's? I'm sure there are some that do think it was a catch. Because they don't know what the rules are.

Give me one coach that thinks it was a catch.

And simply saying something doesn't make you right. Nothing is on your side except for a few disgruntled and emotional fanboys.

Unbiased players are a much better source than the biased upper management of the NFL or referees. *shrug*

 

[KJJ]

There as always been the maintaining possession through contacting the ground.

2007 They removed make a football move.

2011 They added it back in as act common to the game.

2014 They introduced a time concept or gathering.

2015 They clarified the time or gathering to be upright long enough

Now they want to go back to the 2007 version but maybe not have in any reference to going to the ground. Should be interesting.

Maintaining possession through the contact of the ground for receiver ruled going to the ground during the process of making a catch wasn’t the original rule. That didn’t come around until at least 2010 and the Calvin Johnson play.