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

[MarcusRock]

Is it really that hard to make sense of the rule? If you use common sense? I'm a cowboys fan. But I'm also rational. I honestly don't see or understand some of these points they are trying to make.

The points they are trying to make are ones where they pander to a crowd primed for "we wuz robbed," so they trot out explanations that show that's what happened. There is no support in all the sports world for what they claim but the "we wuz robbed" crowd doesn't care. Just like at the start of this thread.

 

[KJJ]

It's stuff like this that has me firmly believing that they have no idea what they are talking about or what they are even looking for.

And I don't even know what point they are trying to make. Did he make a football move while falling? Was he not falling? Do they think time + lunge really means any act + any act? They spin and twist and divert all these random points and put them together in a non contextual way to drive home various points.

It really is like talking to a flat earther. When you provide facts, they make up something to counter it and then shift to another ludicrous point.

This argument has been going on for so long the past three years those who keep whining and agonizing over the ruling in Green Bay are comparing plays with it that weren’t even remotely similar. In the video Percy posted Dez never left the ground to make the catch but they’re trying to draw parallels between that play and the one in Green Bay. If they see similarities between those plays then no wonder they can’t figure anything out.

It was claimed Dez was practically falling down on that play posted due to his body lean but somehow stayed upright when that couldn’t have be further from the truth. It’s gotten to the point where breaking down their arguments have become child’s play. This has become pure comedy. The reason I keep getting pulled back into these arguments is because it’s hard to resist breaking down some of the lunacy that’s being posted.

 

[BlindFaith]

This argument has been going on for so long the past three years those who keep whining and agonizing over the ruling in Green Bay are comparing plays with it that weren’t even remotely similar. In the video Percy posted Dez never left the ground to make the catch but they’re trying to draw parallels between that play and the one in Green Bay. If they see similarities between those plays then no wonder they can’t figure anything out.

It was claimed Dez was practically falling down on that play posted due to his body lean but somehow stayed upright when that couldn’t have be further from the truth. It’s gotten to the point where breaking down their arguments have become child’s play. This has become pure comedy. The reason I keep getting pulled back into these arguments is because it’s hard to resist breaking down some of the lunacy that’s being posted.

Exactly. It's the remarkably dissimilar examples, the hypotheticals, literally cherry picking out lines from a complete explanation, comparing 1 part of one rule to another part of a different rule. Using still photos?!?!?

I so want to walk away from this but they come back with even something more over the top.

 

[MarcusRock]

Exactly. It's the remarkably dissimilar examples, the hypotheticals, literally cherry picking out lines from a complete explanation, comparing 1 part of one rule to another part of a different rule. Using still photos?!?!?

I so want to walk away from this but they come back with even something more over the top.

I have to admit the still photos were hilarious. Too bad I wasn't around when they were posted. Straight up amateur hour.

The people I feel bad for (if there are any) are those who really want to try to understand the rule and play as it happened but can't see where things are being twisted versus what the rules say and when they actually apply. They also have the added threat of people labeling them "not a real fan" if they do agree that the play was called correctly by the rules. The old, "we'll exclude you from the lunch table if you don't agree with what we agree with" game. Mob mentality.

 

[KJJ]

I so want to walk away from this but they come back with even something more over the top.

I’m going to do my best to walk away because as long as they have someone to argue with this will never end. It’s so easy to break down some of the comments they’re making it’s tough to walk away but no matter how many times you break them down they keep repeating the same nonsense. Whatever someone believed the moment that play happened they’ll continue to believe and nothing is ever going to change anyone’s opinion.

 

[MarcusRock]

I’m going to do my best to walk away because as long as they have someone to argue with this will never end. It’s so easy to break down some of the comments they’re making it’s tough to walk away but no matter how many times you break them down they keep repeating the same nonsense. Whatever someone believed the moment that play happened they’ll continue to believe and nothing is ever going to change anyone’s opinion.

We've reached that point in this thread that we reached in the other thread, only it's 90-something pages sooner here, lol. Catch theorists have yet to answer questions to back their erroneous claims including some new additions:

1. Where is support that the rules "changed" from 2014 to 2015? Multiple support exists to the contrary?

2. How is it that case play A.R. 8.12 appears in the 2014 rules AND the 2015 rules if rules "changed" disallowing ending a completed catch while going to the ground?

3. Where is it written in the rules that an "act common to the game" taken from a rule for a receiver who catches a ball on his feet, ends Item 1, going to the ground, which is a different rule with a different set of requirements? Case plays (3 of them) show a lunge ending going to the ground but nothing else.

3a. How in Hades is a receiver in the 3 case plays a runner BEFORE lunging when the rulings all say the act of a lunge is what gave the receiver credit for a catch? Collapsing to the ground makes them a runner in that case, which makes zero sense.

4. Where did Pereira "reverse himself" and now say that the Dez play was called wrong back in that Green Bay game?

Blandino boondoggles aside, you will never see the answers to these questions from catch theorists, and for good reason. Because they are wrong in their "creations" that have no support anywhere in the sports world, even with all the controversy surrounding this play. So yeah, just make stuff up and get a bunch of uninformed people behind us to make it seem true. Yay!

 

[KJJ]

We've reached that point in this thread that we reached in the other thread, only it's 90-something pages sooner here, lol.

That’s only because we’re on the heels of the other Dez thread that’s still going after 145+ pages in the drama section. They should just merge all these threads into one big thread and leave it in the drama zone. This is just a continuation of every Dez thread that’s been posted. It’s the same arguments and the same cut-and-paste material from Percy. I don’t think Percy has typed anything new in the past year, he just cuts and pastes the same old material. lol

 

[BlindFaith]

I have to admit the still photos were hilarious. Too bad I wasn't around when they were posted. Straight up amateur hour.

The people I feel bad for (if there are any) are those who really want to try to understand the rule and play as it happened but can't see where things are being twisted versus what the rules say and when they actually apply. They also have the added threat of people labeling them "not a real fan" if they do agree that the play was called correctly by the rules. The old, "we'll exclude you from the lunch table if you don't agree with what we agree with" game. Mob mentality.

Yes. My involvement in this is to just provide clarity to those who want to understand how the rule is being enforced.

And this time around I did look much further into the case plays. Comparing them. Trying to make sense of them. Understanding the intent. I have been accused of guessing at the intent. But since I'm not a ref and don't go to the meetings and conferences where they do discuss intent, I can only base my view on what the rules say and how they are explained by the officials.

And the intent of the rule is to provide protection to a player going to the ground while trying to make a catch. That's it. Eliminate fumbles.

That's why not any act common is allowed. That's why the only acts referred to on the rules are time, brace and regain balance. That's why you can't look at the acts defined for an upright runner to those going to the ground. The other side wants us to believe it would have been impossible to list them all under going to the ground. But why not just say in AR 15 that the player makes any act common? But they dont. They are very specific in that case play to say TIME + lunge.

And the other two case plays that are directly under player going to the ground, the only ones that indicate some sort of action that can complete the process say BRACE and REGAIN BALANCE. Not one that says a reach or lunge or extra steps complete the process. They actually say lunge does not complete the process. But is still required to demonstrate that the process had been completed.

Those things are in the rules. Nothing else. Again, if any act fulfilled the catch process, couldn't they have at least one example? But they don't.

That is the ONLY aspect that even somewhat merits a debate. What is falling. What is going to the ground. Those things arent, or shouldnt, even be debatable.

So anyone reading this, use common sense, read the rules and decide. Don't let conspiracy cloud your opinion.

 

[BlindFaith]

Serious question here. Does anyone still believe the thread title? Did we at least debunk that conspiracy?

 

[Bleedblue1111]

The best example of is what two feet down means is the Julius Thomas play, the Larry Fitzgerald play and the Ertz play. All three of those players had both feet firmly planted on the ground when they made the catch. That’s two feet down! When a receiver goes into the air to catch a football and lands on both feet while their momentum is taking them to the ground that’s not having two feet down. Not only do some not understand what going to the ground means but some don’t understand what having two feet down means.

Yet, Dez's play was more spectacular than Ertz's play, but one is rewarded as a catch, and the other one isn't. Clearly, why it's a stupid rule. From what I've seen you say in some posts, I'm sure you agree.

I hope most agree this rule is way too subjective. Too much judgement required to establish the "going to the ground" narrative. Because of that, the call on field should have stood. Imo

 

[MarcusRock]

Yet, Dez's play was more spectacular than Ertz's play, but one is rewarded as a catch, and the other one isn't. Clearly, why it's a stupid rule. From what I've seen you say in some posts, I'm sure you agree. I hope most agree this rule is way too subjective. Too much judgement required to establish "the going to the ground" narrative. Because of that, the call on field probably should have stood.

The catch rule has subjectivity all in it. The 3-part rule for a receiver on their feet is control, 2 feet, and time. 2 feet is pretty factual. Control can be subjective because there's a note in the rule that says "a slight movement" of the ball is okay. "Slight" is not defined anywhere so that's pure judgment and why that Eagles RB in the SB probably had his TD upheld because the ball did move a little. Time, or "time enough" to complete an act in 2014, is pure judgment as well. There's no magic stopwatch to determine "time enough" to perform an act. This is especially true when a defender bear hugs a receiver right away so that he can't perform an act. If the ball gets stripped out you have to judge if he had the ball "time enough" for it to be a fumble or just an incompletion if not. So even if they remove the going to the ground requirements, you might still have controversial calls that again have come down to judgments, especially if the ball is pried loose or if there's a little more than "slight movement" of the ball.

 

[KJJ]

Yet, Dez's play was more spectacular than Ertz's play, but one is rewarded as a catch, and the other one isn't. Clearly, why it's a stupid rule. From what I've seen you say in some posts, I'm sure you agree.

I hope most agree this rule is way too subjective. Too much judgement required to establish the "going to the ground" narrative. Because of that, the call on field should have stood. Imo

Dez’s play was more spectacular than Ertz’s which required him to complete a process. Dez had to go up for the ball and battle a defender for it while Ertz simply had to catch the ball and turn up field, which immediately established him as a runner. Ertz didn’t have to hold the ball through the ground because he established himself as a runner prior to going to the ground. The rule is stupid because it forces a receiver who’s falling to the ground during the catch process to have to hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

If the ground knocks the ball loose it’s a no catch. A rule is stupid when it overturns obvious catches. The rule makes it increasingly difficult for receiver who’s caught the ball while falling to the ground to make a great athletic play by reaching the ball towards the end zone with one hand, because the ball impacting the ground usually causes it to come loose. Under the rule that overturns the catch. The “going to the ground” part of the rule has overturned at least a couple of terrific plays the past 8 years.

 

[MarcusRock]

Dez’s play was more spectacular than Ertz’s which required him to complete a process. Dez had to go up for the ball and battle a defender for it while Ertz simply had to catch the ball and turn up field, which immediately established him as a runner. Ertz didn’t have to hold the ball through the ground because he established himself as a runner prior to going to the ground. The rule is stupid because it forces a receiver who’s falling to the ground during the catch process to have to hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

If the ground knocks the ball loose it’s a no catch. A rule is stupid when it overturns obvious catches. The rule makes it increasingly difficult for receiver who’s caught the ball while falling to the ground to make a great athletic play by reaching the ball towards the end zone with one hand, because the ball impacting the ground usually causes it to come loose. Under the rule that overturns the catch. The “going to the ground” part of the rule has overturned at least a couple of terrific plays the past 8 years.

I don't think the rule is stupid necessarily. The way I think about the going to the ground rule is that it serves as a substitute for when the 3-part process hasn't been satisfied. How would diving catches be ruled where a receiver dives, gets control, and immediately loses the ball on impact? There wasn't 2 feet, and there was no act. On an all-out diving catch, you can't perform an act. Is that going to be deemed "time enough" now? How much of a dive is "time enough," or are all dives no matter how small "time enough? " If he's untouched, that is a fumble and a nearby DB can scoop it up and return it.

Is it harder for receivers now? Yes. But if you take it away, you're asking for a fumble fest. I think it works fine as is but they want to "dumb it down" for the consumers who don't want to take the time to read the rulebook and are used to just reacting to headlines and only what the announcers say.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

The catch rule has subjectivity all in it. The 3-part rule for a receiver on their feet is control, 2 feet, and time. 2 feet is pretty factual. Control can be subjective because there's a note in the rule that says "a slight movement" of the ball is okay. "Slight" is not defined anywhere so that's pure judgment and why that Eagles RB in the SB probably had his TD upheld because the ball did move a little. Time, or "time enough" to complete an act in 2014, is pure judgment as well. There's no magic stopwatch to determine "time enough" to perform an act. This is especially true when a defender bear hugs a receiver right away so that he can't perform an act. If the ball gets stripped out you have to judge if he had the ball "time enough" for it to be a fumble or just an incompletion if not. So even if they remove the going to the ground requirements, you might still have controversial calls that again have come down to judgments, especially if the ball is pried loose or if there's a little more than "slight movement" of the ball.

I think it would be better that way. At least players making acrobatic catches are rewarded for literally going all out to make a play. Yep, some may turn into fumbles though.

 

[KJJ]

I don't think the rule is stupid necessarily.

The “going to the ground” part of the rule is ridiculous. It’s allowing the ground to overturn obvious catches. They’re saying the ground can’t cause a fumble but they’ve allowed the ground to overturn great plays involving obvious catches. That part of the rule has caused most of the controversy and frustration which is why the league is looking into removing it. If it looks like a catch on replay then rule it a catch.

 

[blueblood70]

I’m just curious when they’ll admit Hitchins commited PI on Pettigrew? Did Morelli know about the conspiracy against the Cowboys which is why he picked up the flag after throwing it? To actually help the Cowboys?

I also still wonder why the GB game depended on one catch? Why could we not beat a gimpy, one legged Aaron Rodgers who was limping around playing in one the most basic offenses I’ve ever seen him run due to his immobility? That was the most frustrating part to me, we couldn’t beat a severely hobbled QB...that’s pathetic, even if it AR or Brady.

that play with hitch should have been and call and reversed as such.,.like has been said the receiver grabbed and initiated contact with the facemask and than hitch made contact after..thats ano call or should have went against Detroit as he grabbed first.. seriously sometimes people forget the entire play or series of events.. also another plaoff gaff was the seatle game when romo fumbled the FG snap..the play before witten did make the first down and should have been first and goal, FG should not even been attempted..its crazy how many playoff games the cowboys have been shafted in....if there were replay in the 70s Pittsburgh would have two losses and us two more SB wins..

 

[blueblood70]

The “going to the ground” part of the rule is ridiculous. It’s allowing the ground to overturn obvious catches. They’re saying the ground can’t cause a fumble but they’ve allowed the ground to overturn great plays involving obvious catches. That part of the rule has caused most of the controversy and frustration which is why the league is looking into removing it.

fully agree

 

[KJJ]

Just received alerts from Bleedblue and blublood. Thought that was interesting.

 

[BlindFaith]

Dez’s play was more spectacular than Ertz’s which required him to complete a process. Dez had to go up for the ball and battle a defender for it while Ertz simply had to catch the ball and turn up field, which immediately established him as a runner. Ertz didn’t have to hold the ball through the ground because he established himself as a runner prior to going to the ground. The rule is stupid because it forces a receiver who’s falling to the ground during the catch process to have to hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

If the ground knocks the ball loose it’s a no catch. A rule is stupid when it overturns obvious catches. The rule makes it increasingly difficult for receiver who’s caught the ball while falling to the ground to make a great athletic play by reaching the ball towards the end zone with one hand, because the ball impacting the ground usually causes it to come loose. Under the rule that overturns the catch. The “going to the ground” part of the rule has overturned at least a couple of terrific plays the past 8 years.

Just don't reach. Simple answer. Secure the ball first.

 

[blueblood70]

Just received alerts from Bleedblue and blublood. Thought that was interesting.

well my blood is really blue but bleeds red, if his bleeds blue he might need to see a doctor