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

KJJ said:
I’m just going by what I’ve seen and by what Mike Pereira said. If anyone has a video of a Raiders receiver having the same thing happen I would love to see it and see what year it was. The Johnson play made big news because everyone was shocked that the catch was overturned. First time I had ever seen anything like that and couldn’t believe a rule like that existed.
Click to expand...

And watch the whole thing. There is a perfect example that Pereira talks about where a WR gets smashed at the same time he gets two feet down and it's a fumble. Exactly why they put back in become a runner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G2
BlindFaith said:
Click to expand...


First time I’ve seen that play. That’s exactly like the plays we’ve seen with Johnson and Dez. What a crazy rule. The league appears to be ready to do something about it. That play should add a new element to these debates.
 
Why do so many like to torture yourselves?
 
MarcusRock said:
No. That's what the conspiracy theorists say happened. But maybe you meant that.

"Time enough" to commit an act was replaced with "clearly become a runner" which likewise can be demonstrated with an act or time so nothing changed there. "Upright long enough" is just a descriptor for when someone is considered to be going to the ground. That descriptor didn't exist before so they attempted to clarify what refs were using to judge slapping the going to the ground tag on someone.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
KJJ said:
First time I’ve seen that play. That’s exactly like the plays we’ve seen with Johnson and Dez. What a crazy rule. The league appears to be ready to do something about it. That play should add a new element to these debates.
Click to expand...
It should have no bearing. The rules were changed 2 years later to include become a runner. When that play happened they did not have to make an act common or become a runner.
 
BlindFaith said:
It should have no bearing. The rules were changed 2 years later to include become a runner. When that play happened they did not have to make an act common or become a runner.
Click to expand...

They’ll get rid of the “going to the ground” part of the rule. It’s ridiculous! Another play where the receiver was going up to make the catch. Do you know if that was a regular season or preseason game? Never seen the refs dressed in that color scheme.
 
MarcusRock said:
No. That's what the conspiracy theorists say happened. But maybe you meant that.

"Time enough" to commit an act was replaced with "clearly become a runner" which likewise can be demonstrated with an act or time so nothing changed there. "Upright long enough" is just a descriptor for when someone is considered to be going to the ground. That descriptor didn't exist before so they attempted to clarify what refs were using to judge slapping the going to the ground tag on someone.
Click to expand...
Did you read what you wrote? The removed act common to the game, and added upright long enough, that you just said didn't exist before, but it didn't change?:huh:
 
KJJ said:
They’ll get rid of the “going to the ground” part of the rule. It’s ridiculous! Another play where the receiver was going up to make the catch. Do you know if that was a regular season or preseason game? Never seen the refs dressed in that color scheme.
Click to expand...
Regular season. Throwback for the refs
 
Tbh, I went from thinking the pass was incomplete when I first saw it in real time to thinking the overturn was a terrible call—all thanks to the kinds of arguments and research seen in this thread.
 
blindzebra said:
Did you read what you wrote? The removed act common to the game, and added upright long enough, that you just said didn't exist before, but it didn't change?:huh:
Click to expand...

We're talking rule essence. That's beyond the grasp of people who solely operate in the world of literal.
 
ScipioCowboy said:
Tbh, I went from thinking the pass was incomplete when I first saw it in real time to thinking the overturn was a terrible call—all thanks to the kinds of arguments and research seen in this thread.
Click to expand...
Glad to know there are open-minded and level headed posters on the forum.
 
KJJ said:
They’ll get rid of the “going to the ground” part of the rule. It’s ridiculous! Another play where the receiver was going up to make the catch. Do you know if that was a regular season or preseason game? Never seen the refs dressed in that color scheme.
Click to expand...
Maybe. That's about the only thing they haven't tried yet. But then at what point do you rule it a catch. Many scenarios they have to think about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 118 more.
Total: 7,263 (members: 218, guests: 7,045)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,054
Messages
13,786,136
Members
23,771
Latest member
LandryHat
Back
Top