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

[blindzebra]

https://www.dawgsbynature.com/2015/1/11/7528861/did-dez-bryant-make-the-catch-browns-players-react

 

[blindzebra]

http://sports.cbslocal.com/2015/10/...-on-some-of-the-nfls-most-questionable-calls/

 

[blindzebra]

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/01/upon_further_review_alcom_read.html

 

[Beast_from_East]

It matters because it was a watershed moment. The success of the NFL is, more than anything, contingent on images. What do we see before the NFL shield comes up? The Catch. It’s the displays of athletic prowess that fans enjoying seeing and reliving over and over again, hence the success of NFL Films and highlight shows. People love rewatching game-winning catches and hard hits.

The Dez Bryant Catch was the kind of play destined to live on through NFL Films...until it was overturned. Fans were robbed of something momentous. And if Aaron Rodgers had taken Green Bay down the field right after for the win, fans were robbed of a stirring comeback. They got neither and a whole lot of drama-killing rule ambiguity.

The NFL is built on images. One was taken away due to an absurd interpretation of an equally absurdly written rule. Without those images, the league is nothing. It’s no coincidence ratings have declined in the years following the Dez overturn. I used to watch all things NFL. Not so anymore. Now, I find myself paying less attention to Cowboys games. My increasing disinterest began that January.

I agree with you my friend, but that moment has passed...............nothing the NFL does now will ever change what happened that day.

The NFL can announce tomorrow morning, "sorry fans, we goofed, Dez did catch it".

Won't change a dam thing, you still got robbed of your "image".

 

[MarcusRock]

Look like a runner being someone stanfing up running. That is not what a runmer is in the NFL. But hey it's an article so it counts as support. You said so yourself. The crap you posted did not offer anything in-depth and just echoed their understanding based on the PR comments the NFL gave them. They did not break down the rule and case plays and other rulings or the changes implemented. It's all useless. Just like your trolling.

LOL. Proving you can't come up with anything but crap is not trolling. It's making a point. Here's another gem I missed the first time:

This was initially ruled a catch on the field, but after review it was decided that Bryant was still in the process making the catch when he hit the ground and fumbled it.​

Hahaha. This idiot can't even recap the situation correctly. Hey, wait a minute. The author's first name is Kevin. Is this an article that you .... No, it can't be. You write better than this garbage. Please tell me this isn't your article Kevin. I almost want to link to it in the future just to make people laugh.

 

[Beast_from_East]

How about this guys................can we all just agree that the catch rule is highly subjective and open to interpretation?

The three most controversial catches have been Calvin Johnson's, Dez Bryant's, and Jesse James. If you watch all three catches in real time, they all look like good catches. Its only when you slow it down to super slow-mo that you can make an argument that it doesn't comply with the catch rule.

So its seems like to fix the catch rule it would be very simple, if it looks like a catch in real time, its a catch. All three of those catches I mentioned look good in real time, so do away with this super slow-mo, frame-by-frame, 10 min review of catches.

 

[DogFace]

Spin, avoid, distract. Glad to know you haven't read any of the case plays. The only factual thing you've said this whole time.

What about when I said @MarcusRock ’s jokes were really bad?

 

[DogFace]

Spin and non answering of questions. Show me where AR 15 is in the 2013 rules.

You’re making things up again.

You claim the rules for 2013 and 2014 were changed. The video examples show the catch process can be made while falling. The Calvin play, in particular, is very similar to the Dez catch and it was ruled it would’ve been a catch had he gotten two feet down prior to the reach and that he didn’t have to maintain possession when he contacted the ground. You incorrectly said earlier It would’ve have been a catch even if he had gotten two feet down—I corrected you with Blandio’s explanation and quotes that you somehow missed.

So, I asked a simple question. Would the Dez play had been ruled complete correctly under the 2013 rules?

 

[JoeKing]

I agree with you my friend, but that moment has passed...............nothing the NFL does now will ever change what happened that day.

The NFL can announce tomorrow morning, "sorry fans, we goofed, Dez did catch it".

Won't change a dam thing, you still got robbed of your "image".

There has to be a price put on the NFL's blunder. The chance to win a NFC playoff game is rare and meaningful. You are right, the past can not be changed but this "robbery" can be used to mitigate the present when the NFL is now coming at Jerry Jones for monetary compenation for their own railroad job of Zeke. Never let a serious crisis go to waste.

 

[DogFace]

For an upright player.

Can you not understand the going to the ground rule? If a player goes to the ground IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING A CATCH.

Was Dez ever in the process of making a catch? Did Dez go to the ground?

The only acts in the rules for what can be done by a player going to the ground are:

AR 15 Defining the act common. The only act common. Time +lunge

8.12 Under going to the ground to clarify the time element from AR 15
brace + lunge

8.13 Further clarification of what the time element is
Regains balance + lunge

Those are the only things in the rulebook. You adding whatever you want does not count. You saying, we'll they can't add everything, does not count.

If it was to be enforced that way they would have just said in AR 15 any act common instead of time + lunge.

Then have a couple case plays where a guy JUST reaches, or switches hands or takes extra steps. But they don't. Both case plays refer to gathering themselves and then lunging. And that is all.

Geeze. How can you not see that?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

He said reached. Not lunged.

What do you think any act common to the game means?

 

[percyhoward]

It doesn't say enough time to lunge. It says time and then a separate act of lunging. What is time?

Then and now, the catch process was and is control + 2 feet + time. "Time" is what we all know it is. Before 2015, the time requirement was met when the player had held onto the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. Since 2015, the time requirement is met when he remains upright long enough.

So before 2015, you could perform an act common to the game while falling and complete the catch process, even if you hadn't been upright at all. Since 2015, you cannot.

 

[DallasEast]

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.

Reasons vary and are as diverse as individuals’ personalities. No one can name every reason although you singled out two of them: love to argue and agenda. Additional reasons are based in some believing they are teaching. Others feel an overwhelming need to defend the rules. There are those seeking a logical conclusion of their own choosing while others want vindication. There is no way of listing every reason.

Perhaps it is good enough accepting the never ending insanity provides inner satisfaction. Who knows? History demonstrates zealots cannot be restricted or constrained by others or even by their own selves. Maybe it is just that simple.

 

[OmerV]

100% Wrong. A case play is exactly meant to represent different scenarios that fall under the same rules. In this case, the scenarios covered were completing the catch process while already falling. The specific case play used a lunge/brace, but multiple other acts would be covered. The case play is clear, unless you are willfully trying not to understand it.

lol - sorry, but you are lost. "A case play" ... "A play" ... "A". It's singular, not plural.

A "case play" is a specific case, just as "case law" is looking at a specific case that applies to a legal situation, and the best or worst "case scenario" refers to a specific case involving the best or worst possible outcome. The point of a case play is to take out some of the uncertainty in a situation, not create it by leaving it up to anyone to interpret it's application anyway they see fit.

 

[OmerV]

What is your take of this explanation by Blandino.
Marcus**** ignored it. Blindfaith says the rules changed after 2013. After scolding me for not reading the rules he was corrected by blindzebra and instructed the rules hadn’t changed.

In the video Calvin is very clearly going to the ground the entire play. Blandino said it would’ve been a catch had he been able to get two feet down prior to the reach.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

You've got my attention with this. Blandino seems to indicate that a player can be established as a runner if going to the ground. This doesn't necessarily change the reason for the ruling with Dez, but it does indicate that had Dez been able to establish better footing and make a more pronounced/definitive dive/reach for the goal line he could have been ruled a runner.

 

[Kevinicus]

LOL. Proving you can't come up with anything but crap is not trolling. It's making a point. Here's another gem I missed the first time:

This was initially ruled a catch on the field, but after review it was decided that Bryant was still in the process making the catch when he hit the ground and fumbled it.​

Hahaha. This idiot can't even recap the situation correctly. Hey, wait a minute. The author's first name is Kevin. Is this an article that you .... No, it can't be. You write better than this garbage. Please tell me this isn't your article Kevin. I almost want to link to it in the future just to make people laugh.

You may want to educate yourself on the definition of the term "fumble."

noun
noun: fumble; plural noun: fumbles

1. 1.
   • AMERICAN FOOTBALL
     an act of dropping or losing control of the ball, sometimes causing a turnover.
     "his fumble was recovered on the 6-yard line"
   • (in other ball games) an act of failing to catch or field the ball cleanly.
     synonyms: slip, mistake, error, gaffe; More

It is not a fumble in the sense that it is a live ball and can change possession, but he did have control of it and lost it. That's what happens when you fumble something.

Your absurd tangent on yet another logical fallacy is embarrassing and juvenile. I suggest you look up some logical fallacies and educate yourself. In particular, Straw Man, Circular Argument, Red Herring (this article nonsense is a good example), Appeal to Authority, Bandwagon fallacy (another thing you're going for with your "Additional support"), etc. Look them up. There are many more. This applies to your friends too.

 

[Kevinicus]

You've got my attention with this. Blandino seems to indicate that a player can be established as a runner if going to the ground. This doesn't necessarily change the reason for the ruling with Dez, but it does indicate that had Dez been able to establish better footing and make a more pronounced/definitive dive/reach for the goal line he could have been ruled a runner.

Hey, that's at least progress. Congratulations.

 

[Kevinicus]

lol - sorry, but you are lost. "A case play" ... "A play" ... "A". It's singular, not plural.

A "case play" is a specific case, just as "case law" is looking at a specific case that applies to a legal situation, and the best or worst "case scenario" refers to a specific case involving the best or worst possible outcome. The point of a case play is to take out some of the uncertainty in a situation, not create it by leaving it up to anyone to interpret it's application anyway they see fit.

The case play offers a single play to provide guidance on a rule concept. That concept (at least in this instance), and thus the case play, covers multiple similar scenarios. This isn't complicated. This case play does take out any uncertainty and makes it crystal clear - the process trumps "going to the ground." Or I should say "trumped" since they changed it.

 

[MarcusRock]

You may want to educate yourself on the definition of the term "fumble."


It is not a fumble in the sense that it is a live ball and can change possession, but he did have control of it and lost it. That's what happens when you fumble something.

Your absurd tangent on yet another logical fallacy is embarrassing and juvenile. I suggest you look up some logical fallacies and educate yourself. In particular, Straw Man, Circular Argument, Red Herring (this article nonsense is a good example), Appeal to Authority, Bandwagon fallacy (another thing you're going for with your "Additional support"), etc. Look them up. There are many more. This applies to your friends too.

You didn't answer the question. Did you write that nonsense?

And if you have to explain what the article meant in 2 different places, it's obvious whoever wrote this isn't even up on simple football terminology. It's the equivalent of a mommy blog, except it's an obvious casual fan guy talking about sports. I mean, the basic premise of the "outrage" concerning the play is that if it looks like a catch, it should be one. Here, this guy states that Dez doesn't look like a runner. Using the same logic, he should not be deemed a runner which would make going to the ground applicable, but this guy is arguing against that in the same "article," lol. You talk about embarrassing trotting this crap out? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just say you didn't have additional support, lol. So I get why you have to lie and claim that the additional support I posted is just parroting what the NFL said. One of them has a section titled "Analysis" meaning they did the comparison and the author came to a conclusion himself just like the other 2 articles. The real question is if you actually wrote this piece. Did you?

 

[BlindFaith]

What about when I said @MarcusRock ’s jokes were really bad?

No. I chuckled a bit.

 

[BlindFaith]

So, I asked a simple question. Would the Dez play had been ruled complete correctly under the 2013 rules?

It would have still been ruled correctly, no catch. Prior to 2014 there was no AR 15 (the golden case play that gets used to shoehorn in any possible act)