Done with the NFLs officiating

[Kevinicus]

Going to the ground and touching the ground can occur by a player falling while trying to make a catch or diving after a football. When a player is going to the ground the process isn't complete until after they come in contact with the ground. Go argue this with Blandino, Pereira or an NFL official and explain to them how you think it should be ruled.

I would love to, but even if I was granted that opportunity, I'm not sure they are intelligent enough to understand.

 

[Kevinicus]

Going to the ground and towards the ground are the same thing you're ending up on the ground unless a player can defy gravity. Not even Bo Jackson could do that.

"TO the ground" implies touching the ground. To do this DURING the process, means that the process wasn't complete when there is contact. If the process is complete prior, then they did not go TO the ground. They may have gone TOWARDS it, but not TO.

 

[Derinyar]

You're the one who does't understand the rule book I've repeated the rule and posted it to you and you still don't get it.

The problem is you're applying an exception to the base rule. The base rule doesn't discuss going to the ground. The base rule describes what it takes to complete a catch. It includes three parts. Once those three parts are complete the process of the catch is complete, period. If those three parts are not completed then you look to the subrules below to see if there's an exception that allows for the completion of a pass without the fulfillment of the basic rules. That's where Item 1, which is your whole argument, comes in.

Your argument isn't supported by what the NFL has said about this. They said they were looking for evidence of a football move on replay and didn't see 'enough of one". If what you are saying it correct and the football move isn't relevant, why do they bother talking about it.

Follow the logic through.

Completed or Intercepted Pass.
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward
pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by
the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms p rior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground in bounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands
; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining
control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).


So the process of catch is completed when A, B and C are finished. Now what happens when A, B, and C are not completed.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching
a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball
throughout the process of contacting
the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches
the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching
the ground, the pass is complete

The problem with your argument is simple. Item 1 only applies if he is in the process of completing the catch. If Dez has performed a football move the process of the catch is complete prior to him going to the ground. You're trying to apply the rules backward. Item 1 applies only when the process of the catch isn't completed, so a football move is the only thing that does matter in this discussion. Because A and B had been done by any reasonable measure, the Refs and NFL never implied they were looking for either of those. The Refs and NFL were commenting about C.

 

[KJJ]

"TO the ground" implies touching the ground. To do this DURING the process, means that the process wasn't complete when there is contact. If the process is complete prior, then they did not go TO the ground. They may have gone TOWARDS it, but not TO.

Going to the ground means you haven't arrived yet on the ground means you have. Go preach to the ones who make the rules.

 

[KJJ]

The problem is you're applying an exception to the base rule. The base rule doesn't discuss going to the ground. The base rule describes what it takes to complete a catch. It includes three parts. Once those three parts are complete the process of the catch is complete, period. If those three parts are not completed then you look to the subrules below to see if there's an exception that allows for the completion of a pass without the fulfillment of the basic rules. That's where Item 1, which is your whole argument, comes in.

Your argument isn't supported by what the NFL has said about this. They said they were looking for evidence of a football move on replay and didn't see 'enough of one". If what you are saying it correct and the football move isn't relevant, why do they bother talking about it.

Follow the logic through.

Completed or Intercepted Pass.
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward
pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by
the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms p rior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground in bounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands
; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining
control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).


So the process of catch is completed when A, B and C are finished. Now what happens when A, B, and C are not completed.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching
a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball
throughout the process of contacting
the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches
the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching
the ground, the pass is complete

The problem with your argument is simple. Item 1 only applies if he is in the process of completing the catch. If Dez has performed a football move the process of the catch is complete prior to him going to the ground. You're trying to apply the rules backward. Item 1 applies only when the process of the catch isn't completed, so a football move is the only thing that does matter in this discussion. Because A and B had been done by any reasonable measure, the Refs and NFL never implied they were looking for either of those. The Refs and NFL were commenting about C.

There isn't any problem with my argument there's a problem with the rule. Go talk to those who can change the rule.

 

[Kevinicus]

Going to the ground means you haven't arrived yet on the ground means you have. Go preach to the ones who make the rules.

A player didn't go to the ground until they hit the ground. If they're an inch off the ground, they're close to the ground, but not to the ground.

 

[Kevinicus]

There isn't any problem with my argument there's a problem with the rule. Go talk to those who can change the rule.

Which rule? You ignore the heart of the completion rule to apply a part that isn't applicable.

 

[KJJ]

A player didn't go to the ground until they hit the ground. If they're an inch off the ground, they're close to the ground, but not to the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

When a player is going to the ground the process isn't complete until after they come in contact with the ground.

"Process" shouldn't even come into it. The "process" rule only applies when the receiver is NOT contacted after getting two feet down. The official on the field ruled that Dez was down by contact. The replay official either...

a) disagreed with the field judge that Dez was contacted (meaning he has to see clear evidence that there was no contact in order to overturn the field judge's ruling), or...

b) saw the contact, but judged that the contact was incidental to Dez's fall (meaning he has to see clear evidence that the contact was incidental in order to overturn the field judge's ruling).

 

[KJJ]

Which rule? You ignore the heart of the completion rule to apply a part that isn't applicable.

I'm not going to keep going through the same things I've posted since after the game Sunday with everyone who wants to keep arguing this. Go air out your grievances with the league!

 

[KJJ]

"Process" shouldn't even come into it. The "process" rule only applies when the receiver is NOT contacted after getting two feet down. The official on the field ruled that Dez was down by contact. The replay official either...

a) disagreed with the field judge that Dez was contacted (meaning he has to see clear evidence that there was no contact in order to overturn the field judge's ruling), or...

b) saw the contact, but judged that the contact was incidental to Dez's fall (meaning he has to see clear evidence that the contact was incidental in order to overturn the field judge's ruling).

Go explain that to Blandino.

 

[speedkilz88]

Yeah, those are winning arguments. not.

 

[percyhoward]

Go explain that to Blandino.

They're Blandino's words.

 

[KJJ]

They're Blandino's words.

I know so he's the guy you need to be talking to.

 

[KJJ]

Yeah, those are winning arguments. not.

You're kidding yourself if you think anyone Including an expert is going to win a rules argument on this board involving a call that didn't favor the Cowboys. lol

 

[JoeBoBBY]

It was a Catch.

Anybody arguing that it wasn't a Catch, including the NFL officials don't stand a chance; Blandino is coming off as an idiot right about now.

He is losing mountains of credibility imho.....

Someone should be fired for this debacle or maybe sent back to "referee school university"

 

[JoeBoBBY]

You're kidding yourself if you think anyone Including an expert is going to win a rules argument on this board involving a call that didn't favor the Cowboys. lol

Go look at what others are saying about. People who have no love in the Cowboys or stake otherwise...

 

[DallasEast]

The problem is you're applying an exception to the base rule. The base rule doesn't discuss going to the ground. The base rule describes what it takes to complete a catch. It includes three parts. Once those three parts are complete the process of the catch is complete, period. If those three parts are not completed then you look to the subrules below to see if there's an exception that allows for the completion of a pass without the fulfillment of the basic rules. That's where Item 1, which is your whole argument, comes in.

Your argument isn't supported by what the NFL has said about this. They said they were looking for evidence of a football move on replay and didn't see 'enough of one". If what you are saying it correct and the football move isn't relevant, why do they bother talking about it.

Follow the logic through.

Completed or Intercepted Pass.
A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward
pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by
the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms p rior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground in bounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands
; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining
control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).


So the process of catch is completed when A, B and C are finished. Now what happens when A, B, and C are not completed.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching
a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball
throughout the process of contacting
the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches
the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching
the ground, the pass is complete

The problem with your argument is simple. Item 1 only applies if he is in the process of completing the catch. If Dez has performed a football move the process of the catch is complete prior to him going to the ground. You're trying to apply the rules backward. Item 1 applies only when the process of the catch isn't completed, so a football move is the only thing that does matter in this discussion. Because A and B had been done by any reasonable measure, the Refs and NFL never implied they were looking for either of those. The Refs and NFL were commenting about C.

In my opinion, "C" and anything pertaining to "process going to ground" should be excised from the rule. Officials should be given language devoid of as much subjective interpretation as humanly possible. Any play that involves the ground should be the same for every ballcarrier. If an official believes the ground negatively influenced control of the ball AFTER the receiver gained control of the pass, it should be deemed a fumble.

"C" and "process going to ground" are interpreted by the only people that matter: the officials. An incorrect interpretation has only one conclusion: it screws that particular team. It will screw other teams. Remove the nonsense and address the validity of the rule.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Dez was going to the ground in the process of making the catch have you not seen the replay? Here's a quote from Dean Blandino "Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete."

You forgot to mention that Dez had clearly gotten in 3 steps before lunging into the endzone and which the ground caused the fumble. Your argument would stand a better chance if you had your facts straight.

 

[speedkilz88]

You forgot to mention that Dez had clearly gotten in 3 steps before lunging into the endzone and which the ground caused the fumble. Your argument would stand a better chance if you had your facts straight.

He can't even get the succession of rules straight.