News: ESPN: NFL owners OK new catch rule by 32-0 vote

[BlindFaith]

So far, we've got three plays from before the 2015 rule change (Johnson, Cruz, Bryant) that clearly show that a player could complete the catch process with a reach while falling. We've got zero that show he couldn't. Find one, and you'll be onto something.

And we can disagree without having to label each other. I'm no more a "conspiracy theorist" than you are a sheep.

Show one where they completed the process while falling and it was ruled a catch.

Johnson wasn't ruled a catch. Dez wasn't ruled a catch.

Cruz was a borderline play. I can see how they ruled him to not be going to the ground. And that was from 2013. They also had the force out rule at the time. Where if a player would have came down in bounds but was forced out, they would still credit him with the catch. Could help explain the Cruz catch. It was in a different context.

So show me one example where the receiver was clearly going to the ground, made some move while falling, lost the ball and they still called it a catch. Just one.

 

[percyhoward]

Show one where they completed the process while falling and it was ruled a catch.

Johnson wasn't ruled a catch. Dez wasn't ruled a catch.

Cruz was a borderline play. I can see how they ruled him to not be going to the ground. And that was from 2013. They also had the force out rule at the time. Where if a player would have came down in bounds but was forced out, they would still credit him with the catch. Could help explain the Cruz catch. It was in a different context.

So show me one example where the receiver was clearly going to the ground, made some move while falling, lost the ball and they still called it a catch. Just one.

Completing parts A and B (control, two feet down) of the catch process meant that only part C (football move) remained to make you a runner. Prior to 2015 there was (and now again in 2018 there will be) no requirement to be upright while performing part C.

In all four of the following cases, part C was satisfied (or would have been satisfied) with a reach for the goal line. All four reaches were made while the player was going to the ground.

Johnson: No catch because he didn't complete part B before the reach (per Blandino).
Thomas: Catch, because he did (per Blandino).
Cruz: Catch, because the officials thought he completed B before the reach.
Bryant: No catch because the reach itself wasn't obvious enough (per Blandino).

Part C must come after parts A and B, which is why the Johnson play (2013) wasn't a catch, and also why the Cruz play should not have been a catch.

 

[blindzebra]

Show one where they completed the process while falling and it was ruled a catch.

Johnson wasn't ruled a catch. Dez wasn't ruled a catch.

Cruz was a borderline play. I can see how they ruled him to not be going to the ground. And that was from 2013. They also had the force out rule at the time. Where if a player would have came down in bounds but was forced out, they would still credit him with the catch. Could help explain the Cruz catch. It was in a different context.

So show me one example where the receiver was clearly going to the ground, made some move while falling, lost the ball and they still called it a catch. Just one.

Move the goal posts much?

 

[blindzebra]

Completing parts A and B (control, two feet down) of the catch process meant that only part C (football move) remained to make you a runner. Prior to 2015 there was (and now again in 2018 there will be) no requirement to be upright while performing part C.

In all four of the following cases, part C was satisfied (or would have been satisfied) with a reach for the goal line. All four reaches were made while the player was going to the ground.

Johnson: No catch because he didn't complete part B before the reach (per Blandino).
Thomas: Catch, because he did (per Blandino).
Cruz: Catch, because the officials thought he completed B before the reach.
Bryant: No catch because the reach itself wasn't obvious enough (per Blandino).

Part C must come after parts A and B, which is why the Johnson play (2013) wasn't a catch, and also why the Cruz play should not have been a catch.

It is no use Percy. No amount of proof will ever work. At this point Blandino himself could admit he blew it and BF would claim he just explained it poorly.

 

[BlindFaith]

Completing parts A and B (control, two feet down) of the catch process meant that only part C (football move) remained to make you a runner. Prior to 2015 there was (and now again in 2018 there will be) no requirement to be upright while performing part C.

In all four of the following cases, part C was satisfied (or would have been satisfied) with a reach for the goal line. All four reaches were made while the player was going to the ground.

Johnson: No catch because he didn't complete part B before the reach (per Blandino).
Thomas: Catch, because he did (per Blandino).
Cruz: Catch, because the officials thought he completed B before the reach.
Bryant: No catch because the reach itself wasn't obvious enough (per Blandino).

Part C must come after parts A and B, which is why the Johnson play (2013) wasn't a catch, and also why the Cruz play should not have been a catch.

Show me one example of a player who completed the catch process while falling and they ruled it a catch.

I'm not interested in your interpretations of what you think someone says. Not unless you want to address the countless other examples that you continously ignore.

 

[blindzebra]

Show me one example of a player who completed the catch process while falling and they ruled it a catch.

I'm not interested in your interpretations of what you think someone says. Not unless you want to address the countless other examples that you continously ignore.

More bravado and BS.

I find it so funny that someone who has their entire argument based on THEIR interpretation of the rule, that is based completely on the words of the guy who made the call in GB, has the nerve to talk down to people that provide actual proof.

 

[Kevinicus]

Show me one example of a player who completed the catch process while falling and they ruled it a catch.

I'm not interested in your interpretations of what you think someone says. Not unless you want to address the countless other examples that you continously ignore.

He just did. You've seen the examples. You've seen the videos. You are just truly blind to reality and the truth.

 

[percyhoward]

Show me one example of a player who completed the catch process while falling and they ruled it a catch.

Was two too many?

 

[BlindFaith]

Was two too many?

What? Do you have two hidden away somewhere? Because you haven't posted any.

Johnsons wasn't ruled a catch.

Thomas wasn't going to the ground.

Cruz was the closest. But his play in no way, shape or form resembles the Johnson play or the Dez play as whoever put that clip together seems to incorrectly think.

Got anything else?

 

[blindzebra]

What? Do you have two hidden away somewhere? Because you haven't posted any.

Johnsons wasn't ruled a catch.

Thomas wasn't going to the ground.

Cruz was the closest. But his play in no way, shape or form resembles the Johnson play or the Dez play as whoever put that clip together seems to incorrectly think.

Got anything else?

Moving the goal post at its finest.

No, Blandino just said had Johnson got the two feet down before the reach it would have been...translation...YOU ARE WRONG!

So in a segment on the Calvin Johnson Rule, where they make a direct comparison between the Johnson play, going to the ground, and the Thomas play...where he was less upright then Dez was when his second foot landed...wasn't going to the ground...translation...I AM WRONG SO I NEED TO MAKE UP CRAP TO COVER!

Johnson, Dez, and Cruz all jump to make a catch. Dez and Cruz both go to the ground based on contact. All three reached, all three were going to the ground. Yeah nothing alike...Translation...I AM COMPLETELY STUCK SO I HAVE TO DEMAND A PLAY WHERE A PLAYER JUMPS, LANDS ON ONE FOOT, GETS CONTROL, HAS THEIR SECOND FOOT COME DOWN, GETS CONTACTED BY THE DEFENDER, MOVES BALL TO LEFT HAND, TAKES A THIRD STEP, ATTEMPTS A BRACE AND LUNGE, AND REACHES THE BALL OUT...IF NOT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE DEZ PLAY.

And even if you got presented with one that was exactly the same, you'd still make up some BS excuse not to accept it.

 

[DogFace]

You don't understand the concept of the rule.

If you did, you could see why they ruled it a catch for Cruz. And you would see clearly why Johnsons was ruled not a catch.

Until you can acknowledge that, I can't help you. You can copy and paste all the rules you want, over and over. Find every obscure, boarder line play that they didn't explain it with thorough, precise and articulate language.

But it changes nothing. Instead, why don't you ever address the other 100 videos, explanations, comments, expert analysis?

You are a classic conspiracy theorist. There is an 80/20 concept that works well in life. If it works 80% of the time, or if 80% of the factual evidence supports a view, go with it. This whole catch conspiracy has only a handful of Cowboys fan with no factual evidence.

If you were to walk into a room of NFL officials and present your case, it would take them less than 5 minutes to tell you that you're wrong. They would leave chuckling and you would leave still saying they are wrong.

You are only somewhat relevant here with your view because you have some emotional Cowboys fans that never knew the rule and don't even want to bother understanding it, that just like to say "we wuz robbed".

Thats just the truth. You haven't proved anything. The NFL removing the going to the ground rule to make the Dez play a catch going forward should have shut this thing down.

But you have some desire to, what? What's your goal here? To convince the we wuz robbed fans that you unlocked a conspiracy? Because those handful of Cowboys fans are the only ones that may take you seriously.

I think you're a good dude. You provide a lot to this board. I ignore the other parrots that just regurgitate nonsense or flat out lie.

But I'm saying this as honestly as I can. You have and continue to misunderstand this part of the rule and how it was applied. And for whatever reason, simply refuse to accept the expert explanations. And only hang on to the thread of a couple of examples that were poorly explained.

You sir are a liar.

You flat out lied about the 2013 rules changing. You said they changed after Blandino’s video thus explaining why he contradicted himself and your entire stupid theory of what constituted a catch. You actually had the nerve and doubled down on that lie more than once.

You should be emabarased and ashamed.

Don’t get in these conversations anymore until you admit you’re a liar and apologize to all those that you offended.

Not us(those that were right)You owe liars all around the world an apology for attempting such a stupid lie and besmirching their name.

You lost the argument. Now you belittle yourself further by “parroting”(lame term) your girlfriend with words like that and idiotic phrases like we wuz robbed.

I once thought you had integrity. I was not smart that day.

 

[DogFace]

What? Do you have two hidden away somewhere? Because you haven't posted any.

Johnsons wasn't ruled a catch.

Thomas wasn't going to the ground.

Cruz was the closest. But his play in no way, shape or form resembles the Johnson play or the Dez play as whoever put that clip together seems to incorrectly think.

Got anything else?

Again? You have trouble understanding this. Or you are in denial. Literally.

Ask yourself why Johnson’s play wasn’t ruled a catch. Then listen to Blandino’s answer.

Johnson wasn’t ruled a catch because he didn’t get two feet down while he was falling prior to the reach. Blandino used this play as an example of what needed to be done to complete the 3 part process.

If had gotten two feet down it would’ve been. You admitted that before now you play even dumber to suit your silly narrative. Grow up. You lost. Face it.

I’ll add all the videos you say we ignore were after the Dez play and simply an attempt to confuse and it worked on you.