I do not see any difference between that play and the Dez play in 2014 *merged*

[Kevinicus]

I know what you’re saying. It seems like you’re reading more into the caseplay than is there.

Like you said, we have different opinions on if he would’ve stayed up. I just can’t imagine they want an official to determine if he would've stayed up with no contact and the contact forced him to fall or he could’ve stayed up without the contact. In this caseplay that is.

Aren’t these actual plays that happened? I think they’re simply describing exactly what happened in the play and how the rule applies. ? They can’t possibly come up with a case for every screnerio.
This play is just describing the 3 part process. IMO.

Again, I feel this play is nearly identical to the Dez catch and I don’t think this was exclusively for ruling that the player was going down from contact and only contact. I feel it would stress that it’s not for when a player may be losing balance or any combination of the two if that’s what they meant.

Especially when the rule their resting their entire argument on says "WITH or WITHOUT contact."

In either case, the case play destroys their interpretation of the rule, because they said that no matter what, if they were falling before completing the catch, they had to maintain possession. The case play proves that their interpretation was wrong. Now they're just playing games to not look dumb, but just making it worse.

 

[KJJ]

BS and more BS, we need foot waders up to our necks with you around.

The NFL announced the 2015 rule changes and did not include it as a change and that was what got reported by the media, they had no reason to question it because it was not part of the official announcement as a change. Blandino is the one that came out saying it was just a clarification, and that did raise some questions. In fact the article Blindfaith posted way back in the thread even mentioned that the new wording seemed to make the Dez play fit retroactively.
I explained in detail that the next day examples that Blandino used to explain the call never referred to Dez being upright long enough, but instead concentrated on football moves that were made and not made in the two 2014 plays. In both plays Dez did not perform a football move prior to going to the ground, so that contradicts the entire upright long enough change of 2015.

You’re the one spinning BS because you claimed the catch rule was changed. It’s clear you don’t know the difference between a rule clarification and a rule change. Instead of continuing to spin BS provide a link saying the catch rule was changed. All you’re doing is giving your take on everything. Try finding a respectable source that backs anything you’re saying. You won’t find any.

 

[KJJ]

Given them twice not doing it again, but by all means don't address the evidence, just ignore it and keep asking what facts.

Provide some links with facts that back anything you’ve said. Good luck! You’ve been going at this so long you’re starting to dig yourself a deep hole. Where are these facts? You don’t have any facts.

 

[KJJ]

No respectable source is going to support the nonsense that’s being posted here.

 

[BlindFaith]

so Blindzebra, who would it take to come in here and address this once and for all? You think Blandino and Periera are in on some conspiracy. Who else is in on it?

@Reality - How cool would it be for you to use your immense powers to bring in someone that is not on bz's conspiracy list qualified to settle this? Let them just make one post clarifying what the rule is or is not and was it or wasn't it a catch. Do it in the name of healing this Cowboys nation.

And any of you lurkers out there keeping tabs on this wonderful read, provide some bona fides if you are qualified and settle this once and for all. Provided you aren't on bz's conspiracy list.

 

[cern]

the secret to great wealth??????????start a furniture store. sell only couches and arm chairs. and only in cities having an nfl franchise.

 

[blindzebra]

No respectable source is going to support the nonsense that’s being posted here.

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/206794/nfls-2016-catch-rule-clip-and-save-it-right-here

Note the use of the word expunged when it comes to the 2015 rule. And that took one google search and it was on the first page.

Prepare for excuse making denial from KJJ in 3...2...1...

 

[blindzebra]

so Blindzebra, who would it take to come in here and address this once and for all? You think Blandino and Periera are in on some conspiracy. Who else is in on it?

@Reality - How cool would it be for you to use your immense powers to bring in someone that is not on bz's conspiracy list qualified to settle this? Let them just make one post clarifying what the rule is or is not and was it or wasn't it a catch. Do it in the name of healing this Cowboys nation.

And any of you lurkers out there keeping tabs on this wonderful read, provide some bona fides if you are qualified and settle this once and for all. Provided you aren't on bz's conspiracy list.

Ah , yes discredit the evidence with an insult. Why it happened is irrelevant to the discussion of it was called correctly.

 

[blindzebra]

Here is another of all the people paid to talk about football said.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...e-and-still-manages-to-create-more-confusion/

 

[KJJ]

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/206794/nfls-2016-catch-rule-clip-and-save-it-right-here

Note the use of the word expunged when it comes to the 2015 rule. And that took one google search and it was on the first page.

Prepare for excuse making denial from KJJ in 3...2...1...

Where did it say the rule was changed? Revising the rules wording isn’t changing the rule. Who in the media is spinning a conspiracy?

 

[blindzebra]

Here is what players had to say:

https://www.si.com/mmqb/2016/03/17/...rry-fitzgerald-golden-tate-tyler-eifert-odell

 

[blindzebra]

Where did it say the rule was changed? Revising the rules wording isn’t changing the rule. Who in the media is spinning a conspiracy?

What does expunged mean?
Love the goal post move, went from show a link that it changed to a conspiracy now...lol you are ridiculous.

If I had to guess, confusion this year will remain centered on whether the receiver has established himself as a runner. It's the successor to "making a football move," a term expunged from the rule book, and its 2016 explanation is more detailed than it was in 2015. To become a runner in 2016, a receiver must have possession after his second foot hits the ground, and at that point he must be "capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps."

 

[KJJ]

No one likes the rule but I haven’t seen anyone in the National media spinning a conspiracy.

 

[OmerV]

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/206794/nfls-2016-catch-rule-clip-and-save-it-right-here

Note the use of the word expunged when it comes to the 2015 rule. And that took one google search and it was on the first page.

Prepare for excuse making denial from KJJ in 3...2...1...

In the link you posted did you see this ....?

If the player goes to the ground before establishing as a runner -- i.e., in cases of Calvin Johnson in 2010 or Dez Bryant in the 2014 playoffs -- here is what the rule now says: "[He] must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with 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."

 

[blindzebra]

In the link you posted did you see this ....?

If the player goes to the ground before establishing as a runner -- i.e., in cases of Calvin Johnson in 2010 or Dez Bryant in the 2014 playoffs -- here is what the rule now says: "[He] must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with 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."

Did you even read it, it says in 2016 this is what the rule says.

But keep on spinning it, never doubted that you wouldn't, just like every other time you could not refute things.

 

[KJJ]

What does expunged mean?
Love the goal post move, went from show a link that it changed to a conspiracy now...lol you are ridiculous.

If I had to guess, confusion this year will remain centered on whether the receiver has established himself as a runner. It's the successor to "making a football move," a term expunged from the rule book, and its 2016 explanation is more detailed than it was in 2015. To become a runner in 2016, a receiver must have possession after his second foot hits the ground, and at that point he must be "capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps."

The term making a “football move” was expunged from the rulebook because no one understood exactly what it meant. You just continue to waste your time. lol Removing the term “football move” isn’t changing the rule.

 

[kskboys]

Over and over and over again. Seems like I just don't know when to say when!!!!!

 

[G2]

The term making a “football move” was expunged from the rulebook because no one understood exactly what it meant. You just continue to waste your time. lol

makes sense because it's such a general term. Literally anything during a game is a football move.

 

[KJJ]

makes sense because it's such a general term. Literally anything during a game is a football move.

No one knew exactly what it meant so they took it out. Supposedly it was put back in.

 

[cern]

makes sense because it's such a general term. Literally anything during a game is a football move.

if you've ever watched a pga event on the tube, you will often heard shots referred to as "good golf shots". I always wondered as opposed to what?