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

[DogFace]

You are dead wrong and obviously you were never an athlete

Clearly. A decent high school level athlete could see pulling out of that fall.

 

[DogFace]

LOL. Pereira's a professional. Oh wait, he didn't have the "right" opinion on the matter so he's not.

Many doesn’t mean the same as all.

 

[DogFace]

You misunderstood what I said or I wasn’t clear enough for you. He was going to the ground regardless if he could have stayed on his feet all the way to the endzone. He was falling to the ground from the time his left foot touched the turf. Just let it go!

Do you not see him leaning or definetly going to fall(as you say)more in the second photo? How did he keep from falling when he’s leaning a lot more?

 

[DallasEast]

CowboysZone.

Where a handful of members can disagree with the premise of a thread title, click on it anyway, disagree with another member’s argument, reply with a counter argument...

...and then camp within said thread for days (or weeks) like a guy with a megaphone in a Walmart parking lot.

 

[nathanlt]

In what bizarro world does a proposal about how a rule could look someday invalidate that he declared the Dez play as correctly ruled back in 2014? Heck, even in 2017 he linked Jesse James' no catch directly with Dez' no catch when he stated that going to the ground trumps the 3-part process but what would you rules "gurus" even know what to do with that? I guess ex-post facto proposal validation is a thing now, lol.

When it seems like normalcy is going to be restored when it comes to knowing what a catch is, I love it how the argument is moving toward, "I feel like it was a non-catch at that moment, even though the rule book said otherwise."

Most everyone knew that taking that catch away felt wrong at the time, and three years later, they're making statements to change things back. The rulebook itself never supported taking the catch away, but the unwritten intent and verbal PR damage control tried to just make the TAMPERING go away. Now Blandino tweets DEZ CAUGHT IT, Periera says Dez's catch should have been a catch, and the noncatch tribe is left stranded on an island.

C'mon back to reality, folks! Welcome to being a Cowboys fan again. Or return to your desk at the NFL damage control division, and prepare for the next PR disaster.

 

[nathanlt]

@OmerV what do you think of this? If Shields made no contact Dez appears to be able to pull out of that loss of balance.

Didn't think I could have learned something new about the Dez catch play, but you're right, his awkward third step caused by Shields contact was the ONLY reason that Dez fell to the ground.

 

[G2]

 

[MarcusRock]

Most everyone knew that taking that catch away felt wrong at the time...

This is why the thread is 108 pages and counting. People's "feelings." Feelings don't write a rulebook.

 

[MarcusRock]

.
And now slow motion is not good enough for picking out the bajillion phantom football moves, we've now transitioned to still pictures to prove someone's motion and momentum. LOL.

 

[MarcusRock]

The football moved was removed from the rule book as the standard for becoming a runner and replaced by "upright long enough" in 2015.

No. Instead of "performing an act common to the game," part c of the 3-part process was re-worded as "clearly becoming a runner." Are there observable acts an official can see that someone has clearly become a runner?

5th time asking you, percy.

 

[OmerV]

The request was did the rule change, show a link, that article said they changed the rule in 2015. So maybe you should stay out of the discussion when you have no idea what to are commenting on?

The rule only changed in how it was worded, with the hope it would clarify the rule, but it did not change the meaning or intent of the rule. You are aware things can be worded differently and mean the same thing, right?

 

[BlindFaith]

I respect your thoughtful analysis. Your polite tone is appreciated and others, including myself, could learn from that. You do make a good argument about an act interrupting the fall. It’s possible that’s what they were intending, but that’s reading a lot into what they may have been thinking when selecting these caseplays. I also agree many of these rules madness caseplays could’ve been written better.

I still do feel Dez gathered himself when he was switching hands and preparing for falling, lunging, preparing to reach for the goialine or whatever else someone says he was doing that it satisfied the time element of the process.

The rule states if the player has time to pitch the ball he satisfies the time element. After switching hands I feel he did gather himself, as you say, and could’ve pitched the ball at that instant rather than reaching. Which could’ve satisfied the time element.

Think of it this way.

Have you ever been walking along and tripped? As part of that trip, did you you fall to the ground? Have you ever tripped and regained your balance before hitting the ground? Or tripped and stuck your arm out and that stopped you from going to the ground?

Think of the trip in this case as the point of the judgment call an official makes to determine a player is going to the ground. Now if that player interrupts the fall, like regaining their balance or bracing themselves, the officials can rule that the catch process has been completed, even if they continue to the ground. And about the only thing that would get them from having their balance to the ground would be a lunge. I guess they could fall to their knees and crawl. Or they could just fall flat. But if they have regained their balance or braced themselves, then chances are they are going to continue on with the play. They could very well not go to the ground at all. But if he had been ruled that the balance was regained and the fall interrupted, he would then no longer have to maintain possession of the ball through contacting the ground. He, based on a judgement call, became a runner through the act of interrupting the fall.

If you can set aside any presupposition that what Dez did "looked" like a catch, which I think everyone would agree and focus on what the rule means, and apply some common sense logic to it and NOT get sucked into the conspiracy talk that the rules were changed to cover up a blown call, it does get very simple.

These case plays allow a receiver to regain their balance during a fall and rule it a catch. Its really that simple. As for intent. It is a judgment call however. And the new language in the rules saying or remains upright long enough is not some massive rewrite of the rule as part of a cover up. Remains upright sounds a lot like regains balance or braces. At least to me.

There is a lot of noise being spread in here. Spinning, cherry picking, name calling, frustration. There will always be people who think they are right no matter what. And they HAVE to be right or their world is not complete. I've tried to explain how the rule, IMO and the opinion of the NFL itself, can easily apply to the non catch of Dez. Others have tried as well. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. But give me 100 of these types of catches and I bet I get 95 of them right because I feel my interpretation of the rule, then and now, is consistent with how the NFL has ruled on these types of catches, then and now.

 

[OmerV]

You do realize that's what a football move is.

Come on - merely looking around the field is common to the game. Breathing is common to the game. Falling is common to the game. You can make that standard as broad as you want, but the intent of the rule was not to make it that broad. I believe that's a big reason they added Item 1 to the rule - to say that when a player is going to the ground he is not in control of his body and actions to the point that he can make the kind of moves needed to establish possession, and therefore maintaining possession all the way through the play is required.

 

[BlindFaith]

@OmerV what do you think of this? If Shields made no contact Dez appears to be able to pull out of that loss of balance.

It doesn't matter if he's contacted or not. And "appears to BE ABLE" to pull out of that loss of balance doesn't cut it. Did he pull out of that loss of balance? Did he regain his balance at any point while falling. If you think he did, then there is nothing more I can discuss. Because you clearly are seeing something that I don't. You are seeing something the NFL didn't.

If you don't see that Dez was going to the ground to begin with. Then again, I can't help you. I do and the NFL did.

And this whole thing is really that simple.

 

[OmerV]

Not often but it doesn’t change the fact that a team could potentially be “punished” for being right.

It's not really accurate to say they are punished for being right because if they are right they don't lose a timeout, and if they are right twice, they get a third challenge.

 

[BlindFaith]

.
And now slow motion is not good enough for picking out the bajillion phantom football moves, we've now transitioned to still pictures to prove someone's motion and momentum. LOL.

It is the most ridiculous thing. But, it does point out how they are finally shifting their view to now trying to prove that Dez was upright long enough or that he could have been upright long enough if not tripped. So they are making progress to understanding the rule.

 

[OmerV]

@OmerV what do you think of this? If Shields made no contact Dez appears to be able to pull out of that loss of balance.

What I think of that, and have said many times, is that's a matter of perception. If you feel Dez only went to the ground because of the contact, then case play Q.R. 8.12 would be applicable based on your perception. In that case it just means you and I perceived things differently. Of course, what really matters is what the refs perceived, and apparently after review they felt Dez was going to the ground regardless of contact.

 

[aria]

It's not really accurate to say they are punished for being right because if they are right they don't lose a timeout, and if they are right twice, they get a third challenge.

And what happens if they’re right 3 times?

 

[DogFace]

It doesn't matter if he's contacted or not. And "appears to BE ABLE" to pull out of that loss of balance doesn't cut it. Did he pull out of that loss of balance? Did he regain his balance at any point while falling. If you think he did, then there is nothing more I can discuss. Because you clearly are seeing something that I don't. You are seeing something the NFL didn't.

If you don't see that Dez was going to the ground to begin with. Then again, I can't help you. I do and the NFL did.

And this whole thing is really that simple.

@OmerV has maintained that he was not going to come out of the Green Bay play without falling whether he was contacted or not. Saying his balance was too far gone before contact.

His point in saying that was the caseplay said the player was going to the ground only from contact and that the refs/replay officials determined Dez was already going to the ground from a loss of balance and the contact, unlike the caseplay, was not a factor in him going to the ground.


This picture Percy posted shows Dez having far less of an upright position and appearing to be more off balance then he was before he was tripped by Shields. As the pics demonstrate.

I’ve said he would’ve stayed up if not for the trip. I feel these pics back up that him staying up without the trip was very likely.


Another question I can’t get an answer to:

One of the examples in the rule of completing the catch process is if the player has time to pitch the ball then he satisfies the time element. Do you feel Dez could’ve pitched the ball after he switched from two hands to one rather then attempting to reach?

 

[nathanlt]

This is why the thread is 108 pages and counting. People's "feelings." Feelings don't write a rulebook.

The rulebook says that Dez CAUGHT IT. BY RULE, DEZ CAUGHT IT. Most everyone thought it passed the eyeball test of what a catch always has been. The new rule book language at the time did not adequately describe a new rule that did away with football moves. Going to the ground never filled in all the blanks that the noncatch crowd thinks it did.

The non-catch crowd bases their argument on Blandino press conferences, not on the rulebook. (at least KJJ doesn't put emphasis on the rule book.)