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

[MarcusRock]

Since we're talking about whether Dez would have fallen or not, thought this was a good find. It's from preseason that same year. Same play design, same highpointing, and the DB whiffs on contact and clears out of the way. Dez could have walked into the endzone ..... if he didn't go to the ground ... on his own. So did the going to the ground rule apply here?

The site must have upped it maximum file size limit because I couldn't post this before.

 

[DallasEast]

An old song comes to mind when looking at how you guys feel about this thread:

"I can't liiiiiiiiiiiiiivvvvveeeeee, if living is w/o yooooouuuuu!!!!!"

Interesting. Are you applying the perception of "you guys" to:

a) those who wished to discuss the difference outlined in the OP?
b) those who presented an initial counter argument and have never moved on to another topic/thread?
c) both parties?

 

[OmerV]

I can't believe you're not out there disputing JG sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lol - I'm okay with some version of that if it's logical. I've never disputed that he isn't getting the job done or that he shouldn't be replaced. My beef is just with people making up nonsensical arguments that are irrelevant or even imagined to justify thinking he should be replaced. The fact the team isn't getting the job done and has been inconsistent is all the argument needed.

 

[OmerV]

But do they run out of challenges if they are right 3 times?

Yes. It's a limit, not a penalty for being right.

 

[G2]

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.

Not to mention that maintaining possession regardless should be a common sense prerequisite to a completion.

 

[G2]

Lol - I'm okay with some version of that if it's logical. I've never disputed that he isn't getting the job done or that he shouldn't be replaced. My beef is just with people making up nonsensical arguments that are irrelevant or even imagined to justify thinking he should be replaced. The fact the team isn't getting the job done and has been inconsistent is all the argument needed.

Like the silly clapping complaints?

 

[Kevinicus]

Picking and choosing seems to be a common theme on your side of this discussion. I see you completely ignored my comments about Item 1. Hell, anyone can make any argument they want if they only pick and choose what they want and pretend everything else doesn't exist.

You guys have consistently shifted your arguments around and cherry picked and yet you claim others are doing that. It's really sad. Every single time your arguments get destroyed you shift to a new even more silly one or back to one that was already destroyed. Over and over again. Consistently inconsistent. You are not discussing, you are trolling at this point, IMO.

 

[OmerV]

Like the silly clapping complaints?

The silly clapping complaints, reading something dramatic and significant into innocent, obligatory comments in a press conference Garrett would rather not even attend, twisting every word, action, facial expression by Garrett or anyone else even remotely related to the Cowboys into something that doesn't make sense ..... Some of these folks can't even formulate an argument on their own and are limited to calling Garrett silly names and regurgitating something they heard someone else say. It actually trivializes the argument for replacing Garrett rather than strengthening it.

 

[OmerV]

You guys have consistently shifted your arguments around and cherry picked and yet you claim others are doing that. It's really sad. Every single time your arguments get destroyed you shift to a new even more silly one or back to one that was already destroyed. Over and over again. Consistently inconsistent. You are not discussing, you are trolling at this point, IMO.

Tell me what I've cherry picked and shifted.

 

[Kevinicus]

I had always been of the opinion that it was a catch.

But just to be fair, I went back and watched the video of the play about 20 times, and I've changed my mind, BUT it's changed because of what I SEE as what happened.

Which is there was no "lunge" BASED OFF A CATCH, Dez's going to the ground was part of his being in the air and falling towards the end zone when he made the catch, AND as someone here noted, the defensive back hit the ball while Dez was in the air, necessitating Dez to re-secure the ball, which further reinforces the fact that Dez was going to the ground in that process, and as the ball came loose when he hit the ground, it's not a catch BASED ON THE RULE.

And before anybody starts arguing with me about steps, etc., don't bother.

Because though my opinion now rests with the reviewed call on the field, it doesn't matter, because the game is over and done with, we can't go back in time and re-play the game.

Time for this thread to end....

I don't know what the defender loosening the ball has to do with anything considering Dez re-secured it quickly with no feet being down lost. It's completely irrelevant.

 

[BlindFaith]

Not to mention that maintaining possession regardless should be a common sense prerequisite to a completion.

This is really what it comes down to. Just hold on to the ball. Trying to figure out what can or should be a catch while falling if the player losses control at some point is where the consternation comes from.

 

[kskboys]

Interesting. Are you applying the perception of "you guys" to:

a) those who wished to discuss the difference outlined in the OP?
b) those who presented an initial counter argument and have never moved on to another topic/thread?
c) both parties?

Offhand, I'd say both parties, but it was a tongue in cheek comment, not meant to be analyzed. Unless you really want to, that's OK too!!!!!!!!!

 

[Kevinicus]

Tell me what I've cherry picked and shifted.

First it was going to the ground trumps everything no matter what. Proven wrong with the case play.
Then it was cherry picking the contact portion from the case play. Absurd claim, and evidence that kind of contradicts that Dez I'm sure will be deflected/ignored if it hasn't been already and I just missed it.
Crying about others cherry picking when they are including every single thing possible and combining them into a clear picture.
Repeat.
There are others, and other posters have different things they've cherry picked, but you've all been doing it and it's extremely trollish.

 

[kskboys]

You guys have consistently shifted your arguments around and cherry picked and yet you claim others are doing that. It's really sad. Every single time your arguments get destroyed you shift to a new even more silly one or back to one that was already destroyed. Over and over again. Consistently inconsistent. You are not discussing, you are trolling at this point, IMO.

Tell me what I've cherry picked and shifted.

"Goin' down the only road I've ever knooooooowwwwnn"!!!!

 

[BlindFaith]

You guys have consistently shifted your arguments around and cherry picked and yet you claim others are doing that. It's really sad. Every single time your arguments get destroyed you shift to a new even more silly one or back to one that was already destroyed. Over and over again. Consistently inconsistent. You are not discussing, you are trolling at this point, IMO.

And what's amusing to me is that somehow those who understand how it was ruled a non catch are being destroyed? It has been ruled on and the ultimate powers to decide have stated how this is not a catch. You can not like the decision, just like you can argue against any decision the supreme court has made. But it doesn't matter. Your understanding is still wrong in the eyes of those that matter.

 

[OmerV]

I don't know what the defender loosening the ball has to do with anything considering Dez re-secured it quickly with no feet being down lost. It's completely irrelevant.

It absolutely matters if he possession under the rules wasn't prior to that point, because in that case by the ball contacting the ground and him losing his grasp, even if only for a second, the pass is incomplete. If he had established possession prior to that point then loss of control of the ball would have been a fumble that Dez recovered himself.

 

[MarcusRock]

You guys have consistently shifted your arguments around and cherry picked and yet you claim others are doing that. It's really sad. Every single time your arguments get destroyed you shift to a new even more silly one or back to one that was already destroyed. Over and over again. Consistently inconsistent. You are not discussing, you are trolling at this point, IMO.

You're trying to talk about shifting arguments? I've chronicled the catch theorists arguments. Currently, y'all are back to version 2.

1. “The ball never hit the ground”
Check the reverse angle

2. “No, no, Dez was running upright and got tripped”
Contact from a defender is irrelevant in going to the ground

3. “No, no, Dez reached or lunged or something”
He intended to lunge but did not execute

4. “No, no, Dez performed a bajillion football moves before that though”
Going to the ground trumps the 3-part process (unless they do something other than fall per A.R. 8.12 & 15.95)

5. “No, no, the replay wasn’t conclusive. The call should have stood.”
Replay confirmed that going to the ground should have been applied instead

6. “No, no, they took away the A.R. rule enabling an act on the way to the ground after the fact”
The rule was there in 2014 and 2015.

7. “No, no, they changed the catch rule in 2015 so refs can’t look for football moves”
A ref can judge that one has performed acts or had time to “clearly become a runner.” Same as before. Same rule, different wording.

8. "Oh yeah? Well, CONSPIRACY!"
Of course! How did we miss that?

 

[G2]

And what's amusing to me is that somehow those who understand how it was ruled a non catch are being destroyed? It has been ruled on and the ultimate powers to decide have stated how this is not a catch. You can not like the decision, just like you can argue against any decision the supreme court has made. But it doesn't matter. Your understanding is still wrong in the eyes of those that matter.

There are a lot of fans who are confused on the rule. There are Dallas fans who are clearly butt hurt and have an emotional biased toward the idea it shouldn't have been overturned. Players too. There are even some writers who aren't quite 100% on the rule. But the vast majority of officials, expert analysts, coaches etc. haven't argued that it should have been overturned. When I first saw the play my opinion was it wasn't a completion because the ball popped up. I don't get why it's even a debate.

 

[DallasEast]

Offhand, I'd say both parties, but it was a tongue in cheek comment, not meant to be analyzed. Unless you really want to, that's OK too!!!!!!!!!

lol. No need. I chuckled at the underlying one-sided nature of what your comment addressed even though you stated it in a humorous way.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

"I don't know what the defender loosening the ball has to do with anything considering Dez re-secured it quickly with no feet being down lost. It's completely irrelevant."

Pointless to discuss it anymore, it's 2018, we've spent too much time on it already...