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

[OmerV]

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.

There is no "First it was ..." and "and then it was .... " I've always said the going to the ground rule set out in Item 1 applied - I've never changed from that.

And I've consistently said you guys are cherry picking.

You do realize those are two different points, and that saying one doesn't somehow negate or contradict the other, right? Because that would be an amazingly ridiculous failure in logic.

 

[BlindFaith]

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.

I think a big part of the confusion are the case plays as themselves, how they are written and how they are obscured within the rule book itself. Oddly enough, if the case plays are there to help clarify the rule itself, it certainly doesn't do that. To me it interjects a whole new element. But either way, most times you visit any site trying to explain the rule, they don't even mention the case plays. They only talk about the rule itself.

And the play by play guys doing the games should actually try reading the rules, understanding them, talking with officials to get clarification. When they get on and say "Oh no, another play where no one knows what a catch is." is just wrong. They get paid a lot of money. Spend some time learning the rules.

Now, it also doesn't help that, due to there being judgement calls involved with this, that if the official's judgement doesn't mesh with the observers judgement it also causes grief.

 

[aria]

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

Ok, but if a coach is right three times they lose the ability to challenge, that’s being penalized for being right.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

To answer your question in bold, I'll stick to kskboys' song themes ....

In the words of a broken heart
It's just emotion that's taken me over
Tied up in sorrow, lost in my soul

 

[percyhoward]

If Shields made no contact Dez appears to be able to pull out of that loss of balance.

And it must be stressed, Dez didn't need to remain upright to become a runner anyway. Not in 2014.

He just had to "perform any common to the game" after he had control and two feet down.

 

[MarcusRock]

And it must be stressed, Dez didn't need to remain upright to become a runner anyway. Not in 2014.

He just had to "perform any common to the game" after he had control and two feet down.

Directly addressed by Blandino here, even mentioned by name, mind you.

Oh wait, he might be on the CONSPIRACY! list and thus not trusted. Can y'all post the "approved" opinionator list on the topic please? Hard to keep track.

 

[OmerV]

Ok, but if a coach is right three times they lose the ability to challenge, that’s being penalized for being right.

No, they lose the ability to challenge after the 3rd challenge regardless of whether they are right or wrong on the 3rd challenge. It's not a result of being right, it's a result of there being a limit. And the reality is they aren't truly losing the ability to challenge anyway because you can't lose something you don't have. There is no vehicle for a 4th challenge, therefore a 4th challenge can't be taken away.

The only actual penalties with challenges are if a team is wrong on a challenge. If they are wrong, they lose a timeout they otherwise would have had, and if they are wrong on the second challenge they lose a 3rd challenge that they would have had if they had been right.

 

[OmerV]

And it must be stressed, Dez didn't need to remain upright to become a runner anyway. Not in 2014.

He just had to "perform any common to the game" after he had control and two feet down.

It should also be stressed that Item 1 doesn't read that way.

 

[nathanlt]

Directly addressed by Blandino here, even mentioned by name, mind you.

Oh wait, he might be on the CONSPIRACY! list and thus not trusted. Can y'all post the "approved" opinionator list on the topic please? Hard to keep track.

It always comes down to this. Blandino tries to change the rule verbally, and he's always wrong compared to what the rule says. Blandino is not an expert, he is a comedian. Then he got the NFL job. He has never officiated an NFL game in his life. He's a PR man, that's it.

In the last few months, he's regularly tweeted #DEZCAUGHTIT So, either he thinks this whole three years of chaos is a stand up routine, or he actually believes Dez caught it.

The half baked rule regarding catches in 2014 did not justify taking the catch away. NFL shills will continue to troll message boards to the contrary, but Cowboys fans will always know it was a con job.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

You can throw a pass while falling, score while falling, etc. It makes no sense to think that you can't catch a football while falling. Unless all you do is fall, you've done something to show you're not still trying to catch the ball. That's what a football move is. Turning upfield, taking additional steps, tucking the ball, reaching for a line of gain, lunging are all football moves.

You can fall and breathe while still trying to catch a football, so falling and breathing are not football moves. Looking around the field is something nobody would do if they were still trying to catch a ball -- but it would hardly ever be visible by officials, so it would not be a move that you could teach officials to look for, would it? The point of the football move is that it is (or was) the observable standard for becoming a runner after the player had control and two feet down. It either happened or it didn't.

 

[aria]

No, they lose the ability to challenge after the 3rd challenge regardless of whether they are right or wrong on the 3rd challenge. It's not a result of being right, it's a result of there being a limit. And the reality is they aren't truly losing the ability to challenge anyway because you can't lose something you don't have. There is no vehicle for a 4th challenge, therefore a 4th challenge can't be taken away.

The only actual penalties with challenges are if a team is wrong on a challenge. If they are wrong, they lose a timeout they otherwise would have had, and if they are wrong on the second challenge they lose a 3rd challenge that they would have had if they had been right.

Alright, however you want to look at it, but they take away a challenge if you’re wrong but if you’re right three times then you just run out. A bit hypocritical and unfair, don’t you think?

 

[MarcusRock]

It always comes down to this. Blandino tries to change the rule verbally, and he's always wrong compared to what the rule says. Blandino is not an expert, he is a comedian. Then he got the NFL job. He has never officiated an NFL game in his life. He's a PR man, that's it.

So you confirm he's on the CONSPIRACY! no-opine list?

 

[MarcusRock]

It either happened or it didn't.

Same as going to the ground. You're either declared to fall under that or you aren't. If you are, throw out the 3-part process per Pereira. If not, show that you're not going to the ground. "Tucking the ball away" does nothing to show you aren't going to the ground.

 

[OmerV]

You can throw a pass while falling, score while falling, etc. It makes no sense to think that you can't catch a football while falling. Unless all you do is fall, you've done something to show you're not still trying to catch the ball. That's what a football move is. Turning upfield, taking additional steps, tucking the ball, reaching for a line of gain, lunging are all football moves.

You can fall and breathe while still trying to catch a football, so falling and breathing are not football moves. Looking around the field is something nobody would do if they were still trying to catch a ball -- but it would hardly ever be visible by officials, so it would not be a move that you could teach officials to look for, would it? The point of the football move is that it is (or was) the observable standard for becoming a runner after the player had control and two feet down. It either happened or it didn't.

Throwing a pass isn't something anyone would do while still trying to catch a ball either. But the fact remains Item one addresses the rule as it applies when a player is going to the ground. You may not like the rule, and I'm not thrilled with it either, but it is what it is.

Ultimately the disagreement between us is two fold - first, what constitutes a receiver going to the ground, and second, whether a receiver going to the ground has a different standard for establishing possession than one that is not. I think any player that cannot prevent himself from going to the ground is subject to Item 1, and that he does have a different standard for establishing possession. You apparently have a different viewpoint on both, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[BlindFaith]

You can throw a pass while falling

Throwing a pass while falling by no rational, objective judgement would deem a player to be a runner. Nor reaching, or stretching or stumbling.

Gathering oneself does however resemble becoming a runner.

The acts you always bring up are to demonstrate how one can be a runner if THEY ARE NOT FALLING.

 

[nathanlt]

Same as going to the ground. You're either declared to fall under that or you aren't. If you are, throw out the 3-part process per Pereira. If not, show that you're not going to the ground. "Tucking the ball away" does nothing to show you aren't going to the ground.

Dez wasn't going to the ground, until the third step. If Shields hadn't touched him and made his third step a bit awkward, Dez would have walked in to the end zone.

You guys have absolutely NOTHING to go on for saying the catch didn't happen.

There were football moves.
Dez wasn't falling until the third step.

That's it. case closed. Press conferences don't replace reality of that catch, no matter how many times people refer to various comments.

 

[OmerV]

Dez wasn't going to the ground, until the third step. If Shields hadn't touched him and made his third step a bit awkward, Dez would have walked in to the end zone.

This is your perception, but not mine or that of the NFL.

 

[G2]

It always comes down to this. Blandino tries to change the rule verbally, and he's always wrong compared to what the rule says. Blandino is not an expert, he is a comedian. Then he got the NFL job. He has never officiated an NFL game in his life. He's a PR man, that's it.

In the last few months, he's regularly tweeted #DEZCAUGHTIT So, either he thinks this whole three years of chaos is a stand up routine, or he actually believes Dez caught it.

The half baked rule regarding catches in 2014 did not justify taking the catch away. NFL shills will continue to troll message boards to the contrary, but Cowboys fans will always know it was a con job.

Did you happen to see Bigfoot when you were writing this post?

 

[Big_D]

I have no doubt Dez caught the ball and so did Ertz. The problem is the NFLs description of a catch is really just made up as they go along. Like Clements catch in the back of the end zone. That was more incomplete than either of those two.

 

[MarcusRock]

Throwing a pass while falling by no rational, objective judgement would deem a player to be a runner. Nor reaching, or stretching or stumbling.

Gathering oneself does however resemble becoming a runner.

The acts you always bring up are to demonstrate how one can be a runner if THEY ARE NOT FALLING.

That's why in that Pereira video where he says that going to the ground trumps the 3-part process, he describes the 3-part process as applying to an "upright" player. This is why going to the ground trumps an "upright" set of rules because, you know, the player is going to the ground like the rule states.