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

[BlindFaith]

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

Hey now, leave big foot out of this. There's actually more factual evidence of big foot then there is that this should be called a catch.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

Clement's catch can fall under the note in the catch rule that states:

"Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."

 

[G2]

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

Or reality.

 

[BlindFaith]

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.

Seems simple enough, but clearly conspiracy is the logical conclusion.

 

[G2]

Hey now, leave big foot out of this. There's actually more factual evidence of big foot then there is that this should be called a catch.

Lmao

 

[MarcusRock]

Hey now, leave big foot out of this. There's actually more factual evidence of big foot then there is that this should be called a catch.

It's true. Bigfoot always looks hunched over so the "eye test" makes it look like he's going to the ground, but he never does. Thus his taking additional steps qualifies as a catch of a coconut from a tree.

 

[OmerV]

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.

Some of what I found in an article .... of course he doesn't know what he's talking about and you are much more qualified to read and interpret the rules.

Blandino was an instant replay official from 1999-2003 and worked two Super Bowls and two conference championship games. He managed the NFL's instant replay program from 2003-2009, and from 2007-2009 he was director of officiating, supervising day-to-day operations and the game officials' schedule under Mike Pereira.

He left the NFL in 2009 to form his own company, returned in 2012 and succeeded Carl Johnson as chief of officiating the next year.

During his three years away from the NFL, Blandino launched "Under the Hood," which provided training and evaluation for replay officials. His clients included the NFL and college conferences such as the Big Ten, Mid-American, Pac-12, Big 12, and Mountain West. He directed instant replay clinics for the NFL and NCAA and served as a liaison to the NFL's competition committee.

 

[BlindFaith]

Clement's catch can fall under the note in the catch rule that states:

"Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."

Glad you mentioned that. If this whole debate did anything, it got me to reread the rules. And it does justify why he did indeed catch it. I wasnt aware that a slight movement of the ball was allowed.

 

[BlindFaith]

It's true. Bigfoot always looks hunched over so the "eye test" makes it look like he's going to the ground, but he never does. Thus his taking additional steps qualifies as a catch of a coconut from a tree.

But hunching over could be an act common to a big foot.

 

[OmerV]

It's true. Bigfoot always looks hunched over so the "eye test" makes it look like he's going to the ground, but he never does. Thus his taking additional steps qualifies as a catch of a coconut from a tree.

The rulebook says that to establish a "Bigfoot", he has to have 2 feet down, with both hands firmly on the coconut, and then make a move common to eating a coconut, but these conspiracy theorists say all that is required is a blurry image from a great distance that can't really be distinguished from a tall shrub.

 

[G2]

Bigfoot would have wrapped it up.

 

[BlindFaith]

Bigfoot would have wrapped it up.

Let's trade Dez for bigfoot.

 

[G2]

Let's trade Dez for bigfoot.

He's more elusive

 

[OmerV]

Glad you mentioned that. If this whole debate did anything, it got me to reread the rules. And it does justify why he did indeed catch it. I wasnt aware that a slight movement of the ball was allowed.

You are saying he caught it now? The way that rule has consistently been applied is if the receiver has a firm grasp on the ball the whole way such that there is never a moment the firm grasp is lost regardless of a slight movement. It doesn't apply to a ball popping out of the grasp and then being pulled back in.

 

[OmerV]

He's more elusive

He can probably run better routes.

 

[OmerV]

Or reality.

That's what I think, but I'll at least tolerate someone having a different perception because that doesn't involve cherry picking certain parts of the rules or ignoring facts, it's just a personal belief they saw something a certain way.

 

[G2]

He can probably run better routes.

Yeah but fans will still whine that Dak can't "throw him open."

 

[G2]

That's what I think, but I'll at least tolerate someone having a different perception because that doesn't involve cherry picking certain parts of the rules or ignoring facts, it's just a personal belief they saw something a certain way.

There are those that honestly have some good points, but when you start getting into the "Con job" talk - I'm out...

 

[OmerV]

Yeah but fans will still whine that Dak can't "throw him open."

Maybe we can get a 16 foot tall big foot with a 14 foot wingspan and all Dak has to do is throw the ball high and in the vicinity.

 

[G2]

Maybe we can get a 16 foot tall big foot with a 14 foot wingspan and all Dak has to do is throw the ball high and in the vicinity.

If we can keep him from going into the crowd and mauling fans. (Non-Philly fans)