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

[Kevinicus]

LOL. That's exactly what this list is. 8 different versions of what's been said by catch theorists over the 3 years concerning this play in the order I've heard them, although 8's kinda been a constant alongside each one. Tuck the vein back into your forehead to allow normal blood flow up there.

Btw, most of your comments in red are either wrong or support a ruling of a catch.

 

[MarcusRock]

@OmerV you can read percy's post above and then I will show you here where the twisting happens (not that you need it).

You seem like someone who's honestly trying to understand this. Before moving on to the two disagreements, I hope I've helped you with the football move part of it.

There can be no disagreeing about what constitutes a player going to the ground in the act of catching a pass, because it's not open to interpretation. Your opinion and my opinion don't matter. A player who has not established himself as a runner, and who goes to the ground, goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass. Rules that apply to receivers (like Item 1) apply to him. A player who has established himself as a runner, and who goes to the ground, goes to the ground as a runner. Rules that apply to runners apply to him. Item 1 does not apply to runners.

So far, so good.

To your other point, since 2015, a receiver judged not to be upright long enough cannot go to the ground as a runner.

Here it is: False.

If a player is not "upright long enough" to "demonstrate that he is clearly a runner (2015 GTG rule)" then he is simply going to the ground the same as 2014's rule. All it means is he didn't complete the 3-part process before landing on the ground. How does one "demonstrate" they are clearly a runner? Via time or football moves. As Ive said before, since contact is irrelevant in the GTG rule, a DB can instantly bear hug a WR so he can't make any football moves before they both go to the ground and the WR loses the ball after hitting the ground. How would you determine this WR is clearly a runner? Via judgment of time. And as such, this player would go to the ground as a runner in either 2014 or 2015 whether the official deemed he "maintains control of the ball long enough" in 2014 or "has clearly become a runner" in 2015.

However, prior to 2015, there was no such rule.

It's not a rule. It's further clarifying what the 2014 rules said due to the outcry of "the rule is too hard to understand." See above.

If you've been trying to tie up the loose ends, and you don't know what to do when you get to Blandino saying the reach needed to be more obvious, well, now you know. He had to address the reach. Because at that time, you could complete the catch process and become a runner, even while falling.

Again, false.

This is where the case plays come into play because these were held up as examples of a receiver becoming a runner as he was falling to the ground. Here is the one that appears in the 2014 AND 2015 Rulebook/Casebook

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted
by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right
arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the
goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out.
Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The pass is complete. When the receiver hits the ground in the end
zone, it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of
the catch. Since the ball crossed the goal line, it is a touchdown. If the ball is short of the goal line, it is a catch,
and A2 is down by contact.​

Note the wording that says that the lunge the receiver executes is not part of the process of the catch (3-part rule). It doesn't say he completed part c of the 3-part rule via an act common to the game (which would be way easier), it says lunging is NOT part of the catch process. So if you can't say it was a football move, then it was TIME just like noted above. This case play appears in the 2014 AND 2015 Rulebook/Casebook. In 2014, you'd say he had "long enough" to do a football move, and in 2015 you'd judge that he "clearly became a runner" because of TIME.

No one who defends the overturn has ever been able to answer this question: If the football move didn't matter, why did he say he looked for a football move?

I answered it in this post when correcting your wingman concerning the case plays. Blandino looked for a football move because it would have proved Dez had the ball "long enough" per the 2014 rules as well as interrupting his fall visually. That's why Blandino also talked about Dez' momentum in going to the ground and that there was nothing demonstrative to prove he wasn't always falling. Also, note in this case play that the receiver has the ball in one hand before lunging. Doesn't say he caught it with one hand, right? If we reasonably assume he caught it with 2 hands, then he "switched hands" in your words claiming a football move (he really just takes one hand off). Does the Case Play say that's what made this a catch or was it the brace and lunge? That's more evidence that these bajillion football moves people say Dez did on the way to the ground don't mean anything when GTG is slapped on you. A properly executed lunge does, which still is NOT part of the catch process so that act is different anyway. This is why Pereira can say that GTG trumps the 3-part process in tying Jesse James' catch with Dez'

That's the loose end. Understanding the rule change and why it happened ties up that loose end.

Which as I just explained, isn't a change at all. Same rule now as then which is why Pereira directly linked the Jesse James play to Dez' play in saying that GTG trumps the 3-part process. If they were under different systems of judgment, he couldn't say that so emphatically and I've yet to see anyone fact check him openly. Surely the Dallas press would have been all over that one.

The role that the 2015 rule change plays in all of this can't be overemphasized. The football move was completely eliminated from the rule book as a direct result of the overturn of Dez's catch, making it impossible to question an official's decree that a player was "going to the ground." And because there was no longer any football move to look for, the replay official's job of explaining his decisions became much easier and the field official's job of determining what a catch was became much harder. The rule change effectively meant the field official no longer had a say in this kind of play.

This is the closing falsehood.

If there was "no longer any football move to look for" then how is a receiver deemed to "clearly become a runner" by an official in 2015? On a whim, or the same way as always: via TIME or a football move. This is the question I have asked you directly 4 times without an answer from you. Maybe if OmerV asks you it'll make a difference because at this point I'm not sure if it's now just an ego thing.

The dividing line is simple for GTG. If you don't want to have GTG slapped on you, then prove you are a runner via time or an act that says you aren't going to the ground. The GTG rule is a substitute for a receiver who has not completed the 3-part process, whether a receiver straight line dives and only has control of the ball but not 2 feet down or time for a football move or like Dez and the caseplay where there's control, 2 feet, but not time for a football move that proves you're a runner. The lunge saved the caseplay player, but Dez did not execute one as stated by all the major rules players both on game day and beyond. Analyzing backwards from there doesn't change that fact.

 

[MarcusRock]

@BlindFaith, don't think you need it either but just noting the twisting part for you as well.

Prior to 2015, the official knew the time requirement had been met as soon as the player did something that only runners do. It's common sense, after all, that the thing that would determine that a receiver had maintained control long enough to become a runner would be to do something that only runners do. This is the football move, and since players routinely make football moves while falling, it didn't occur to anyone to make a rule that stipulated that a player must be upright in order to make a football move.

Unless the 3-part rule was only meant to apply to players who were "upright" as Pereira said when linking Jesse James' play to the Dez play. Funny that. And it's interesting the wording you use here: "...the thing that would determine that a receiver had maintained control long enough to become a runner would be to do something that only runners do." Doesn't this sound eerily similar to the 2015 rules wording of "clearly become a runner" ? And in what ways would an official determine that a player clearly became a runner? LOL. You're basically saying here that they are the same rule.

Then something happened in Green Bay in the playoffs following the 2014 season.

And in 2015, the standard for meeting the time requirement to complete the catch process and become a runner was changed. The football move was completely removed from the rule book, and the standard for becoming a runner was now that a player must remain "upright long enough."

Did y'all catch the falsehood? Instead of staying in part (c) of the 3-part process catch rule in 2015, percy jumps down to Item 1, or the GTG rule, and says that this is the standard for becoming a runner. Let's go back to what percy said earlier in this very post about becoming a runner:

BUT...the player at the other end of the pass (the receiver) doesn't become a runner simply by gaining control of the ball.
First, he has to 1) get control of the ball, then (or simultaneously) 2) get two feet down, then 3) maintain control long enough.
Then, and only then, does he establish himself as a runner.The standard for becoming a runner

Note that this is wording from 2014's 3-part process (parts a, b, and c). But when addressing the 2015 rule, he skips over the "clearly become a runner" language found in part (c) of the same 3-part process of completing the catch process. So again, my question to him (if he were answering me, lol) would be how would an official determine that a player "clearly becomes a runner" in 2015? Is it via "upright long enough" or do they look for the same time or football move they did in 2014? The rest of the post is just mass of words to overwhelm those who aren't paying attention.


And with that the squadron leader is taken out. What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.

 

[BlindFaith]

I think your confusion is 100% sincere, so I'll try to explain as best I can.

The confusion is in the terms "runner" and "receiver." These terms have nothing to do with the position you play, or whether you're running down the field or dropping back to pass. The NFL uses these terms only when it comes to questions of possession. A "runner" is simply a player in possession of a live ball -- a ball that's in play, between the snap and the whistle. That's it.

At the snap of the ball, the QB is the runner. Whoever he hands it, pitches it, or passes it to...that player then becomes the runner.

BUT...the player at the other end of the pass (the receiver) doesn't become a runner simply by gaining control of the ball.

First, he has to 1) get control of the ball, then (or simultaneously) 2) get two feet down, then 3) maintain control long enough.

Then, and only then, does he establish himself as a runner.

The part in bold is called the "catch process." Without it, there would be no way to determine how a receiver becomes a runner. If a player is in the middle of the catch process -- let's say he has control and one foot, or control and just got the second foot down but hasn't maintained control long enough yet -- then he is in the act of catching a pass. He's still a receiver. He's not a runner yet. He's not in possession of a live ball yet.

Item 1 says that a player going to the ground in the act of catching a pass (a receiver going to the ground) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. Item 1 exists because when a player dives for a ball, or goes up for a ball and only manages to get two feet down before his body hits the ground, he doesn't have time to complete part 3 (maintain control long enough). There's no time for him to become a runner. So he has to maintain control of the ball after his body hits the ground.

How does an official know when the player has had enough time to become a runner, after control and two feet down? This is where it forks off into two very different directions.

Prior to 2015, the official knew the time requirement had been met as soon as the player did something that only runners do. It's common sense, after all, that the thing that would determine that a receiver had maintained control long enough to become a runner would be to do something that only runners do. This is the football move, and since players routinely make football moves while falling, it didn't occur to anyone to make a rule that stipulated that a player must be upright in order to make a football move. Again, common sense.

Then something happened in Green Bay in the playoffs following the 2014 season.

And in 2015, the standard for meeting the time requirement to complete the catch process and become a runner was changed. The football move was completely removed from the rule book, and the standard for becoming a runner was now that a player must remain "upright long enough." How upright? For how long? Nobody knew. The call would depend on the field official's judgement, and could be overturned based on the replay official's judgment, with no regard for what used to be the catch process.

After one year of this, the commissioner appointed a catch committee to "clarify and streamline" the catch rule. Their recommendation was to put the football move back into the rule book, and this time with specific examples. Unfortunately, the standard for becoming a runner remained (and still remains) the same. A player must be "upright long enough." How upright? For how long? Still, nobody knows. The call still depends on the field official's judgement, and can still be overturned based on the replay official's judgment, with no regard for what used to be the catch process.

Thanks for the rule break down for yet the 100th time.

I am sincere, but there is no confusion. The confusion comes from not understanding the intent and getting hung up on language. Which is exactly why they clarified the language. Unless you still believe it was some sort of cover up?

The intent is protecting the player. Going to the ground or standing up. Protecting meaning allowing themselves to secure the ball before contact. Either contact while standing up or falling down.

Falling adds another element of contact, the ground.

When a player is up right, there are clear acts that they can demonstrate to indicate a time element or to actually secure the ball. If they choose not to tuck the ball away and decide to reach the ball out or run with it or whatever else, it's up to them. But they do so because the can and or have become a runner. Hopefully this is clear.

The intent of the going to the ground rules/case plays are to afford that same protection that an up right receiver has. They deemed that simply reaching or taking steps while falling does not grant the same protection. This is the crux of debate and the part everyone now wants changed. But the rules as written in 2014 don't allow for it.

Now, they do allow a receiver who is going to the ground, or more realistically, a player who ends up on the ground, a window to demonstrate that they have interrupted the fall in a demonstrable way. Or they have gathered themselves, regained balance, braced themselves. That is the ONLY act that they can do. Or if you want to call it become a runner or what have you.

The lunge used in the case plays is clearly defined as not the act to complete the catch process, it's the interruption or gathering that does so. The lunge is simply the act that completes the process of going to the ground.

This all translates to the updated language of stays upright long enough. Replacing regains balance, braces or gathers.

So if that act of gathering does not happen, then they require a receiver to maintain possession through contacting the ground.

It's about protecting the player from fumbles. A point I made about 100 pages ago that you also disagreed with. A point that Pereira says exactly in one of the interviews only a couple months ago when talking about we should make what looks like a catch a catch. But even he doesn't know how to best do it.

This explanation is as simple as I can make it. It's the explanation the NFL stands by. If you, or anyone else can not or will not accept this then so be it.

 

[Gator88]

@OmerV you can read percy's post above and then I will show you here where the twisting happens (not that you need it).



So far, so good.



Here it is: False.

If a player is not "upright long enough" to "demonstrate that he is clearly a runner (2015 GTG rule)" then he is simply going to the ground the same as 2014's rule. All it means is he didn't complete the 3-part process before landing on the ground. How does one "demonstrate" they are clearly a runner? Via time or football moves. As Ive said before, since contact is irrelevant in the GTG rule, a DB can instantly bear hug a WR so he can't make any football moves before they both go to the ground and the WR loses the ball after hitting the ground. How would you determine this WR is clearly a runner? Via judgment of time. And as such, this player would go to the ground as a runner in either 2014 or 2015 whether the official deemed he "maintains control of the ball long enough" in 2014 or "has clearly become a runner" in 2015.



It's not a rule. It's further clarifying what the 2014 rules said due to the outcry of "the rule is too hard to understand." See above.



Again, false.

This is where the case plays come into play because these were held up as examples of a receiver becoming a runner as he was falling to the ground. Here is the one that appears in the 2014 AND 2015 Rulebook/Casebook

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted
by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right
arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the
goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out.
Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The pass is complete. When the receiver hits the ground in the end
zone, it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of
the catch. Since the ball crossed the goal line, it is a touchdown. If the ball is short of the goal line, it is a catch,
and A2 is down by contact.​

Note the wording that says that the lunge the receiver executes is not part of the process of the catch (3-part rule). It doesn't say he completed part c of the 3-part rule via an act common to the game (which would be way easier), it says lunging is NOT part of the catch process. So if you can't say it was a football move, then it was TIME just like noted above. This case play appears in the 2014 AND 2015 Rulebook/Casebook. In 2014, you'd say he had "long enough" to do a football move, and in 2015 you'd judge that he "clearly became a runner" because of TIME.

I think you're misreading the bolded sentence. It doesn't say that the lunge forward isn't part of the catch process, it's saying going to the ground (hitting the ground) isn't part of the catch process. The main part of the sentence is "When the receiver hits the ground in the end zone, it is not part of the process of the catch." The part about the lunge is additional information that isn't the subject.

 

[Gator88]

Thanks for the rule break down for yet the 100th time.

I am sincere, but there is no confusion. The confusion comes from not understanding the intent and getting hung up on language. Which is exactly why they clarified the language. Unless you still believe it was some sort of cover up?

The intent is protecting the player. Going to the ground or standing up. Protecting meaning allowing themselves to secure the ball before contact. Either contact while standing up or falling down.

Falling adds another element of contact, the ground.

When a player is up right, there are clear acts that they can demonstrate to indicate a time element or to actually secure the ball. If they choose not to tuck the ball away and decide to reach the ball out or run with it or whatever else, it's up to them. But they do so because the can and or have become a runner. Hopefully this is clear.

The intent of the going to the ground rules/case plays are to afford that same protection that an up right receiver has. They deemed that simply reaching or taking steps while falling does not grant the same protection. This is the crux of debate and the part everyone now wants changed. But the rules as written in 2014 don't allow for it.

Now, they do allow a receiver who is going to the ground, or more realistically, a player who ends up on the ground, a window to demonstrate that they have interrupted the fall in a demonstrable way. Or they have gathered themselves, regained balance, braced themselves. That is the ONLY act that they can do. Or if you want to call it become a runner or what have you.

The lunge used in the case plays is clearly defined as not the act to complete the catch process, it's the interruption or gathering that does so. The lunge is simply the act that completes the process of going to the ground.

This all translates to the updated language of stays upright long enough. Replacing regains balance, braces or gathers.

So if that act of gathering does not happen, then they require a receiver to maintain possession through contacting the ground.

It's about protecting the player from fumbles. A point I made about 100 pages ago that you also disagreed with. A point that Pereira says exactly in one of the interviews only a couple months ago when talking about we should make what looks like a catch a catch. But even he doesn't know how to best do it.

This explanation is as simple as I can make it. It's the explanation the NFL stands by. If you, or anyone else can not or will not accept this then so be it.

I wouldn't say the NFL stands by anything regarding the catch rule considering that the rule has been changed multiple times over the past few years, and that the commissioner wants to revamp the catch rule because it's providing bad PR to the league. The ones that don't understand the intent of the rule are the ones saying that it wasn't a catch by the 2014 rules.

The parts about going to the ground only applied in 2014 when the receiver couldn't make a football move (aka do something that isn't part of the natural part of a catch and is trying to advance the ball/score) to demonstrate that they had control of the ball. This would be the case primarily on plays where the receiver was in the end zone, like the original Calvin Johnson call that wrongly gets referenced, or on things like diving catches. I think it would be difficult to argue that Dez didn't make a football move considering where he caught the ball and where the ball ended up.

As for fumbles, I'm not 100% sure if this isn't already the case like I think it is, but just make it so that the ground can't cause a fumble, and there you go. If a CB hits the ball out of a reaching receiver's hand, then just have to tip your hat to them on making a great play, and tell the receiver not to reach out near a defender, just like a runner wouldn't.

 

[BlindFaith]

I wouldn't say the NFL stands by anything regarding the catch rule considering that the rule has been changed multiple times over the past few years, and that the commissioner wants to revamp the catch rule because it's providing bad PR to the league. The ones that don't understand the intent of the rule are the ones saying that it wasn't a catch by the 2014 rules.

The parts about going to the ground only applied in 2014 when the receiver couldn't make a football move (aka do something that isn't part of the natural part of a catch and is trying to advance the ball/score) to demonstrate that they had control of the ball. This would be the case primarily on plays where the receiver was in the end zone, like the original Calvin Johnson call that wrongly gets referenced, or on things like diving catches. I think it would be difficult to argue that Dez didn't make a football move considering where he caught the ball and where the ball ended up.

As for fumbles, I'm not 100% sure if this isn't already the case like I think it is, but just make it so that the ground can't cause a fumble, and there you go. If a CB hits the ball out of a reaching receiver's hand, then just have to tip your hat to them on making a great play, and tell the receiver not to reach out near a defender, just like a runner wouldn't.

No offense, but I'm not going to keep rehashing this with every poster who now wants to voice their opinon.

There's over 100 pages talking about this. It's all been said, probably 10 times over.

 

[Gator88]

No offense, but I'm not going to keep rehashing this with every poster who now wants to voice their opinon.

There's over 100 pages talking about this. It's all been said, probably 10 times over.

That's fine, but would you at least agree that the NFL obviously doesnt stand by the catch rule considering they fired the guy in charge of changing it, and the Commissioner has stated that he thinks it's an important issue that needs to be addressed?

 

[Bleedblue1111]

It's a stupid rule that they have allowed to slip completely into the grey (judgemental) area. I understand needing a rule where the ground cannot aid them in securing a catch, like when diving.

But when the rule takes away spectacular catches, and makes officials & rules the main focus, it's awful for the game. I remember a time in the NFL when I knew 99.9 % of the time, what a catch was, and the game had a much smoother flow.

 

[BlindFaith]

That's fine, but would you at least agree that the NFL obviously doesnt stand by the catch rule considering they fired the guy in charge of changing it, and the Commissioner has stated that he thinks it's an important issue that needs to be addressed?

The NFL stands by the Dez call. What they want is to address all of the fan moaning that they don't understand the rules. And there are no sure fire ways to do that without creating a whole new bunch of issues. Fumbles.

 

[Gator88]

The NFL stands by the Dez call. What they want is to address all of the fan moaning that they don't understand the rules. And there are no sure fire ways to do that without creating a whole new bunch of issues. Fumbles.

Of course the NFL will say they got a big, controversial call in the playoffs right even if they got it wrong, the Dez catch isn't the first one of those and it won't be the last. It would be PR suicide for them to admit to it even if they know they got it wrong. You have to look at the actions they have taken since, and realize that they know they screwed it up.

I also fail to see how fumbling would be an issue. If they have the same rules applied to them that runners do, I can't see fumbling being that big of an issue. If they reach for the endzone, and fumble through the endzone causing a touchback, that would be incredibly simular to the Carr play towards the end of the game against Dallas, and that didn't spark any controversy. You have a risk/reward just like runners do now.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

Football used to be so much better without this nonsense....

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/20/9746130/nfl-catch-rule-controversies-calvin-johnson-referees

 

[nathanlt]

The NFL stands by the Dez call. What they want is to address all of the fan moaning that they don't understand the rules. And there are no sure fire ways to do that without creating a whole new bunch of issues. Fumbles.

The NFL tries to pretend the written words in the 2014 rulebook justify taking a catch away, which is absolutely baseless!!!! This scandal will never end until they admit their error in the Packer game.

Thanks for the rule break down for yet the 100th time.

I am sincere, but there is no confusion. The confusion comes from not understanding the intent and getting hung up on language. Which is exactly why they clarified the language. Unless you still believe it was some sort of cover up?

The intent is protecting the player.

.

You don't understand the first thing about their intent. You can only use HEARSAY to SPECULATE as to what their intent was, based on their press conferences and damage control after the Dez catch scandal. Nobody knows what they intended, except them. Now, on the other hand, everyone can read what they wrote. That's why written rulebook language takes precedence over press conferences.

According to what they wrote, BY RULE, DEZ CAUGHT THE BALL.
Football moves applied.
Going to the ground didn't apply, since Dez would never have fallen if contact did not occur between his second and THIRD step.

Goodnight.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

 

[DogFace]

Good to see you've moved past that simply putting a foot on the ground while falling is actually the completed act of going to the ground. But you do realize that your credibility on anything you say now is suspect at least regarding any actual knowledge of the rules themselves.

At least catch up with the latest narrative being shoveled out. That Dez, in a still photo, "clearly" had regained his balance. Or if you like, that he would have not gone to the ground unless he was tripped. Even your band leaders are shying away from him making 7 moves while falling means he gathered himself.

I explained to you and Omar that I didn’t think it mattered if he was going to remain upright or not. Just going on another tangent I was taken on.

Yes. It was you last year-maybe two years ago? You and I disagreed over and over if Dez would’ve remained upright.

I’m sure he wouldn’t stayed up. I was sure then and I thought maybe this picture that Percy posted would help some that can’t imagine the athletisism needed to pull that off see it better. It really isn’t that much. He’s almost upright when the photo was taken.

To say a photo shows you nothing about a fall or not is incorrect. The still photos show the posistion of the body relative to the ground. That should give you an idea if Dez would’ve fallen or not. Comparing that to you holding a gun(great choice) and if you shot someone or not is not a reasonable comparison.


A mid air pitch is also an unreasonable comparison. We both know Dez had at least two feet down and had completed the 2 part of the 3 part process.

The rule, not a caseplay, specifically say that if the player had time to ward off or Pitch the ball than the process is complete. Again, we both know he wasn’t up in the air after switching the ball from two hands to one. Try to focus on the facts of what happened. Not another tangent of what might’ve happened.

In your opinion did he have time to pitch the ball?

 

[DogFace]

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.

Yes. I know you’ve tried to explain that to them many many times. I just thought it would be fun for everyone (it wasn’t that fun) if I went on this tangent with him.


Basically he says the caseplay that’s nearly identical to the Dez play is different because Dez was going down with or without contact. My thought was that thinking was wrong on two levels. The caseplay doesn’t say that and he would’ve stayed up.

I thought the photos you showed would refute that argument that, I know, wasnt really applicable in the Dez play. Just trying to cover all basis.

 

[DogFace]

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.

It’s either really odd behavior or a troll job that would impress Putin.

 

[nathanlt]

Yes. I know you’ve tried to explain that to them many many times. I just thought it would be fun for everyone (it wasn’t that fun) if I went on this tangent with him.


Basically he says the caseplay that’s nearly identical to the Dez play is different because Dez was going down with or without contact. My thought was that thinking was wrong on two levels. The caseplay doesn’t say that and he would’ve stayed up.

I thought the photos you showed would refute that argument that, I know, wasnt really applicable in the Dez play. Just trying to cover all basis.

Hahahahahahaaaa!!! Both things they use as evidence are completely baseless, and actually work against their argument. I still hold that Dez's THIRD step is the only thing that made him fall. They quote the case play that determines itself a touchdown catch as evidence. It would be like quoting Isaac Newton to as proof that gravity doesn't exist.

The only proof they've given us is that there is NO evidence that will change their mind. The NFL botched it three years ago, and are considering changing the rule back to previous language. Still, even that evidence will be contested by them somehow.

Despite the seemingly pointless eternity of this thread, I've learned even more reasons why Dez caught that ball. Thanks to you and Percy!

 

[DogFace]

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

You’ve excedeed the limit and you are NOT allowed to make jokes anymore.

Your full cooperation is a appreciated.

 

[Kevinicus]

Yes. I know you’ve tried to explain that to them many many times. I just thought it would be fun for everyone (it wasn’t that fun) if I went on this tangent with him.


Basically he says the caseplay that’s nearly identical to the Dez play is different because Dez was going down with or without contact. My thought was that thinking was wrong on two levels. The caseplay doesn’t say that and he would’ve stayed up.

I thought the photos you showed would refute that argument that, I know, wasnt really applicable in the Dez play. Just trying to cover all basis.

It's funny. They make an argument, get proven wrong and then cherry pick something from what proved them wrong to claim they are right. Then they say we changed our argument or are cherry picking because we explained why the tangent THEY went on still points to a Dez catch.