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

[DogFace]

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.

I’ll be honest. I’ve been reading that wrong too. Thank you for pointing that out. It’s clear he has no idea either what the sentence really said and his explanation will be so much fun.

I wonder if he’ll even address it. He’s used that line like 30 times.

 

[DogFace]

Will anyone from the pro overturn group please address Percy’s question?

Why was Blandino looking for a football move if it didn’t matter because he was going to the ground and that, as you say, trumps the 3 part process. Why look for part 3 of the process if you can’t complete the process while going to the ground?

He’s asked that a minimum of 7 times. Still no answer. If there was please tell me.

That one question really should wrap up this entire argument.

@BlindFaith @MarcusRock @OmerV

 

[percyhoward]

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.

That's how I read that one too, although this next one (from 2014) does read "the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch."

A.R. 15.95
Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.
In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.​

But since this is under the heading "Act common to the game," it's obvious that the lunge is the act common to the game they're referring to. And in 2014, any act common to the game satisfied the time element and established the player as a runner. Indeed, the lunge is not a part of the catch process, but a separate act that shows the time requirement has been met and the player is now a runner. It's all clearly stated.

And even ignoring how it reads, common sense says any scenario discussed under "Act common to the game" must be about an act common to the game, right?

 

[BlindFaith]

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

So first, are you recommending making changes to just plays that result in TDs or potential touchdowns. Sounds like it. So catches in the field of play?

So as soon as a player has possession and two feet down and then what? So replace the gathering part of the rule or now the remain upright with what exactly? Any act common? So any extra step, or reach, or shifting hands? So as soon as that happens it's a catch? That's what you want?

All the plays that everyone is in arms about are because they would have resulted in positive plays. Not one example of where the rule prevented a fumble.
Here is the argument. https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/touc...belchicks-nfl-catch-rule-is-pretty-clear/amp/

 

[BlindFaith]

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?

We can just stop. No sense debating the rules if you don't think he was falling.

 

[DogFace]

We can just stop. No sense debating the rules if you don't think he was falling.

Yeah. That’s what you said last year. I’m sure he wasn’t going to fall without the trip, but I don’t care if he was or wasn’t. It’s a catch either way.

No one will answer percy’s question.

Why would Blandino say he was looking for a football move if that move did not matter because the going to the ground rule trumps the 3 part process? As you say it does.

 

[DogFace]

That's how I read that one too, although this next one (from 2014) does read "the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch."

A.R. 15.95
Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.
In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.​

But since this is under the heading "Act common to the game," it's obvious that the lunge is the act common to the game they're referring to. And in 2014, any act common to the game satisfied the time element and established the player as a runner. Indeed, the lunge is not a part of the catch process, but a separate act that shows the time requirement has been met and the player is now a runner. It's all clearly stated.

And even ignoring how it reads, common sense says any scenario discussed under "Act common to the game" must be about an act common to the game, right?

Their answer to the last question will be interesting.
Though, I feel you’ve asked it a few times.


Are these all based on actual plays and they’re just trying to show multiple examples of the catch process? Or are they made up scenarios?

 

[G2]

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

Your full cooperation is a appreciated.

Go pick the legs off a spider.

 

[BlindFaith]

Yeah. That’s what you said last year. I’m sure he wasn’t going to fall without the trip, but I don’t care if he was or wasn’t. It’s a catch either way.

No one will answer percy’s question.

Why would Blandino say he was looking for a football move if that move did not matter because the going to the ground rule trumps the 3 part process? As you say it does.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...andino-explains-Dez-Bryant-controversial-call

https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/prof...ule-and-its-starting-to-make-sense-again/amp/

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...to-call-the-catch-rule-if-in-doubt-incomplete

 

[Sarge]

 

[percyhoward]

Are these all based on actual plays and they’re just trying to show multiple examples of the catch process? Or are they made up scenarios?

I had never even heard of the casebooks until @blindzebra brought them into the discussions of Dez's overturned catch a few years ago. No doubt all the plays have happened, some of them on a weekly basis. I think the casebooks are a way to show practical applications of the rules listed in the rule book, which is why they're a good resource for understanding why a certain call was made. They'd also make good quizzes for officials, for that matter.

One thing's for sure -- they're official. The only meaningful difference between A.R. 15.95 and Dez's overturned catch was that Dez took an extra step. Unless you want to say that a lunge isn't a lunge unless it results in a first down or touchdown, which makes no sense.

 

[Gator88]

So first, are you recommending making changes to just plays that result in TDs or potential touchdowns. Sounds like it. So catches in the field of play?

So as soon as a player has possession and two feet down and then what? So replace the gathering part of the rule or now the remain upright with what exactly? Any act common? So any extra step, or reach, or shifting hands? So as soon as that happens it's a catch? That's what you want?

All the plays that everyone is in arms about are because they would have resulted in positive plays. Not one example of where the rule prevented a fumble.
Here is the argument. https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/touc...belchicks-nfl-catch-rule-is-pretty-clear/amp/

Well, I'm thinking it should just go back to 2014 rules before they kept changing the rule.

As soon as a player has possession and 2 feet down, yeah I'd say an act common to the game would complete the catch. With examples like the ones you gave. When that happens, it is a catch and the player with the ball becomes a runner.

As for fumbles, I read the article and I still don't really see the issue with fumbling. If Belichek does, I realize that I'm probably missing something though. For me once, the receiver makes an act common to the game and becomes a runner, he would have the same rules apply to him as they do a runner. So, the ground can't cause a fumble which to me would be where the majority of the issue is. As for if a defender knocks the ball out, it's the same thing as a runner if the defender knocks the ball out.

 

[DogFace]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...andino-explains-Dez-Bryant-controversial-call

https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/prof...ule-and-its-starting-to-make-sense-again/amp/

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...to-call-the-catch-rule-if-in-doubt-incomplete

Did he answer why he looked for a football move if it didn’t matter because he was going to the ground and that trumps the 3 part process as he and your side say?

Seems contradictory.

 

[MarcusRock]

Did he answer why he looked for a football move if it didn’t matter because he was going to the ground and that trumps the 3 part process as he and your side say?

Seems contradictory.

You want our side to answer questions when your ringleader ignores ours? Have you not seen me try to ask a question no less than 5 times about the lie concerning the application of rules being changed from 2014 to 2015? The last time he ignored a question of mine he eventually had to fess up that I was right. Why do you think he avoids this question now?

 

[BlindFaith]

Did he answer why he looked for a football move if it didn’t matter because he was going to the ground and that trumps the 3 part process as he and your side say?

Seems contradictory.

https://247sports.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/Bolt/VP-of-Officiating-Explains-Dez-Bryant-Call-34665336

http://www.footballnation.net/artic...ean-blandino-talks-dez-bryant-no-catch-ruling

And here is one from Stephen Jones who also agrees that it wasn't a catch. Unless he's on the conspiracy list too.
http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/article28172101.html

 

[MarcusRock]

https://247sports.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/Bolt/VP-of-Officiating-Explains-Dez-Bryant-Call-34665336

http://www.footballnation.net/artic...ean-blandino-talks-dez-bryant-no-catch-ruling

And here is one from Stephen Jones who also agrees that it wasn't a catch. Unless he's on the conspiracy list too.
http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/article28172101.html

Good find on the Stephen Jones article.

 

[BlindFaith]

Good find on the Stephen Jones article.

It'll be interesting to see how they respond. Or maybe Stephen is in on it? He is on the Competition Committee. The cover up goes deep? Or maybe he just doesn't know the rules as well as our local experts?

Wonder if blindzebra would feel he's talking to a rock? Or Percy telling him that the rules were clearly changed to cover up? Or how the rest telling him just how wrong he is and how they can "school" him on the rules.

Can we finally put this to rest? The call was right.

 

[MarcusRock]

It'll be interesting to see how they respond. Or maybe Stephen is in on it? He is on the Competition Committee. The cover up goes deep? Or maybe he just doesn't know the rules as well as our local experts?

Wonder if blindzebra would feel he's talking to a rock? Or Percy telling him that the rules were clearly changed to cover up? Or how the rest telling him just how wrong he is and how they can "school" him on the rules.

Can we finally put this to rest? The call was right.

LOL. If you think of my list of their ever-changing stories as the Kubler-Ross stages of dying, the CONSPIRACY! story listed last coincides with the last stage of Acceptance in the Kubler-Ross model. Acceptance of the death of their argument, that is.

 

[BlindFaith]

LOL. If you think of my list of their ever-changing stories as the Kubler-Ross stages of dying, the CONSPIRACY! story listed last coincides with the last stage of Acceptance in the Kubler-Ross model. Acceptance of the death of their argument, that is.

What does the KR model say about people still not believing, even after not seeing the body climb out of the grave after 3+ years?

 

[G2]

Stephen Jones is in on the conspiracy. Him and Bigfoot. And that damn Leprechaun. Cereal my ***.