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

[OmerV]

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

What Blandino said was he considered that aspect and rejected it. He said the reaching was just something done in the act of going to the ground, and he also specifically said Dez was not a runner, but rather was a receiver going to the ground, and that the rule is clear that if a player is going to the ground, then he has to control the ball all the way through.

 

[OmerV]

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.

Yet you can't point out where the cherry picking takes place - you just making a general statement with no back up. Anyone can do that - it's kind of the "no you are" method of arguing seen on elementary school playgrounds. On the other hand, we have shown the cherry picking on the other side when it occurs.

 

[Kevinicus]

Yet you can't point out where the cherry picking takes place - you just making a general statement with no back up. Anyone can do that - it's kind of the "no you are" method of arguing seen on elementary school playgrounds. On the other hand, we have shown the cherry picking on the other side when it occurs.

Except I have, as have others, and you have failed to point out anything, just failed to grasp basic concepts.

 

[OmerV]

Except I have, as have others, and you have failed to point out anything, just failed to grasp basic concepts.

No, you actually haven't. I remember you attempting to, but it failed miserably because you claimed we said one thing and then another, when we actually had said both things all along. The two things weren't mutually exclusive - saying one didn't negate or override or change what we were saying about the other.

 

[OmerV]

He lost and regained control prior to getting his 2nd foot down. It's not pertinent.

You apparently are having a hard time understanding that if player isn't established as a runner, then when he goes to the ground he has to maintain control all the way through without the ball ever touching the ground. You may disagree with whether he established himself as a runner, but you can't rationally or logically suggest that it doesn't matter if he did or not.

 

[G2]

What Blandino said was he considered that aspect and rejected it. He said the reaching was just something done in the act of going to the ground, and he also specifically said Dez was not a runner, but rather was a receiver going to the ground, and that the rule is clear that if a player is going to the ground, then he has to control the ball all the way through.

It's as simple as this, really. Dez was going to the ground and was still considered a WR, NOT a runner. I think some fans just can't grasp the idea and/or refuse to let go of their fan-hood. As I've said, had he maintained possession it's a complete pass. And that's why they ruled it's incomplete. Simple once you get into the details and reasoning. I think some fans just think it's as easy as two feet and a catch, but there would be copious amounts of fumbles if that were the case.

 

[OmerV]

Then explain the case play if you saying going to the ground always applies. Your deflection of "but the case play says contact" will not work, because you say it ALWAYS applies.

You keep crying cherry picking, but you can't actually cite something that is cherry picked. You try to say people go back and forth between the rule and case play because you're incapable of grasping that they go together, hand in hand.

I have citied the cherry picking. I'll give you one of the more notable examples. Folks on your side have argued against my comments about A.R. 8.12 by saying Item 1 refers to going to the ground "with or without contact", while at the same time ignoring that Item 1 also says in that case the pass is incomplete. So what they are doing is saying the language in Item 1 matters as to a particular snippet of Item 1, but doesn't matter as to the entirety of Item 1.

As for whether going to the ground "always applies", I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. Where do I say "going to the ground "always applies"? What I've said regarding the case play is actually that "going to the ground" doesn't apply because in that case the receiver was down with one foot and upright before being hit, and it was only the hit that causes him to go to the ground. This is distinguished from a play where a receiver is going to the ground from the time the first foot comes down, and regardless of contact. I've consistently said that - probably to the point that many are tired of reading it. - so I don't know how you've somehow missed it.

 

[OmerV]

It's as simple as this, really. Dez was going to the ground and was still considered a WR, NOT a runner. I think some fans just can't grasp the idea and/or refuse to let go of their fan-hood. As I've said, had he maintained possession it's a complete pass. And that's why they ruled it's incomplete. Simple once you get into the details and reasoning. I think some fans just think it's as easy as two feet and a catch, but there would be copious amounts of fumbles if that were the case.

That's exactly what Blandino said. The fact he said he looked at other possible viewpoints, including whether Dez could have made a move that established him as a runner, doesn't change the fact that he rejected other viewpoints and was left with the conclusion that Dez had not established himself as a runner and therefore had to maintain control all the way through the play.

 

[Kevinicus]

You apparently are having a hard time understanding that if player isn't established as a runner, then when he goes to the ground he has to maintain control all the way through without the ball ever touching the ground. You may disagree with whether he established himself as a runner, but you can't rationally or logically suggest that it doesn't matter if he did or not.

Please stop. You ignore the case play because it doesn't fit your wrong interpretation. You're back to the simplistic and WRONG "if he went to the ground blah blah blah" because you don't understand. And you're not even using the wording from the right year for Pete's sake. I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[Kevinicus]

I have citied the cherry picking. I'll give you one of the more notable examples. Folks on your side have argued against my comments about A.R. 8.12 by saying Item 1 refers to going to the ground "with or without contact", while at the same time ignoring that Item 1 also says in that case the pass is incomplete. So what they are doing is saying the language in Item 1 matters as to a particular snippet of Item 1, but doesn't matter as to the entirety of Item 1.

As for whether going to the ground "always applies", I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. Where do I say "going to the ground "always applies"? What I've said regarding the case play is actually that "going to the ground" doesn't apply because in that case the receiver was down with one foot and upright before being hit, and it was only the hit that causes him to go to the ground. This is distinguished from a play where a receiver is going to the ground from the time the first foot comes down, and regardless of contact. I've consistently said that - probably to the point that many are tired of reading it. - so I don't know how you've somehow missed it.

Oh my word. You are blatantly cherry picking and twisting things right here in this post and don't realize it.

You don't even understand what a catch is...AT ALL.

You think one foot down and contact means someone is a runner apparently. It's beyond absurd. 100% trolling.

 

[OmerV]

Oh my word. You are blatantly cherry picking and twisting things right here in this post and don't realize it.

You don't even understand what a catch is...AT ALL.

You think one foot down and contact means someone is a runner apparently. It's beyond absurd. 100% trolling.

lol - what did I cherry pick in this post? Seems claims without commentary to back it up are your norm.

As for your last sentence, apparently you haven't even read the case play you are referring to. How in the world can you claim to make an argument based on something you haven't even bothered to read. The case play specifically refers to a player coming down with one foot and then afterward going to the ground as a result of being hit by an opponent.

Take the time to actually read the rules, including Item 1, and including the case plays, then come back and try to have an intelligent conversation. As it is you are making claims based on things in print you haven't even bothered to read.

 

[OmerV]

Please stop. You ignore the case play because it doesn't fit your wrong interpretation. You're back to the simplistic and WRONG "if he went to the ground blah blah blah" because you don't understand. And you're not even using the wording from the right year for Pete's sake. I'm embarrassed for you.

You don't even know what the case play says, but even if the case play says what you imagine it doesn't change the fact that being established as a runner is the key. Even those on your side of the argument don't disagree with that. Everyone in this thread except you understands that a determination of whether the receiver was established as a runner or not is the key element in discussion, and the key to whether the play should have been ruled complete or incomplete.

 

[BlindFaith]

Please stop. You ignore the case play because it doesn't fit your wrong interpretation. You're back to the simplistic and WRONG "if he went to the ground blah blah blah" because you don't understand. And you're not even using the wording from the right year for Pete's sake. I'm embarrassed for you.

So you are saying Stephen Jones is wrong too? I guess he doesn't understand? Or the officials?

 

[G2]

So you are saying Stephen Jones is wrong too? I guess he doesn't understand? Or the officials?

You act like Stephen Jones is on the competition committee or something, what does he know.

 

[BlindFaith]

You act like Stephen Jones is on the competition committee or something, what does he know.

Yeah, and I'm sure he has some bias against the Cowboys too.

 

[MarcusRock]

The best CONSPIRACY! always has someone on the inside. Well played Stephen. Well played.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

Lol....that's just Stephen being politically correct. People are pretty naive if they don't think Stephen complained about that play behind closed doors. But I don't expect people to take his quote with a grain of salt, from people that don't believe that was a catch.

 

[MarcusRock]

Lol....that's just Stephen being politically correct. People are pretty naive if they don't think Stephen complained about that play behind closed doors. But I wouldn't expect people to take his quote with a grain of salt, from people that don't believe that was a catch.

He probably did complain about it behind closed doors at first. But once he dropped the emotion behind what he wanted and looked at the rules, he had to confess it was correct by the rules. You know, like an adult does.

 

[G2]

Lol....that's just Stephen being politically correct. People are pretty naive if they don't think Stephen complained about that play behind closed doors. But I don't expect people to take his quote with a grain of salt, from people that don't believe that was a catch.

I'm sure he was disappointed and maybe he did complain....that Dez didn't wrap the ball up.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

He probably did complain about it behind closed doors at first. But once he dropped the emotion behind what he wanted and looked at the rules, he had to confess it was correct by the rules. You know, like an adult does.

For every one person you could show me that says it was within the rules, I can show you one that says it wasn't. That's how controversial the ruling was.

Bottom line is we need a better rule. Even if it leads to more fumbles, so be it. I don't remember many controversial "fumbles" prior to the grey being written into what defines a catch.