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

[Kevinicus]

How nice of him to put his reputation on the line and take part in the cover up.

Or maybe he's just right and you're not?

Ohh who to believe?

Coverup? I mean is PR a completely foreign concept to you guys?

 

[percyhoward]

Of course the only way to know if he loses the ball when he hits the ground is when he actually hits the ground, but it's the determination of whether he was a runner or a player going to the ground that dictates if it is a fumble or an incomplete pass.

Right, but it's that determination that either dictates or precludes the application of Item 1 in the first place. Item 1 itself does not make that determination -- the catch process does. Control + 2 feet + time. Since 2015, the "time" part is "upright long enough". Before then, it was "any act common to the game."

I think a lot of our disagreement is rooted in how we see Item 1. You see it as a secondary/subordinate rule, whereas I see it as the guiding rule for a player who is going to ground while attempting to catch a ball. I believe Item 1 is in place to indicate that a player going to the ground has a different standard for establishing possession than one who is not.

Item 1 is indeed the guiding rule for a player who goes to ground in the act of catching a pass. But first, the catch process is the guiding rule that determines whether that player went to the ground in the act of catching the pass, or went the ground as a runner. If it's the former, Item 1 says the only way to meet the time element is by holding onto the ball after hitting the ground. If it's the latter, Item 1 doesn't enter into it, because the time requirement was already met.

Changing the standard from the football move to "upright long enough" effectively put Item 1 first. That's why nobody knows what a catch is anymore. Because if you put Item 1 first -- if you put "going to the ground" first -- then you have two problems. First, you have to justify why the catch itself becomes secondary to a player's body lean. Why now, instead of looking to see if he caught it, you're looking to see if he was upright long enough when he caught it. Second, you now have to define "upright long enough." Which, by the way, no one has even bothered to do, at least publicly. It would be high comedy.

As for what Blandino said about reaching, I believe his comment about reaching with both hands was simply to say he would have to have done more than he did to show he was in control of his balance rather than just falling.

Then I have to ask you why you think he wouldn't just say "in order to show he was in control of his balance," instead of using the words "in order for it to be a football move."

On whether or not Dez Bryant reaching for the goal line could have been considered a football act:

“Yeah, absolutely. We looked at that aspect of it and in order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line. This is all part of in our view, all part of his momentum in going to the ground and he lost the ball when he hit the ground. That in our view made it incomplete and we feel like it’s a consistent application of the rule as it has been written over the last couple of years.”​

The most logical explanation for what he said is that a football move establishes Dez as a runner. It fits with the idea that the catch process takes precedence over "going to the ground," because the football move is what completes the catch process. It fits with the casebook scenarios that say that the player doesn't have to survive the ground when an act common to the game showed he'd completed the catch process. It fits with the 2014 rule that said a catch was made if the player had control, two feet, and enough time to perform any act common to the game. Enough time to perform a football move.

If I take the opposite view, and say that the football move does not establish Dez as a runner in 2014, then I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why he's even talking about a football move, and why he would go into detail describing what Dez would have had to do, in Blandino's words, "in order for it to be a football move." I'm trying to find some way to make sense of what he actually said, because it doesn't make sense if what I believe is true. I'm also wondering why he didn't just say, "The football move doesn't matter when the player is going to the ground."

 

[BlindFaith]

Coverup? I mean is PR a completely foreign concept to you guys?

You do understand that to everyone in the world, aside from a handful of cowboys fans, that any talk of Stephen Jones lying about thinking that the call was correct in the name of a PR move would be laughed at...right?

 

[Kevinicus]

You do understand that to everyone in the world, aside from a handful of cowboys fans, that any talk of Stephen Jones lying about thinking that the call was correct in the name of a PR move would be laughed at...right?

You honestly believe that? What world are you in?

 

[DogFace]

Right, but it's that determination that either dictates or precludes the application of Item 1 in the first place. Item 1 itself does not make that determination -- the catch process does. Control + 2 feet + time. Since 2015, the "time" part is "upright long enough". Before then, it was "any act common to the game."


Item 1 is indeed the guiding rule for a player who goes to ground in the act of catching a pass. But first, the catch process is the guiding rule that determines whether that player went to the ground in the act of catching the pass, or went the ground as a runner. If it's the former, Item 1 says the only way to meet the time element is by holding onto the ball after hitting the ground. If it's the latter, Item 1 doesn't enter into it, because the time requirement was already met.

Changing the standard from the football move to "upright long enough" effectively put Item 1 first. That's why nobody knows what a catch is anymore. Because if you put Item 1 first -- if you put "going to the ground" first -- then you have two problems. First, you have to justify why the catch itself becomes secondary to a player's body lean. Why now, instead of looking to see if he caught it, you're looking to see if he was upright long enough when he caught it. Second, you now have to define "upright long enough." Which, by the way, no one has even bothered to do, at least publicly. It would be high comedy.


Then I have to ask you why you think he wouldn't just say "in order to show he was in control of his balance," instead of using the words "in order for it to be a football move."

On whether or not Dez Bryant reaching for the goal line could have been considered a football act:

“Yeah, absolutely. We looked at that aspect of it and in order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line. This is all part of in our view, all part of his momentum in going to the ground and he lost the ball when he hit the ground. That in our view made it incomplete and we feel like it’s a consistent application of the rule as it has been written over the last couple of years.”​

The most logical explanation for what he said is that a football move establishes Dez as a runner. It fits with the idea that the catch process takes precedence over "going to the ground," because the football move is what completes the catch process. It fits with the casebook scenarios that say that the player doesn't have to survive the ground when an act common to the game showed he'd completed the catch process. It fits with the 2014 rule that said a catch was made if the player had control, two feet, and enough time to perform any act common to the game. Enough time to perform a football move.

If I take the opposite view, and say that the football move does not establish Dez as a runner in 2014, then I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why he's even talking about a football move, and why he would go into detail describing what Dez would have had to do, in Blandino's words, "in order for it to be a football move." I'm trying to find some way to make sense of what he actually said, because it doesn't make sense if what I believe is true. I'm also wondering why he didn't just say, "The football move doesn't matter when the player is going to the ground."

At least @OmerV attempted to answer that question. Not what Blandino said as you pointed out, but he tried. The others can’t. It will further hurt their arguments.

You’ve asked them. I’ve asked them your question because they won’t answer you. @BlindFaith sent me some video links that didn’t answer. @MarcusRock typed conspiracy in all caps.

Of course Blandino’s quote shows that the catch process takes precedent over going to the ground. If it didn’t take precedent he would’ve simply said we weren’t looking for the football move because he was going to the ground.

Hard to imagine why they can’t understand that.

The Bigfoot sketch they performed a few pages back is a clue as to why.

 

[G2]

C'mon now. A reciever taking a hit from tiny corners after getting two feet on the ground is tackle football. It's already too much like flag football as it is. I miss watching the game I used to play as a teen. "Sigh"

He does make a solid point, but I do get your thought process. Here's what I think: Besides the increased amount of hits, the amount of fumbles would be through the roof. Exciting as that sounds, it would greatly effect the game.
Best solution to me is to require the WR keep control of the ball...

 

[OmerV]

Right, but it's that determination that either dictates or precludes the application of Item 1 in the first place. Item 1 itself does not make that determination -- the catch process does. Control + 2 feet + time. Since 2015, the "time" part is "upright long enough". Before then, it was "any act common to the game."


Item 1 is indeed the guiding rule for a player who goes to ground in the act of catching a pass. But first, the catch process is the guiding rule that determines whether that player went to the ground in the act of catching the pass, or went the ground as a runner. If it's the former, Item 1 says the only way to meet the time element is by holding onto the ball after hitting the ground. If it's the latter, Item 1 doesn't enter into it, because the time requirement was already met.

Changing the standard from the football move to "upright long enough" effectively put Item 1 first. That's why nobody knows what a catch is anymore. Because if you put Item 1 first -- if you put "going to the ground" first -- then you have two problems. First, you have to justify why the catch itself becomes secondary to a player's body lean. Why now, instead of looking to see if he caught it, you're looking to see if he was upright long enough when he caught it. Second, you now have to define "upright long enough." Which, by the way, no one has even bothered to do, at least publicly. It would be high comedy.


Then I have to ask you why you think he wouldn't just say "in order to show he was in control of his balance," instead of using the words "in order for it to be a football move."

On whether or not Dez Bryant reaching for the goal line could have been considered a football act:

“Yeah, absolutely. We looked at that aspect of it and in order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line. This is all part of in our view, all part of his momentum in going to the ground and he lost the ball when he hit the ground. That in our view made it incomplete and we feel like it’s a consistent application of the rule as it has been written over the last couple of years.”​

The most logical explanation for what he said is that a football move establishes Dez as a runner. It fits with the idea that the catch process takes precedence over "going to the ground," because the football move is what completes the catch process. It fits with the casebook scenarios that say that the player doesn't have to survive the ground when an act common to the game showed he'd completed the catch process. It fits with the 2014 rule that said a catch was made if the player had control, two feet, and enough time to perform any act common to the game. Enough time to perform a football move.

If I take the opposite view, and say that the football move does not establish Dez as a runner in 2014, then I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why he's even talking about a football move, and why he would go into detail describing what Dez would have had to do, in Blandino's words, "in order for it to be a football move." I'm trying to find some way to make sense of what he actually said, because it doesn't make sense if what I believe is true. I'm also wondering why he didn't just say, "The football move doesn't matter when the player is going to the ground."

We've gone around and around with this enough, and unfortunately we are going to have to agree to disagree, accepting that some of the problem is with the rules not being as clear as they could and should be, and part is simply a difference in how we see things. I started to respond to all this, but the truth is you've said all the same things before, and I've said all the same things before that I would say if I responded. We are both repeating ourselves. I kind of hate to drop out because this discussion is really the only interesting thing on the site right now, but I'm at the point I almost feel I could go back and cut and paste earlier posts. Thanks for the back and forth.

 

[OmerV]

At least @OmerV attempted to answer that question. Not what Blandino said as you pointed out, but he tried. The others can’t. It will further hurt their arguments.

You’ve asked them. I’ve asked them your question because they won’t answer you. @BlindFaith sent me some video links that didn’t answer. @MarcusRock typed conspiracy in all caps.

Of course Blandino’s quote shows that the catch process takes precedent over going to the ground. If it didn’t take precedent he would’ve simply said we weren’t looking for the football move because he was going to the ground.

Hard to imagine why they can’t understand that.

The Bigfoot sketch they performed a few pages back is a clue as to why.

Damn, I was dropping out, but one more point about Blandino - I understand the confusion that he even mentioned the idea of reaching for the goal line with the ball in both hands, but you can't ignore that he clearly said he believed Dez was falling the whole way, and that because of that he had to maintain possession all the way through. There can't even be a disagreement that Blandino said that. To suggest Blandino believes falling all the way doesn't matter one would have to ignore the clearest, and most direct comment he made about the play and instead put the emphasis on a side point about being willing to look for something that would change his mind - which he didn't find.

 

[BlindFaith]

You honestly believe that? What world are you in?

Obviously not the one you're in.

 

[BlindFaith]

At least @OmerV attempted to answer that question. Not what Blandino said as you pointed out, but he tried. The others can’t. It will further hurt their arguments.

You’ve asked them. I’ve asked them your question because they won’t answer you. @BlindFaith sent me some video links that didn’t answer. @MarcusRock typed conspiracy in all caps.

Of course Blandino’s quote shows that the catch process takes precedent over going to the ground. If it didn’t take precedent he would’ve simply said we weren’t looking for the football move because he was going to the ground.

Hard to imagine why they can’t understand that.

The Bigfoot sketch they performed a few pages back is a clue as to why.

I'm done responding to any further rule questions. We have clearly explained the rules, why the call was made. We have clearly given names and responses from those who are "exports". Yet you ignore this all. It's futile debating this any further. You obviously think you know the rules better than they do. It's laughable. OR you think that the rule was not properly enforced at the time and then in 2015 they radically changed the rules to "cover up" a blown call. #conspiracy!

So which is it? You know more than they do or it's a conspiracy? Just answer the simple question.

 

[DogFace]

I'm done responding to any further rule questions. We have clearly explained the rules, why the call was made. We have clearly given names and responses from those who are "exports". Yet you ignore this all. It's futile debating this any further. You obviously think you know the rules better than they do. It's laughable. OR you think that the rule was not properly enforced at the time and then in 2015 they radically changed the rules to "cover up" a blown call. #conspiracy!

So which is it? You know more than they do or it's a conspiracy? Just answer the simple question.

Thanks to percy and Blindzebra I know more.
Now you do too. You just don’t know you do.

 

[DogFace]

Damn, I was dropping out, but one more point about Blandino - I understand the confusion that he even mentioned the idea of reaching for the goal line with the ball in both hands, but you can't ignore that he clearly said he believed Dez was falling the whole way, and that because of that he had to maintain possession all the way through. There can't even be a disagreement that Blandino said that. To suggest Blandino believes falling all the way doesn't matter one would have to ignore the clearest, and most direct comment he made about the play and instead put the emphasis on a side point about being willing to look for something that would change his mind - which he didn't find.

Right. He was confused about the rules as well and how to explain how and why they were applied in the Dez case.

That’s why In his explanations he did mention looking for a football move. There is no reason to look for the move if going to the ground trumped the 3rd step of the process. He would’ve simply said he was going to the ground and looking for a football move wasn’t necessary because he was going to the ground.

He was unqualified for the job. His resignation reenforces that.

 

[BlindFaith]

Thanks to percy and Blindzebra I know more.
Now you do too. You just don’t know you do.

Honestly? No, not regarding the going to the ground and how its enforced. I stand by my explanations and they are consistent with how the calls were and are being made. I did get clarification on the Clements ruling, so it's all good.

 

[BlindFaith]

Right. He was confused about the rules as well and how to explain how and why they were applied in the Dez case.

This I fully agree with. And why I've been calling Blandino an idiot. He initially failed to accurately explain the key part of the whole debate. He did a much better job when he started using terms like gather themselves. The lunge or reach or any of that was secondary to that main act - the act of gathering themselves, or as the rules say, regain balance or brace. Interruption of the fall is "becoming a runner".

 

[MarcusRock]

This I fully agree with. And why I've been calling Blandino an idiot. He initially failed to accurately explain the key part of the whole debate. He did a much better job when he started using terms like gather themselves. The lunge or reach or any of that was secondary to that main act - the act of gathering themselves, or as the rules say, regain balance or brace. Interruption of the fall is "becoming a runner".

Which is language direct from the 2015 rule. Interesting that Blandino was mentioning Dez becoming a runner a year before the rule was re-worded to "becoming a runner," yet the rule somehow changed to cover something up? The only people buying that are the emotional knee-jerks who don't know better and just want to hear someone else say "we wuz robbed" so they can hop on that train.

 

[OmerV]

Right. He was confused about the rules as well and how to explain how and why they were applied in the Dez case.

That’s why In his explanations he did mention looking for a football move. There is no reason to look for the move if going to the ground trumped the 3rd step of the process. He would’ve simply said he was going to the ground and looking for a football move wasn’t necessary because he was going to the ground.

He was unqualified for the job. His resignation reenforces that.

I think what he meant by looking for a football move was that he looked for something that would prove Dez wasn't going to the ground the whole way - something that might prove had his balance and feet under him and was able to reach for the goal line in a controlled manner rather than simply as part of his momentum carrying him to the ground (words he did use). Again, you can't just deny that he said Dez was going to the ground the whole way, and because of that he had to maintain possession all the way through the play. There was no vagueness in his words about that.

 

[MarcusRock]

I think what he meant by looking for a football move was that he looked for something that would prove Dez wasn't going to the ground the whole way - something that might prove had his balance and feet under him and was able to reach for the goal line in a controlled manner rather than simply as part of his momentum carrying him to the ground (words he did use). Again, you can't just deny that he said Dez was going to the ground the whole way, and because of that he had to maintain possession all the way through the play. There was no vagueness in his words about that.

You are spot on. And if Jabba's little helper had done a little more reading in the thread besides what his superior posted to follow behind and post "yeah, that's right" himself, he would have seen that I answered that question multiple times, including linking to a post where I did. The catch theorists have had to ignore the going to the ground rule all the way and when met, they then settled on the CONSPIRACY! of a cover-up by changing the rule the next year. Don't know what kind of idiots they think the NFL would be to substantially change a rule with the whole sports world watching following a controversy concerning the very rule, but shoehorning never did care about common sense.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

C'mon! When a reciever high points the ball, and then turns and travels about 15 feet while controlling the ball, that should always be a catch. They need to adjust, or change the rule to insure it is. Would 16 feet be more convincing, for people to agree to this? Lol, Smh.

 

[percyhoward]

Again, you can't just deny that he said Dez was going to the ground the whole way, and because of that he had to maintain possession all the way through the play. There was no vagueness in his words about that.

There's no reason to deny it. Blandino absolutely ruled that Dez was going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. No vagueness there at all, and no one questions what he meant with those words. Nobody has any problem understanding that part. But that's not where the problem lies.

Blandino didn't have to prove Dez was going to the ground. Dez obviously went to the ground. He had to prove Dez was going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. An official can't just decree that a player was still in the act of catching the pass when he went to the ground. The catch process decides whether or not he's still in the act of catching a pass, and in 2014 the football move completed the catch process.

If you look at it with that understanding, then you can see why Blandino had to address the football move. If you don't, then it makes no sense to you, and you have to put words in his mouth.

 

[CCBoy]

There's no reason to deny it. Blandino absolutely ruled that Dez was going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. No vagueness there at all, and no one questions what he meant with those words. Nobody has any problem understanding that part. But that's not where the problem lies.

Blandino didn't have to prove Dez was going to the ground. Dez obviously went to the ground. He had to prove Dez was going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. An official can't just decree that a player was still in the act of catching the pass when he went to the ground. The catch process decides whether or not he's still in the act of catching a pass, and in 2014 the football move completed the catch process.

If you look at it with that understanding, then you can see why Blandino had to address the football move. If you don't, then it makes no sense to you, and you have to put words in his mouth.

Lol, Percy...I am amazed by the number of ways that being a runner can be projected in space...