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

[G2]

IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!

He was going to the ground and never regained his balance.

Why is this so hard to understand for some and/or ignored?

 

[Kevinicus]

This actually is starting to make me laugh out loud. I directly cited the post where you said it. You're whole schtick is to be vague, give no explanations and make no effort at reason or original thought, but claim you have. I directly posted what you said, and I explained myself, yet you apparently are clueless on how to do that on your side.

No, you did not. The post you quoted does not have me saying that.

 

[Kevinicus]

This is what you said at 10:13 am on Monday .... "You think one foot down and contact means someone is a runner apparently. It's beyond absurd. 100% trolling.

Let's see what did I say here? I said you seem to think one foot down and contact means someone is a runner. Based on your previous posts, that is what it appears you were saying.

And this is what you said at 4:04 pm on Monday ..... I didn't read the case play? I know it well. You haven't made a single coherent argument concerning it yet. You're right, the case play does specifically reference a player getting one foot down and subsequently going to the ground.

Now, what did I say here? I say that the case play *****REFERENCES***** a player getting one foot down and then going to the ground. Look very carefully, and you will see that I ****DO NOT**** say that because the case play references one foot down and then contact, that one foot followed by contact makes someone a runner. It doesn't. Further steps are required. Nor do I say that because the case play references this, that is is important to the ruling (the contact, obviously getting feet down is a requirement).

You contradicted yourself, first disputing the entire idea that a foot down and then being tackled to the ground was even a factor - and in fact calling me a troll for mentioning it - and then later the same day admitting that the case play actually does discuss that as a factor, and at the same time claiming you know the case play well. I suppose you must have read the case play somewhere between 10:13 am and 4:04 pm and felt you could treat that knowledge as if it were retroactive.

There is no contradiction, only your complete lack of reading comprehension. The idea that one foot down and then being contacted is a factor (in the case play) is absolutely disputed by me. I did not say the case play discusses it as a factor. I said it references it. If the case play had said he got one foot down, stumbled towards the ground, and then the rest remained the same (no contact mentioned) the ruling would be exactly the same. The contact in the play is just to provide description for how the player went down. How is anyone suppose to take any point you try to make seriously when you can't even get basic reading comprehension and subsequently the facts of what you are arguing right?

 

[BlindFaith]

Why is this so hard to understand for some and/or ignored?

Because they think the Cowboys got robbed. They don't take the time to understand the rule. They think because it looks like a catch that it should have been a catch. And they think there is a conspiracy to cover up it up.

It is time to move on.

 

[percyhoward]

You're right, I'm not interested in lies, just the truth about the rules. Cut and paste special:


http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy

"Establishing oneself as a runner now becomes the crucial element of maintaining possession."

"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

Blandino: "Nothing to see here."

2014
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout
the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before
he regains control, the pass is incomplete

2015
Item 1. Player Going to the Ground.
A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is
incomplete.

 

[G2]

If a player is in motion (running downfield), momentum continues to take them in the same direction (downfield), and as we can clearly see this is the case with the Dez play.
Dez stumbled as soon as he came down from jumping up and went to the ground. You can suggest he took steps, but regardless was going to the ground.
Falling to the ground is not considered a runner. Why would it be?

 

[OmerV]

Let's see what did I say here? I said you seem to think one foot down and contact means someone is a runner. Based on your previous posts, that is what it appears you were saying.

My previous posts did say that the case play indicated that was true if it was the contact that caused the player to go to the ground. But the point is you said that was ridiculous and called me a troll for saying it, and then later admitted that the case play actually did say it. And the funny thing is you claimed to know the case play "very well" yet at the time you called me a troll you didn't realize what the case play said.


Now, what did I say here? I say that the case play *****REFERENCES***** a player getting one foot down and then going to the ground. Look very carefully, and you will see that I ****DO NOT**** say that because the case play references one foot down and then contact, that one foot followed by contact makes someone a runner. It doesn't. Further steps are required. Nor do I say that because the case play references this, that is is important to the ruling (the contact, obviously getting feet down is a requirement).

By the way, for the purpose of accuracy, it's not just getting a foot down and then there is contact, it's getting a foot down then only going to the ground because of contact. And the case play doesn't just reference it, that is part of the scenario the case play is based on.

As for whether it makes him a runner, dude, you have to start using your brain, if that's possible. It doesn't matter what you think, the point of the case play is to tell us how to view the situation, and the case play, that you claim to know so well, tells us the pass would be complete if there was one foot down and then the receiver only goes to the ground because of contact. This appears to be way over your head, but a simple concept is the only way a pass can be complete if the ball contacts the ground and pops free and when the receiver hits the ground is if he had previous established himself as a runner.



There is no contradiction, only your complete lack of reading comprehension. The idea that one foot down and then being contacted is a factor (in the case play) is absolutely disputed by me. I did not say the case play discusses it as a factor. I said it references it. If the case play had said he got one foot down, stumbled towards the ground, and then the rest remained the same (no contact mentioned) the ruling would be exactly the same. The contact in the play is just to provide description for how the player went down. How is anyone suppose to take any point you try to make seriously when you can't even get basic reading comprehension and subsequently the facts of what you are arguing right?

See the responses in bold above, and before you respond take a few minutes to think.

 

[OmerV]

Blandino: "Nothing to see here."

2014
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout
the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before
he regains control, the pass is incomplete

2015
Item 1. Player Going to the Ground.
A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is
incomplete.

The part in bold seems to be an attempt to clarify the rule, not to change it's meaning.

 

[percyhoward]

The part in bold seems to be an attempt to clarify the rule, not to change it's meaning.

The part in bold is what changed the standard for completing the catch process, from "control + 2 feet + football move" to "control + 2 feet + upright long enough."

It's what enabled Blandino to go from saying Dez didn't make enough of a football move to saying the football move didn't matter.

 

[BlindFaith]

The part in bold is what changed the standard for completing the catch process, from "control + 2 feet + football move" to "control + 2 feet + upright long enough."

It's what enabled Blandino to go from saying Dez didn't make enough of a football move to saying the football move didn't matter.

Except for the 2014 case plays that say regain balance and brace themselves. Case plays you never address.

Guess it doesn't fit your agenda of conspiracy.

All they did was take what was hidden away in the case plays and clarify it in the actual rule.

 

[OmerV]

The part in bold is what changed the standard for completing the catch process, from "control + 2 feet + football move" to "control + 2 feet + upright long enough."

It's what enabled Blandino to go from saying Dez didn't make enough of a football move to saying the football move didn't matter.

Again, I think it's a clarification, not a change, because the terms "football move" and "going to the ground" were too vague.

 

[nathanlt]

Again, I think it's a clarification, not a change, because the terms "football move" and "going to the ground" were too vague.

Oh wow, you realize that both are vague terms! Then page 127 was totally worth it. What does a referee do with vague terms? He applies the broadest interpretation, until those terms are narrowly defined.

Narrow definitions allow for catches to be taken away. Vague terms do not justify taking a catch away.

 

[Kevinicus]

See the responses in bold above, and before you respond take a few minutes to think.

Dear Lord you are a lost cause. You are still tryimg to say I said what I didn't say. Your reading comprehension and application of "logic" is off the bottom of the charts (ie does not exist). You get shown exactly how you are wrong and still keep up with your absurd claims and interpretations.

It's like Alex Jones level nonsense. And it's like teaching Greek to a baby.

The case play tells us that if a player completes the catch process before landing, that item 1 does not apply. You need yo use your noggin. The case play is one scenario that provides guidance to MANY scenarios. You focus (cherry pick) on the contact when it is not pertinent to the ruling. The steps matter for the example. The lung/bracing matters. The falling matters (regardless of the reason). That it was contact after 1 foot that sent him to the ground? Nope.

 

[OmerV]

Oh wow, you realize that both are vague terms! Then page 127 was totally worth it. What does a referee do with vague terms? He applies the broadest interpretation, until those terms are narrowly defined.

Narrow definitions allow for catches to be taken away. Vague terms do not justify taking a catch away.

The broadest definition of "going to the ground" would be anytime any receiver goes to the ground while making a catch, so this argument doesn't help your case.

Besides, the league doesn't just write rules and tell refs to wing it. Refs receive instruction on the intent and application of rules, and Blandino was the director of officiating, so it's a pretty ridiculous to act as if he wouldn't be in a position to know and understand the application of the rule.

 

[OmerV]

Dear Lord you are a lost cause. You are still tryimg to say I said what I didn't say. Your reading comprehension and application of "logic" is off the bottom of the charts (ie does not exist). You get shown exactly how you are wrong and still keep up with your absurd claims and interpretations.

It's like Alex Jones level nonsense. And it's like teaching Greek to a baby.

The case play tells us that if a player completes the catch process before landing, that item 1 does not apply. You need yo use your noggin. The case play is one scenario that provides guidance to MANY scenarios. You focus (cherry pick) on the contact when it is not pertinent to the ruling. The steps matter for the example. The lung/bracing matters. The falling matters (regardless of the reason). That it was contact after 1 foot that sent him to the ground? Nope.

Okay, so you didn't write the words that appear in your posts. I guess it really was a case of an intruder hitting you in the head with a blunt object and then posting in your place to make you look bad.

 

[G2]

Okay, so you didn't write the words that appear in your posts. I guess it really was a case of an intruder hitting you in the head with a blunt object and then posting in your place to make you look bad.

Damn Yeti

 

[Kevinicus]

Okay, so you didn't write the words that appear in your posts. I guess it really was a case of an intruder hitting you in the head with a blunt object and then posting in your place to make you look bad.

I wrote the words in my posts. The words in your posts about what I said do not match what I said, and you know this.

Own up to it and stop lying.

 

[Kevinicus]

Why is this so hard to understand for some and/or ignored?

Because it is wrong as evidenced by the rules, case plays, the history of how plays were called, what the officials looked for, etc. But hey, let's ignore the overwhelming evidence and go with the wrong answer.

 

[Kevinicus]

Awww, poor little fella.

And again.

 

[OmerV]

I wrote the words in my posts. The words in your posts about what I said do not match what I said, and you know this.

Own up to it and stop lying.

So, you didn't call me a troll for saying the case play says one foot down and then getting knocked to the ground results in a completion, and you didn't later acknowledge the case play actually does say that? Those are the things I said were your words, and those are the things you wrote.