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

[OmerV]

Damn Yeti

I'm thinking the head injury explains a lot

 

[MarcusRock]

Check your eyeglass prescription, you are blind. Dez clearly executed the lunge on the 3rd step, we were screwed once again by the NFL.

So you're one that jumps straight to story No. 8 by catch theorists in response to the answer for story No. 3. That's no fun. At least keep to the order.


1. “The ball never hit the ground”
Check the reverse angle

2. “No, no, Dez was running upright and got tripped”
Contact from a defender is irrelevant in going to the ground

3. “No, no, Dez reached or lunged or something”
He intended to lunge but did not execute

4. “No, no, Dez performed a bajillion football moves before that though”
Going to the ground trumps the 3-part process (unless they do something other than fall per A.R. 8.12 & 15.95)

5. “No, no, the replay wasn’t conclusive. The call should have stood.”
Replay confirmed that going to the ground should have been applied instead

6. “No, no, they took away the A.R. rule enabling an act on the way to the ground after the fact”
The rule was there in 2014 and 2015.

7. “No, no, they changed the catch rule in 2015 so refs can’t look for football moves to call someone a runner”
A ref can judge that one has performed acts or had time to “clearly become a runner.” Same as before. Same rule, different wording.

8. "Oh yeah? Well, CONSPIRACY!"
Of course! How did we miss that?

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

Oh, but you were talking about the establishing of a player "becoming a runner" and what "completed the catch process" at the very top of Page 126. Why are you now looking at the differences in the going to the ground rule? Shouldn't you instead compare the specific parts of the rule you referenced then? I mean, if you weren't trying to be deceptive and all, lol.

 

[OmerV]

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.

If you don't have to explain how the rules and case plays and history of how plays were called, and what officials look for, you have an argument. It's that pesky support for your words you have a problem with.

Here are a few facts to chew on.

1. Blandino, the director of officials, said the call was consistent with how that kind of play had been called.

2. There is no case play that sets out a circumstance where the receiver is going to the ground regardless of contact.

3. Item one sets out what happens when a receiver is going to the ground, and despite some claims to the contrary, there is nothing in the rules that says the 3 step process overrides Item 1, nor is there anything in the rules that says the 3 step process can be completed even if a receiver is going to the ground regardless of contact.

But screw those pesky facts, right? I'm sure you will come back with one of your expected "nuh uh" responses.

But here's a challenge to you. Instead of just saying "you're wrong" as you typically (always) do, actually try saying, "you're wrong, and here's why", and then cite something that disputes what I wrote. I'm willing to read actual examples and actual efforts to explain a position. Give it a try.

 

[percyhoward]

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

Well, whatever we call it, the practical effect of it was to eliminate the football move as the standard for completing the catch process. In 2014, a player could make a football move and complete the catch even while falling. Again, that's why the NFL kept trying to prove Dez didn't make enough of a football move. Since 2015, performing an "act common to the game" is meaningless if the player isn't "upright long enough." How long, or how upright, nobody knows. Ultimately, that's up to the replay official who has final say.

There is no longer any act that determines when a catch has been made, which is why it's hard to know what a catch is anymore.

 

[percyhoward]

Oh, but you were talking about the establishing of a player "becoming a runner" and what "completed the catch process" at the very top of Page 126. Why are you now looking at the differences in the going to the ground rule?

Because Item 1 is only for players who go to the ground without first completing the catch process.

Completing the catch process is synonymous with becoming a runner. When they changed Item 1 to say you had to be "upright long enough" to become a runner, it completely changed part 3 of the catch process. A player who is upright long enough has performed a football move anyway. So they eliminated the football move. (Pereira: "Football move gone").

 

[Kevinicus]

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.

The case play doesn't say that! So yes you are a troll for saying it does. And I never said it did. It says completing the catch process is a catch. That includes two feet and more. You have to read the whole thing. You can't ignore (cherry pick) the rest.

 

[Kevinicus]

If you don't have to explain how the rules and case plays and history of how plays were called, and what officials look for, you have an argument. It's that pesky support for your words you have a problem with.

Here are a few facts to chew on.

1. Blandino, the director of officials, said the call was consistent with how that kind of play had been called.

2. There is no case play that sets out a circumstance where the receiver is going to the ground regardless of contact.

3. Item one sets out what happens when a receiver is going to the ground, and despite some claims to the contrary, there is nothing in the rules that says the 3 step process overrides Item 1, nor is there anything in the rules that says the 3 step process can be completed even if a receiver is going to the ground regardless of contact.

But screw those pesky facts, right? I'm sure you will come back with one of your expected "nuh uh" responses.

But here's a challenge to you. Instead of just saying "you're wrong" as you typically (always) do, actually try saying, "you're wrong, and here's why", and then cite something that disputes what I wrote. I'm willing to read actual examples and actual efforts to explain a position. Give it a try.

How many times do these things need to be told to you? I want to know so I can just copy and repost it that many times. Apparently the 300 times you've been told these things so far aren't enough.

 

[MarcusRock]

Because Item 1 is only for players who go to the ground without first completing the catch process.

Completing the catch process is synonymous with becoming a runner. When they changed Item 1 to say you had to be "upright long enough" to become a runner, it completely changed part 3 of the catch process. A player who is upright long enough has performed a football move anyway. So they eliminated the football move. (Pereira: "Football move gone").

But...

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."

 

[Gameover]

Eagles player was a no doubt about it catch. More so than Dez’s.

Murray fumble
Romo dropped snap
Chance to go into half at 21-7 or 17-7 blown and they go into the half 14-10
Romo taking that sack on the last drive. Killed what we would’ve done without it
OL didn’t protect on the next to last drive
Gave up a TD on 4&10 at mid-field


Reasons why we lost to GB

 

[percyhoward]

But...

What the league did with the catch rule in 2015 doesn't exactly mesh with how they described what they did.

Why do you think they eliminated the football move? Blandino doesn't say in that article.

 

[percyhoward]

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

Of course he was going to the ground and never regained his balance. That wasn't the issue. According to the NFL, the issue was whether Dez's reach for the goal line was a football move, which would have completed the catch process before he went to the ground, making Item 1 irrelevant to the play.

"The issue: whether Bryant performed an “act common to the game.” Under the rules, that could have made the play qualify as a catch, and the key question was whether Bryant was doing so by clearly reaching for the goal line."

 

[MarcusRock]

What the league did with the catch rule in 2015 doesn't exactly mesh with how they described what they did.

Why do you think they eliminated the football move? Blandino doesn't say in that article.

The answer would be in Part (c) of the 2015 catch rule, wouldn't it? That's what the article is referring to. I mean, if you're saying the 3-part process changed, I'm wondering why you aren't comparing the 3-part processes of each year's rules. Seems simple enough to do out in the open.

 

[G2]

Of course he was going to the ground and never regained his balance. That wasn't the issue. According to the NFL, the issue was whether Dez's reach for the goal line was a football move, which would have completed the catch process before he went to the ground, making Item 1 irrelevant to the play.

"The issue: whether Bryant performed an “act common to the game.” Under the rules, that could have made the play qualify as a catch, and the key question was whether Bryant was doing so by clearly reaching for the goal line."

So you submit that Dez reached for the goal line before he was going to the ground?

 

[percyhoward]

The answer would be in Part (c) of the 2015 catch rule, right, which is why I was wondering why you weren't comparing the 3-part processes if you were referring to the 3-part processes of the 2 rules.

Part (c) defines a runner as "capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent." So, no, the answer to why they eliminated the football move wouldn't be there.

When you change the standard from "long enough to perform an act common to the game" to "long enough to become a runner," and then you define a runner as a player who is "upright long enough," then you've effectively changed the standard to "upright long enough."

Make sense?

 

[percyhoward]

So you submit that Dez reached for the goal line before he was going to the ground?

No. I'm showing you that the reach didn't have to happen while Dez was upright.

 

[G2]

No. I'm showing you that the reach didn't have to happen while Dez was upright.

So you agree that it was after?

 

[percyhoward]

So you agree that it was after?

It was obviously after. In fact, it's rare to see an upright player reach for a line of gain anyway. But the catch process only had to be completed before Dez hit the ground, not before he started to fall. In order to overturn the catch, they needed indisputable proof that Dez did not perform an act common to the game.

 

[BlindFaith]

It was obviously after. In fact, it's rare to see an upright player reach for a line of gain anyway. But the catch process only had to be completed before Dez hit the ground, not before he started to fall. In order to overturn the catch, they needed indisputable proof that Dez did not perform an act common to the game.

I've asked you before, what is the act you think Dez made that made it a catch? And then show me in the 2014 rules where it's allowed while a player is going to the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

I've asked you before, what is the act you think Dez made that made it a catch? And then show me in the 2014 rules where it's allowed while a player is going to the ground.

The catch process is what makes any catch a catch. That's control + 2 feet + time, and in this case, any act common to the game after he had control and 2 feet down would have made it a catch. They focused on the reach first, saying it wasn't an obvious enough reach, then the next day they looked at the lunge and said it wasn't a clear enough lunge. They had no problem with Dez not being upright, because "upright long enough" wasn't added to the rules until the next season.

Item 1 (going to the ground) is for players in the act of catching a pass, not for runners. Once Dez became a runner, he didn't have to maintain control after hitting the ground. He was a runner down by contact. Like it was ruled on the field.