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

[BlindFaith]

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.

No. If you believe he caught it, at what point do YOU think he caught it. We know the rules. We know the NFL didn't agree with it being a catch.

At what point while going to the ground do you think completed the catch? And this isn't even a hypothetical.

 

[DogFace]

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.

I still can’t believe you think the official when watching a play with contact is supposed to decide if that contact or his balance was the reason he fell. Then decide to not apply the caseplay we are talking about if he determines he would’ve fallen anyway.

Even though none of that matters because of the 3 step process.

 

[DogFace]

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."

Upright long enough to be considered a runner and football move are the same to you?

That’s why this thread continues.

 

[DogFace]

No. If you believe he caught it, at what point do YOU think he caught it. We know the rules. We know the NFL didn't agree with it being a catch.

At what point while going to the ground do you think completed the catch? And this isn't even a hypothetical.

Maybe when he switched the ball from two hands to one while preparing to reach for the goaline. I’m not sure why you don’t think that’s an act common to the game.

You’re hung up on he was going to the ground, but Blandino wasn’t. As Percy has said, why would Blandino have admitted over and over to looking for a football move, whether it was “enough” of one(as he said) or not if the football move wouldn’t matter because he was clearly on his way to the ground.

If going to the ground trumped the football move why wouldn’t he simply say the football move(if there was or wasn’t one) didn’t matter because he was going to the ground?

Why wouldn’t the rule just say the 3 step process can’t be completed on the way to the ground? Why would caseplays show the 3 step process being completed on the way to the ground?

 

[percyhoward]

At what point while going to the ground do you think completed the catch?

It's impossible to tuck the ball in one hand if you don't have control of it. If you think tucking the ball happened before the second foot was down, then you can look at the lunge as completing the catch process. And even if you think that wasn't a lunge, the most obvious football move is the reach. A player who has control with two feet down, then reaches with the football, has clearly gained possession of the ball.

So, when he reached with the football, you know he must have caught it. Reaching for the line of gain is an act common to the game, and in 2014 an act common to the game completed the catch process, whether a player was "going to the ground" (falling) or not. When interviewed a couple of hours after the game, Blandino said the reach "needed to be with two hands, extending the arms." But the rules say he had to show indisputable proof that there was no act common to the game (in this case, no reach). So some time during the next 24 hours, he shifted his focus to an easier target -- the lunge. Here's his conclusion:

"This was indisputable to us that he did not perform an act common to the game. That has to be an act where I gather myself and I lunge."

All right, maybe it's easier to buy the "not enough of a lunge" explanation, but what happened to the "reach needed to be with two hands" explanation? He obviously thought the lunge explanation was better, so he would use that as the new justification for the overturn. And everybody is just supposed to forget about what he said before. In any case, there can be no doubt that he had to show indisputable proof that Dez did not perform an act common to the game. The NFL spelled it out clearly here:

"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."

It wasn't until weeks (months?) later that we started to hear things like, "the act common to the game doesn't matter when you're going to the ground." At that point they knew the rule had changed (or at least was in the process of changing) so that the standard for completing the catch process would change from "performing an act common to the game" to "remaining upright long enough." That new rule meant that a player could no longer gain possession of the ball while falling.

Why? The knew they couldn't say Dez didn't reach for the goal line, so they had to come up with a way to say he reached for the goal line without possession of the ball.

Just like before, we're supposed to forget the previous explanations. We're also supposed to believe the rule didn't change. That way, they can point to the current rule as justification for the overturn. Which they absolutely do, and which is echoed by everybody who defends the overturn.

 

[DogFace]

A still photo? Post the full video.

I have yet to see in my entire time of watching football, someone who appears to be going to the ground, stumble for 7 yards and then regain their balance. 99% of the time if you are falling you fall. In the 1% of time that you are falling and yet somehow mange to regain your balance, you do so relatively quickly.

That is exactly why these types of catches are very far and few between.

http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2013/12/23/dez-bryant-td-vs-eagles-122313

He was more off balance and had far more body lean then he did(and it’s not close) before shields tripped him.

 

[BlindFaith]

It's impossible to tuck the ball in one hand if you don't have control of it. If you think tucking the ball happened before the second foot was down, then you can look at the lunge as completing the catch process. And even if you think that wasn't a lunge, the most obvious football move is the reach. A player who has control with two feet down, then reaches with the football, has clearly gained possession of the ball.

So, when he reached with the football, you know he must have caught it. Reaching for the line of gain is an act common to the game, and in 2014 an act common to the game completed the catch process, whether a player was "going to the ground" (falling) or not. When interviewed a couple of hours after the game, Blandino said the reach "needed to be with two hands, extending the arms." But the rules say he had to show indisputable proof that there was no act common to the game (in this case, no reach). So some time during the next 24 hours, he shifted his focus to an easier target -- the lunge. Here's his conclusion:

"This was indisputable to us that he did not perform an act common to the game. That has to be an act where I gather myself and I lunge."

All right, maybe it's easier to buy the "not enough of a lunge" explanation, but what happened to the "reach needed to be with two hands" explanation? He obviously thought the lunge explanation was better, so he would use that as the new justification for the overturn. And everybody is just supposed to forget about what he said before. In any case, there can be no doubt that he had to show indisputable proof that Dez did not perform an act common to the game. The NFL spelled it out clearly here:

"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."

It wasn't until weeks (months?) later that we started to hear things like, "the act common to the game doesn't matter when you're going to the ground." At that point they knew the rule had changed (or at least was in the process of changing) so that the standard for completing the catch process would change from "performing an act common to the game" to "remaining upright long enough." That new rule meant that a player could no longer gain possession of the ball while falling.

Why? The knew they couldn't say Dez didn't reach for the goal line, so they had to come up with a way to say he reached for the goal line without possession of the ball.

Just like before, we're supposed to forget the previous explanations. We're also supposed to believe the rule didn't change. That way, they can point to the current rule as justification for the overturn. Which they absolutely do, and which is echoed by everybody who defends the overturn.

So the reach, sorry I didn't read most of your rehashed post.

Where does it say that simply reaching is an act that establishes one as a runner WHILE GOING TO THE GROUND?

How does a reach even make sense as an act for a player falling. Or switching hands.

What you don't understand or just refuse to, even though it was discussed probably 100 pages ago, are what acts were allowed while falling. And that the act of falling does TRUMP most acts that otherwise would be used to define a runner who is upright.

Three case plays mention an act while going to the ground. 1 is vague in mentioning some time and a lunge. The next is regain balance and a lunge the third is brace and a lunge. You always ignore 2 and 3 and only focused on 1. And I will say that 1 is vague when looked at independently. But in context with the other two it's clear that the time element is directly referencing interrupting the fall.

You want to use that one case play out of context, and try to say it means that they can perform basically any act while falling to complete the catch. Why even have the going to the ground rule then? Think about it.

Taking a step is an act. Why didn't you say Dez completed the catch with his third step? You seem to think time qualifies. Why not rule it a catch at some arbitrary point just because he had the ball long enough?

What you THINK the rules say are exactly what some people to change the rule TO. Trying to open up more options to complete the catch process while someone is falling.

 

[BlindFaith]

http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2013/12/23/dez-bryant-td-vs-eagles-122313

He was more off balance and had far more body lean then he did(and it’s not close) before shields tripped him.

Thats the smoking gun? lol

He at no point was ever going to the ground. If you can't see that then it's hopeless. How a still photo from this being used to try and support anything is laughable. I mean I literally laughed...out loud.

 

[G2]

Thats the smoking gun? lol

He at no point was ever going to the ground. If you can't see that then it's hopeless. How a still photo from this being used to try and support anything is laughable. I mean I literally laughed...out loud.

If that was a "trip" how could Dez EVER stay on his feet?

 

[OmerV]

I still can’t believe you think the official when watching a play with contact is supposed to decide if that contact or his balance was the reason he fell. Then decide to not apply the caseplay we are talking about if he determines he would’ve fallen anyway.

Even though none of that matters because of the 3 step process.

Making judgment calls is part of the job. Suppose the defender had only slightly brushed Dez, does that make a difference? I know this was something more than a slight brush, but the point is the judgment isn't always going to be between a slight brush, and a hard tackle. There are a whole lot of levels that fall between, and the refs have to make judgments on those levels.

 

[OmerV]

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.

I'm just waiting for once from you. This is your standard fallback - just claim you've already said something to cover for the fact you never have. It's laughable how many times you've done that, and here I gave you a chance to make up for it, and you still have to default to this. .

 

[BlindFaith]

If that was a "trip" how could Dez EVER stay on his feet?

I have no idea what they are trying to prove anymore. It's clear that some don't even understand what going to the ground means.

Some people think climate change is a hoax, some believe the earth is flat, others just absolutely know that Dez caught it.

It really is pointless trying to educate them.

 

[percyhoward]

So the reach.

Not just the reach, but any act common to the game. Of which the 3rd step, tucking the ball, the lunge, and the reach are all examples. The reach is just the most obvious example.

If you say that Dez didn't control the ball until after his first foot came down, then his third step would have been his second foot down with control of the ball, and he tucked the ball before that. So you can just leave it at the lunge and the reach, so that there's no doubt. Both of those things indisputably happened after control and two feet down.

Where does it say that simply reaching is an act that establishes one as a runner WHILE GOING TO THE GROUND?

On the league's own website:

"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."

 

[CCBoy]

It's impossible to tuck the ball in one hand if you don't have control of it. If you think tucking the ball happened before the second foot was down, then you can look at the lunge as completing the catch process. And even if you think that wasn't a lunge, the most obvious football move is the reach. A player who has control with two feet down, then reaches with the football, has clearly gained possession of the ball.

So, when he reached with the football, you know he must have caught it. Reaching for the line of gain is an act common to the game, and in 2014 an act common to the game completed the catch process, whether a player was "going to the ground" (falling) or not. When interviewed a couple of hours after the game, Blandino said the reach "needed to be with two hands, extending the arms." But the rules say he had to show indisputable proof that there was no act common to the game (in this case, no reach). So some time during the next 24 hours, he shifted his focus to an easier target -- the lunge. Here's his conclusion:

"This was indisputable to us that he did not perform an act common to the game. That has to be an act where I gather myself and I lunge."

All right, maybe it's easier to buy the "not enough of a lunge" explanation, but what happened to the "reach needed to be with two hands" explanation? He obviously thought the lunge explanation was better, so he would use that as the new justification for the overturn. And everybody is just supposed to forget about what he said before. In any case, there can be no doubt that he had to show indisputable proof that Dez did not perform an act common to the game. The NFL spelled it out clearly here:

"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."

It wasn't until weeks (months?) later that we started to hear things like, "the act common to the game doesn't matter when you're going to the ground." At that point they knew the rule had changed (or at least was in the process of changing) so that the standard for completing the catch process would change from "performing an act common to the game" to "remaining upright long enough." That new rule meant that a player could no longer gain possession of the ball while falling.

Why? The knew they couldn't say Dez didn't reach for the goal line, so they had to come up with a way to say he reached for the goal line without possession of the ball.

Just like before, we're supposed to forget the previous explanations. We're also supposed to believe the rule didn't change. That way, they can point to the current rule as justification for the overturn. Which they absolutely do, and which is echoed by everybody who defends the overturn.

The fall came out being a lunge as soon as movement was generally forward, also.

 

[percyhoward]

Making judgment calls is part of the job. Suppose the defender had only slightly brushed Dez, does that make a difference? I know this was something more than a slight brush, but the point is the judgment isn't always going to be between a slight brush, and a hard tackle.

What's the point here? Either way, they were looking for an act common to the game.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I guess I'm the only one who doesn't care. There were four minutes left in that game. There's about a 98% chance Rodgers leads them down for a TD anyway. Lately it only takes him about 90 seconds to do that if he wants to.

 

[percyhoward]

The fall came out being a lunge as soon as movement was generally forward, also.

Yes, you can see Dez accelerate past Shields, who really was just falling.

 

[BlindFaith]

Not just the reach, but any act common to the game. Of which the 3rd step, tucking the ball, the lunge, and the reach are all examples. The reach is just the most obvious example.

If you say that Dez didn't control the ball until after his first foot came down, then his third step would have been his second foot down with control of the ball, and he tucked the ball before that. So you can just leave it at the lunge and the reach, so that there's no doubt. Both of those things indisputably happened after control and two feet down.


On the league's own website:

"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."

Again, lol.

Did you even watch the video on the page? Blandino even says that the only act that can be performed while falling is to gather themselves and then lunge.

I do agree that Blandino butchered his original explanation and didn't clarify that the reach or lunge was only applicable after FIRST gathering themselves. But that is clear in the case play, which you continue to ignore.

 

[BlindFaith]

Yes, you can see Dez accelerate past Shields, who really was just falling.

Ah, so you really don't think Dez was falling either. Clears things up.

 

[BlindFaith]

What's the point here? Either way, they were looking for an act common to the game.

Act while falling. Gathering themselves.

Tucking or reaching while falling is not valid.