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

[Hostile]

What if contact isn't made? That's the scenario I put out there. If an airborn player could establish possession, and the ball popped free immediately upon hitting the ground, and he hadn't been touched, it would be a fumble. I also put out the scenario of a player jumping for the ball and the split second his feet contact the ground he either loses the ball or gets hit and the ball pops away - that would be a fumble again under your scenario.

That's easy. If contact was not made, he is a runner by virtue of having taken a 3rd step and diving for the goal line, ground cannot cause a fumble, he was untouched and rolled into the end zone. Touchdown.

 

[Hostile]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. If the ref making the initial call didn't see the ball hit the ground, then there was indisputable evidence that it did and it moved. Exactly why replay is there.

If the ref didn't think Dez was going to the ground, then again, it was indisputable that he was. Exactly why replay is there.

The only thing that can, and is, being argued is Dez regain his balance at any time before the lunge. He clearly never did.

It's really that simple.

Serious questions...If it is indisputable why is the NFL backtracking and saying it is a catch, and they are going to fix the wording so this doesn't happen any more? Why has there been 3 years of controversy over this play? Why does every NFL player say it was a catch? Why do the announcers now mock the rule and say "we don't know what a catch is any more?"

You have a very different connotation of indisputable than I do. I have never seen definitive evidence that ball ever touched the ground away from the cradle of his arm. There is no evidence at all that it did before his left knee or right elbow, which by rule if there is contact (which the NFL maintains there was) renders the play dead. There is no way a fumble can happen after the ball and play is dead.

The only thing indisputable is that your mind is made up, for whatever reason, and I am cool with that, we're all allowed opinions. I just don't see how you can justify yours, and you don't see how I can justify mine, and we can agree to disagree, yes sir. Got way more people on my side and your side is shrinking fast. You might want to reconsider the possibility that you are simply wrong. I have already considered that I am, but there is no evidence to back it.

 

[OmerV]

That's easy. If contact was not made, he is a runner by virtue of having taken a 3rd step and diving for the goal line, ground cannot cause a fumble, he was untouched and rolled into the end zone. Touchdown.

The scenario I set out was a player goes air born to catch the ball, and who, without being touched, loses the ball immediately upon hitting the ground, and the opposing team recovers the ball. Accordingly, there are no 3 steps, there is no TD because the goal line hasn't been crossed, and since the player hasn't been touched, the ball actually would be a fumble under the rule you propose. For that matter, even if he took the 3 steps and then went to the ground without being touched and lost the ball it would be a fumble. The "ground can't cause a fumble" rule only applies when the player is contacted by the defense, because then it would be a dead ball when he hit the ground. If he isn't touched, the play isn't dead, therefore losing the ball when he hit the ground would be a fumble that either team could recover.

 

[OmerV]

Serious questions...If it is indisputable why is the NFL backtracking and saying it is a catch, and they are going to fix the wording so this doesn't happen any more? Why has there been 3 years of controversy over this play? Why does every NFL player say it was a catch? Why do the announcers now mock the rule and say "we don't know what a catch is any more?"

You have a very different connotation of indisputable than I do. I have never seen definitive evidence that ball ever touched the ground away from the cradle of his arm. There is no evidence at all that it did before his left knee or right elbow, which by rule if there is contact (which the NFL maintains there was) renders the play dead. There is no way a fumble can happen after the ball and play is dead.

The only thing indisputable is that your mind is made up, for whatever reason, and I am cool with that, we're all allowed opinions. I just don't see how you can justify yours, and you don't see how I can justify mine, and we can agree to disagree, yes sir. Got way more people on my side and your side is shrinking fast. You might want to reconsider the possibility that you are simply wrong. I have already considered that I am, but there is no evidence to back it.

The NFL isn't saying it was a catch under the rules, it is saying it should be a catch, and they want to change the rules so that it will be a catch going forward.

 

[BlindFaith]

Serious questions...If it is indisputable why is the NFL backtracking and saying it is a catch, and they are going to fix the wording so this doesn't happen any more? Why has there been 3 years of controversy over this play? Why does every NFL player say it was a catch? Why do the announcers now mock the rule and say "we don't know what a catch is any more?"

You have a very different connotation of indisputable than I do. I have never seen definitive evidence that ball ever touched the ground away from the cradle of his arm. There is no evidence at all that it did before his left knee or right elbow, which by rule if there is contact (which the NFL maintains there was) renders the play dead. There is no way a fumble can happen after the ball and play is dead.

The only thing indisputable is that your mind is made up, for whatever reason, and I am cool with that, we're all allowed opinions. I just don't see how you can justify yours, and you don't see how I can justify mine, and we can agree to disagree, yes sir. Got way more people on my side and your side is shrinking fast. You might want to reconsider the possibility that you are simply wrong. I have already considered that I am, but there is no evidence to back it.

What Omar said.

 

[Hostile]

The NFL isn't saying it was a catch under the rules, it is saying it should be a catch, and they want to change the rules so that it will be a catch going forward.

Umm, no what they are saying was they made a bad rule change that messed things up and I agree.

 

[Hostile]

The scenario I set out was a player goes air born to catch the ball, and who, without being touched, loses the ball immediately upon hitting the ground, and the opposing team recovers the ball. Accordingly, there are no 3 steps, there is no TD because the goal line hasn't been crossed, and since the player hasn't been touched, the ball actually would be a fumble under the rule you propose. For that matter, even if he took the 3 steps and then went to the ground without being touched and lost the ball it would be a fumble. The "ground can't cause a fumble" rule only applies when the player is contacted by the defense, because then it would be a dead ball when he hit the ground. If he isn't touched, the play isn't dead, therefore losing the ball when he hit the ground would be a fumble that either team could recover.

I also do not agree with this. It has very little to do with the actual play as it happened and a lot of what if this happened scenarios. Focusing solely on what we know about the play and the rule to overturn a call on the field the officials in this game got it wrong. I have repeatedly been told Shields touched him. If you're now telling me he didn't it goes 100% contrary to the dialogue that has heretofore been circulating. Therefore he would be down as soon as a knee or elbow hit. Therefore the ball is dead and the play is over at that moment.

You still can't show me where the ball came out before his knee or elbow hit. You still can't take away the fact his feet hit the ground 3 times. You still can't take away the fact that he had enough control of the football to not only remove a hand away, but to turn and dive. It's like you're expecting me to believe that a football can defy the the very laws of physics. He didn't have it, but it went with him as he dove? How does that work? Is there a tiny string or a magnet that secures the ball to his hand giving the illusion of control that really isn't control?

Guys, we're never going to agree on this, and as I said NFL Players and coaches are on my side. I am pretty comfortable in my stance based on that alone, and when common sense is added (2 hands to 1 hand, ball stayed with him) it is clear that you're simply dealing with a fairy tale for no good reason.

You both can have the last word. I appreciate the civil dialogue, but there's no need to waste any more time on this discussion. He caught it. End of story for me.

 

[OmerV]

I also do not agree with this. It has very little to do with the actual play as it happened and a lot of what if this happened scenarios. Focusing solely on what we know about the play and the rule to overturn a call on the field the officials in this game got it wrong. I have repeatedly been told Shields touched him. If you're now telling me he didn't it goes 100% contrary to the dialogue that has heretofore been circulating. Therefore he would be down as soon as a knee or elbow hit. Therefore the ball is dead and the play is over at that moment.

You still can't show me where the ball came out before his knee or elbow hit. You still can't take away the fact his feet hit the ground 3 times. You still can't take away the fact that he had enough control of the football to not only remove a hand away, but to turn and dive. It's like you're expecting me to believe that a football can defy the the very laws of physics. He didn't have it, but it went with him as he dove? How does that work? Is there a tiny string or a magnet that secures the ball to his hand giving the illusion of control that really isn't control?

Guys, we're never going to agree on this, and as I said NFL Players and coaches are on my side. I am pretty comfortable in my stance based on that alone, and when common sense is added (2 hands to 1 hand, ball stayed with him) it is clear that you're simply dealing with a fairy tale for no good reason.

You both can have the last word. I appreciate the civil dialogue, but there's no need to waste any more time on this discussion. He caught it. End of story for me.

None of this has anything to do with my post. We were talking about the problems that would occur if the rule were changed to where merely having control of the ball was the only requirement.

 

[OmerV]

Umm, no what they are saying was they made a bad rule change that messed things up and I agree.

You can phrase it however you like, but they did not say the refs made the wrong call with Dez.

 

[DogFace]

You can phrase it however you like, but they did not say the refs made the wrong call with Dez.

They didn’t have to say it and of course they wouldn’t. They’d just change the rule, manipulate some into thinking they didn’t, then eventually change the rule so no one would ever confuse going to the ground as a receiver and going to the ground as a runner again.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
@BlindFaith ’s clearly false claim that this rule changed after the 2013 season was the best and worst defense of Blandino’s very clear explanation that supports the fact that they ruled incorrectly in the Dez play.

In 2014 a player could complete the process while going to the ground.

Dez did.

 

[DogFace]

I also do not agree with this. It has very little to do with the actual play as it happened and a lot of what if this happened scenarios. Focusing solely on what we know about the play and the rule to overturn a call on the field the officials in this game got it wrong. I have repeatedly been told Shields touched him. If you're now telling me he didn't it goes 100% contrary to the dialogue that has heretofore been circulating. Therefore he would be down as soon as a knee or elbow hit. Therefore the ball is dead and the play is over at that moment.

You still can't show me where the ball came out before his knee or elbow hit. You still can't take away the fact his feet hit the ground 3 times. You still can't take away the fact that he had enough control of the football to not only remove a hand away, but to turn and dive. It's like you're expecting me to believe that a football can defy the the very laws of physics. He didn't have it, but it went with him as he dove? How does that work? Is there a tiny string or a magnet that secures the ball to his hand giving the illusion of control that really isn't control?

Guys, we're never going to agree on this, and as I said NFL Players and coaches are on my side. I am pretty comfortable in my stance based on that alone, and when common sense is added (2 hands to 1 hand, ball stayed with him) it is clear that you're simply dealing with a fairy tale for no good reason.

You both can have the last word. I appreciate the civil dialogue, but there's no need to waste any more time on this discussion. He caught it. End of story for me.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

They like to avoid this video posted by percy.

 

[BlindFaith]

They didn’t have to say it and of course they wouldn’t. They’d just change the rule, manipulate some into thinking they didn’t, then eventually change the rule so no one would ever confuse going to the ground as a receiver and going to the ground as a runner again.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
@BlindFaith ’s clearly false claim that this rule changed after the 2013 season was the best and worst defense of Blandino’s very clear explanation that supports the fact that they ruled incorrectly in the Dez play.

In 2014 a player could complete the process while going to the ground.

Dez did.

OK, mr_neverreadtherules

I'm not going back to 2013 and posting all the rules and comperisons. The rules were clarified and updated. Call that changing or whatever. And I believe, off the top of my head, it was a change in language and the addition of AR15. 95 to call out what can fulfill the time element for a player going to the ground.

 

[BlindFaith]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

They like to avoid this video posted by percy.

No, we don't. If he had two feet down before falling, it would have been a catch. And since all he said was have two feet down, you have NO idea of when he meant those two feet had to be down.

Unless you actually read the rules where it says that if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass they must maintain possession through contacting the ground.

But assuming he meant that as long as he got two feet down at any point fits your narrative, even if that narrative is in direct conflict of the actual rules.

But carry on parroting rules you know nothing about.

 

[MarcusRock]

But carry on parroting rules you know nothing about.

A no parrot policy works wonders.

 

[OmerV]

They didn’t have to say it and of course they wouldn’t. They’d just change the rule, manipulate some into thinking they didn’t, then eventually change the rule so no one would ever confuse going to the ground as a receiver and going to the ground as a runner again.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
@BlindFaith ’s clearly false claim that this rule changed after the 2013 season was the best and worst defense of Blandino’s very clear explanation that supports the fact that they ruled incorrectly in the Dez play.

In 2014 a player could complete the process while going to the ground.

Dez did.

How could they manipulate people into thinking they didn't change the rule when they are publically saying they want to change the rule?

As far as whether you could complete the process while going to the ground in 2014, we've talked about that, and I admitted the point on the Calvin Johnson reception you provided (for anyone reading - this isn't THE Calvin Johnson play), so there is no point to be made with me about that. As for whether Dez completed the process while going to the ground, I understand why Blandino said he didn't, so you and I will have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[BlindFaith]

A no parrot policy works wonders.

Yes, I need to be more stringent on that policy.

 

[DogFace]

No, we don't. If he had two feet down before falling, it would have been a catch. And since all he said was have two feet down, you have NO idea of when he meant those two feet had to be down.

Unless you actually read the rules where it says that if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass they must maintain possession through contacting the ground.

But assuming he meant that as long as he got two feet down at any point fits your narrative, even if that narrative is in direct conflict of the actual rules.

But carry on parroting rules you know nothing about.

“He did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goaline” Dean Blandino referring to that play.
You’re showing you didn’t even watch the play. Or you’re in denial because it clearly proves you wrong. Pay attention.
He was “going to the ground in the process of making the catch” one of his first lines in the video. He was very clearly going to the ground the entire time. He was never upright at all. Not close to as upright as Dez was. Even an imbecile could see that. Despite him “going to the ground in the process of making the catch”, as Blandino says, he says he could’ve competed the process had he gotten the two feet down “PRIOR TO THE REACH”. Not lunge. Not gather. Not brace. REACH.

This is why The Idiot keeps reapeating herself and warning you all not to answer and that’s evidence that It’s clear to even a true moron that what Blandino says contradicts every point your side is trying to make

 

[DogFace]

OK, mr_neverreadtherules

I'm not going back to 2013 and posting all the rules and comperisons. The rules were clarified and updated. Call that changing or whatever. And I believe, off the top of my head, it was a change in language and the addition of AR15. 95 to call out what can fulfill the time element for a player going to the ground.

You can post the comparisons. That will be interesting.

Haven’t you been so against others(any person that can read and compare words) saying the rules changed in 2015? Glad you caught yourself and said clarified.

Show me the clarification. Mrcantlistentoenglishfromblandinomyhero

 

[DogFace]

How could they manipulate people into thinking they didn't change the rule when they are publically saying they want to change the rule?

As far as whether you could complete the process while going to the ground in 2014, we've talked about that, and I admitted the point on the Calvin Johnson reception you provided (for anyone reading - this isn't THE Calvin Johnson play), so there is no point to be made with me about that. As for whether Dez completed the process while going to the ground, I understand why Blandino said he didn't, so you and I will have to agree to disagree on that point.

Some idiots, not you, on here have been making the argument that the rules didn’t change in 2015. They’re have trouble with simple word comparison.

What did Blandino say about the Dez catch that was made it different than the Johnson catch? What did Calvin do that Dez didn’t?

The fact you try to answer this shows you are being honest about the debate and I appreciate that.

 

[DogFace]

A no parrot policy works wonders.

Weak. Very weak.


We know what I made you for do. Stay of this “man”part of the conversation. This isn’t childish semantics. It’s for men.