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

[KJJ]

spend 10 seconds to read the article it says st Patricks day parade. That looks like a float to me not a boat. Nice try. You don't even spend enough time to read an article or look at the pictures and you expect people to consider your opinion on anything?

I started arguing one point and it got turned into different things so I used facts to prove you don't know what you're talking about. If you want to get back to the non catches we can. I have all day.

Do a Google of Ezekiel Elliott on a party boat and that’s one of the pictures that come up. I spend time on things that are important while all you do is look for ridiculous things to create and start arguments. Now you want to keep spending time on this. LMAO! You spend time arguing everything. You have all day because you have nothing else to do. It doesn’t say much for you that you have all day to argue this. There are people here who have a life outside of this board.

 

[cowboyec]

Dez caught it.
We all know it.
He got screwed cause he's a Cowboy.

 

[MarcusRock]

You still never answered several questions from the last thread on this subject, despite your incessant whining that another poster wouldn’t answer your question.

I predict you continue that trend in this thread.

Then you're blind because I stated that I answered them in the initial thread on the topic. Go back and look. And then get me those stats on holding like you said you would because that's what you didn't answer in that initial thread.

Seems like you continue to argue the point, even though you've stated that you're not going to waste your time on it.

You have to admit KJJ, he's got you there, lol.

 

[percyhoward]

Because he was going to the ground at the time.

Well, he was falling at the time. He didn't go to the ground until after the last move, which was the reach.

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass..."

This has basis in common sense. "Goes to the ground" is a clear point in time. "Falls" is not. No one could possibly agree on the point at which the player started to fall, but anyone can see when he went to the ground.

 

[MarcusRock]

2 differences. One is that Ertz made a cut toward the goal line (the "football move"), and Ertz likely would have stayed on his feet going into the end zone had the tackler not come over. Dez, on the other hand, showed no ability to make a cut, and it didn't appear that he could have stayed on his feet going into the end zone even if there had been no defender there. That said, Dez obviously didn't need to change directions (make a cut) to head toward the end zone, so there wasn't even an opportunity for that, but the fact he seemed to be going to the ground from the time he caught the ball is what hurt his case.

Exactly right. I keep saying this but Dez has made this exact highpoint catch before and fell to the ground untouched.

 

[KJJ]

Seems like you continue to argue the point, even though you've stated that you're not going to waste your time on it. Hmmmm.

I'm casually observing the phenomenon, where someone tries to defend a falsehood (FALSE:"the catch rule was obvious", - though it's been rewritten multiple times since the debacle). Then, rather than admit that the NFL created the mess, and without basis in the rule book, took away Dez's catch... rather than that, you double down and become emotionally invested in defending a complete falsehood.

It's a human phenomenon to deny what a person knows is true, simply because that person has been mocked for believing it. Every person is susceptible to defending a falsehood, if their pride is wrapped up in defending it. Interesting.

I’m not wasting time with those I’ve argued it with in the past and that puts you on the outside looking in.

 

[KJJ]

then why not replay everything? If the refs cannot be trusted on turnovers and scores then they cannot be trusted at all.

Games would last forever that’s why. Replay is never going to remove judgment from calls. Even replay calls involve judgment.

 

[DogFace]

How about giving me the reason seeing you want to make this personal attack?

Nope

 

[percyhoward]

I agree in the differences... Although I still feel the Dez one was a catch. Personally, I think if you have control of the ball, and both feet on the ground, it is a friggin catch.

The football move is based on common sense. If a guy had control, got two feet down, and then did anything to show he wasn't still just trying to catch it...then it's a catch. That's common sense.

Saying that a player needs to be upright in order to make a catch, not common sense.

 

[OmerV]

I think the league has owed us Cowboys an apology for far too long. This is literally the same catch. Dez even moved it to one hand smh

No, it's not the same catch. Ertz actually took 3 steps and made a cut toward the end zone, and would have been able to stay on his feet into the end zone had a tackler not come over. Dez made no cut and would not have stayed on his feet whether a defender came over or not. A player taking steps while in the act of going to the ground, as Dez did, has not established himself as a runner. A player who takes steps while upright and having the ability to change directions, as Ertz did, has established himself as a runner.

The earlier TD in the back of the end zone seemed way more controversial than this one.

 

[OmerV]

There's really nothing more to say. There is zero consistency with the catch rule. It all depends on the interpretation of the officials watching the replay.

The only fix is to change the rules about what constitutes a catch; one that manages to eliminate all the grey area and move on. Of course, the chances of that happening is about as good as the Cowboys dressing their cheerleaders in burlap sacks next season.

What would eliminate all the gray areas.

 

[nathanlt]

You don't understand the rule. Most people simply love to say, "By rule..." When, of course, they haven't actually read it. I fully understand the written rule, and how inadequate it is to justify how they are using it. Apparently, Blandino intends to use that rule for things he dares not write down. NFL, put the end of the process in defined terms, or go back to simplicity. Taking away a catch that had 3 steps inbounds, then two elbows, BEFORE THE BALL EVER CONTACTED THE GROUND, IS TAMPERING.

Not to mention, there were SEVEN football moves!

1. Dez secured the ball on his right shoulder with both hands.
2. Dez transferred the ball to his left hand, without wobble!
3. Dez took 3 steps toward the goal line.
4. Dez planked off his right foot.
5. Dez rotated his body more than 90 degrees, to shield off the defender
6. Dez braced and pivoted off his right arm, his right elbow touching the ground. (Play over at this point)
7. Dez stretched his left arm toward the goal line. (Which Blandino mentioned as not being enough of a football move) What????? that's just his inner Giant fan talking.

In addition, before the ball touched the ground, (and it did, i have the freeze frame to prove it) a split second before, his left elbow hit the ground. The football was still secure in his hand, and NEVER WOBBLED from securing it on his right shoulder, through and beyond the time his second elbow hit the ground. After the ball touched the ground, it reacted and came loose from his hand. At that point, though, he had been down by contact. Blandino is so incompetent.

 

[DogFace]

Wrong. As I've said before we don't know if the field official ruled that a football move happened. If the field official didn't see the ball hit the turf from his angle, and who could at real speed, then all that needed to be evident for it to be a catch was that the ball did not touch the turf. Dez didn't need a football move if he had kept the ball off the ground, even if he bobbled it after his body hit the ground. Is this correct? The angles that showed it did touch the turf including the picture I posted in this very thread as did KJJ, were reverse angles that the field official was obstructed from. That's why I say I don't blame the field official. He couldn't see everything. So if he applied the wrong rule, replay is there to make sure the right one is applied. That is what happened.



You can repeat it but it doesn't make it true. There was no tuck. For one, he had to double clutch just to grasp the ball because Shields hits Dez' forearm and then he took one hand off the ball in preparation for his fall as he was going to the ground. He left the ball away from his body and it hit the ground when his torso did and popped loose. There is no "switching" when you take one hand off the ball while you are on the way to the ground. You either crash down with it in 2 hands or 1 hand. All in the "process of going to the ground," which is what was ruled. So again, was it incompetence that those 3 rules buffs missed that there was a football move or did they all conspire?



Because there was no tuck. There was a double-clutch grasp for control, steps on the way to the ground, choosing to take 1 hand off the ball, and a failed lunge as he hit the ground, ball pops out. No catch per going to the ground.



See above for "no tuck." 2014 rules or 2016 rules, no tuck happened.



Go way back up to my first response here. Dez could have established himself as a runner after he hit the ground too. That occurs by confirming that the ball didn't touch the ground. In that instance you don't need an act common to the game. Isn't that right?

1. He caught it by high pointing it.
2. He brought it into his right shoulder/chest area
3. He then moved it or from his chest area to only his left hand. (Your term is taking his hand off the ball) I disagree that’s what happened, but that’s irrelevant. The act demonstrated he “had enough time for a football move”
4. Then attempted to reach with that hand.

 

[KJJ]

Nope

You did mention me to another poster where I received a notification. Calling out someone is considered a personal attack. Better read the rules that were just posted not long ago about mentioning posters.

I see you’ve aligned yourself with @KJJ. That’s perfect!!

 

[buybuydandavis]

What was indisputable was that the wrong rule was applied by the field official. So when you review, you apply the correct one. That's what replay is for. It was almost impossible to tell that the ball hit the ground in real time speed but when you see it did in replay (and the pics posted above) the ball has to survive the ground because the going to the ground Item of the rule applied.

Whether a going to the ground rule applied is a *judgment* call. It was not so ruled on the field. It's absurd to claim there was indisputable visual evidence to overturn that judgment.

 

[OmerV]

Well, he was falling at the time. He didn't go to the ground until after the last move, which was the reach.

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass..."

This has basis in common sense. "Goes to the ground" is a clear point in time. "Falls" is not. No one could possibly agree on the point at which the player started to fall, but anyone can see when he went to the ground.

By your definition an all out dive where a player has the ball in his hands in the end zone would be a TD without having to hold on to the ball once he hits the ground. After all, when in the all out dive he hasn't gone to the ground yet, he is just going to the ground.

 

[plymkr]

**** the NFL.

Exactly

 

[MarcusRock]

Whether a going to the ground rule applied is a *judgment* call. It was not so ruled on the field. It's absurd to claim there was indisputable visual evidence to overturn that judgment.

Then what was ruled on the field? Did they rule that a football move had taken place or did they rule that the ball never touch the ground. It would have been a catch in each of those instances.

 

[OmerV]

The football move is based on common sense. If a guy had control, got two feet down, and then did anything to show he wasn't still just trying to catch it...then it's a catch. That's common sense.

Saying that a player needs to be upright in order to make a catch, not common sense.

You are shortcutting the rule. A player either has to establish himself as a runner, or maintain control all the way through the catch. Dez did neither. You can't establish yourself as a runner while falling to the ground.

 

[DogFace]

Then you're blind because I stated that I answered them in the initial thread on the topic. Go back and look. And then get me those stats on holding like you said you would because that's what you didn't answer in that initial thread.



You have to admit KJJ, he's got you there, lol.

Once again, I’m not looking through 30 years of holding stats. When I said I would it was a technique I call sarcasm.

The no holds for 9 games is rare. Disprove that if you want. Disagree if you like. It’s rare and I think unprecedented. I have no proof to back that up. You have provided no proof that I’m wrong in thinking that.