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

[G2]

nothing is trumped at all because dez was clearly and I mean indisputable proof he was advancing the ball. You do not switch hands and lunge if you're falling uncontrolled.

Falling to the ground trumps a football move.

 

[KJJ]

Ive explained to you multiple times how you are believing the rule contradicts everything the nfl does. The ball was being advanced in an act of the game. It was a catch there is no argument against it unless you want to say 75% of the nfl calls have been wrong. Either the ball can or cannot move at all. dude last night had it move twice during him going to the ground and it was ruled a catch

I’m the one who’s been doing the explaining. Stop wasting everyone’s time.

 

[MarcusRock]

I'd love to see them. It's the only part of that call that infuriated me.

Here's one. KJJ has closeups too.

 

[G2]

Two feet are two feet IMO. Plus, making a conscious effort to reach for the goal line shows control to me.

It probably would be if he didn't bobbled the ball after he fell to the ground.

 

[nathanlt]

TO EVERYONE: The process of going to the ground was complete after Dez's first foot hit the ground.

I defy anyone to quote where the written rule in 2014-15 season defines or describes "going to the ground" as anything other than one foot hitting the ground.

The NFL's intent is irrelevant, only what they wrote in the rulebook applies.

 

[MarcusRock]

Geez. Don't know that I expected straight up panic mode but ah well.

 

[robertfchew]

Falling to the ground trumps a football move.

he had established as a runner since he made multiple football moves.

 

[G2]

he had established as a runner since he made multiple football moves.

Going to the ground overrides a "football move" per the rule.

 

[nathanlt]

Going to the ground overrides a "football move" per the rule.

Going to the ground means get one foot down, that's it.

 

[robertfchew]

Here's one. KJJ has closeups too.

that shows he is down by contact. there is nothing to support to support an incompletion. at this point he had caught the ball switched hands and lunged. Your only argument could be he's down at the 1/2 yard line.

 

[glimmerman]

that shows he is down by contact. there is nothing to support to support an incompletion. at this point he had caught the ball switched hands and lunged. Your only argument could be he's down at the 1/2 yard line.

The ref was standing right there and called it a catch and down at the 1/2 yard line. When they started talking about it and reviewing it I knew we were done for.

 

[G2]

Going to the ground means get one foot down, that's it.

Are you saying as soon as a foot hits the ground that's considered the same as falling to the ground?

 

[G2]

that shows he is down by contact. there is nothing to support to support an incompletion. at this point he had caught the ball switched hands and lunged. Your only argument could be he's down at the 1/2 yard line.

He wasn't established as a runner to be down by contact/ground causing the fumble.

 

[Cebrin]

Here's one. KJJ has closeups too.

Thanks!!! I can rest my anger!! Lol.

 

[KJJ]

that shows he is down by contact. there is nothing to support to support an incompletion. at this point he had caught the ball switched hands and lunged. Your only argument could be he's down at the 1/2 yard line.

What supports an incompletion is Dez was “going to the ground” therefore he had to maintain possession of the ball through the contact of the ground and he didn’t.

 

[nathanlt]

Are you saying as soon as a foot hits the ground that's considered the same as falling to the ground?

"Falling to the ground" is not the phrase in the rule book, "going to the ground" the written rule.

 

[JustChip]

It was overturned because his momentum/body lean was taking him to the ground and the ball didn’t survive the ground. Dez didn’t complete the process and under the rule that’s a no catch. An act common to the game or a so called football move doesn’t matter when a receiver is ruled going to the ground. The rule really isn’t that hard to grasp but it’s like trying to explain Chinese algebra to some here.

Wrong, just plain wrong as pertains to the 2014 rule which was the governing rule for the Dez play. The excerpt I posted precedes the "going to the ground in the act of catching a pass" clause. The "act common to the game" is preemptive to "act of catching a pass". If the former is ruled to have occurred, the later does apply because the act of catching the pass has been done. If the later applies, then the former had to have not been fulfilled. But then when does one act end and another begin? That's based on opinion / interpretation.

As I've said consistently, the issue is that the decision wholly rests on one's interpretation of whether Dez performed an "act common to the game", specifically, but not limited to, "advancing with it". There are differences of opinion on that and, since there is, can not be irrefutable evidence which is required to overturn the call. The call should've stood whether it had been ruled incomplete or caught, but in this case, caught. It's really not that hard.

BTW, I don't for a moment believe that play costs the Cowboys the win. It wasn't a TD, they still would've had to have scored. If they had, they still had to stop a one-legged Rodgers and Green Bay, which they failed to do anyway. Had they stopped them, they still had a chance so what cost them was the inability to stop GB.

 

[KJJ]

Wrong, just plain wrong as pertains to the 2014 rule which was the governing rule for the Dez play.

I’m not wrong and the rule remains the same today as it was in 2014. The call has been consistent, if the receiver is going to the ground they have to maintain possession through the contact of the ground.

 

[robertfchew]

Going to the ground overrides a "football move" per the rule.

every player is going t

I’m not wrong and the rule remains the same today as it was in 2014. The call has been consistent, if the receiver is going to the ground they have to maintain possession through the contact of the ground.

he wasn't a receiver he caught and made football moves. possession had already been established. he was a runner. The nfl is not consistent on this at all. why wasn't the helmet to helmet called last night? he was a runner. why was Trevathan flagged fined and suspended for hitting another runner? Is knocking a guy out illegal? No its because the nfl has no clue what is and isn't a catch or runner

 

[CPanther95]

TO EVERYONE: The process of going to the ground was complete after Dez's first foot hit the ground.

I defy anyone to quote where the written rule in 2014-15 season defines or describes "going to the ground" as anything other than one foot hitting the ground.

The NFL's intent is irrelevant, only what they wrote in the rulebook applies.

Unfortunately, the NFL's intent is all that matters since they are the ones that make all final rulings. Having said that, your interpretation at least makes sense from a technical standpoint. We know they do not interpret it this way, but this part of the "going to the ground" rule:

"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"

never specifies for how long the player must retain control after initial contact, and Dez's "initial contact with the ground" is clearly the first foot. Now the argument becomes "How can maintaining control for 2 seconds and 5 yards of travel not meet the vague requirement of 'until after'? "

But good luck with that legal argument when the NFL is judge, jury and executioner.