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

[nathanlt]

Where are you finding this? It is not in my copy of the 2014-15 Season rules.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the NFL cleansed the entire internet of the previous versions of rule books that included cases as examples. I kept my copy immediately after the catch was taken away.

 

[MarcusRock]

It is the 2012 NFL Casebook and they did not publish one in 2013-2014 and they made no changes to the rule in that time frame, so in 2014 that case play is the correct way to call the Dez play. After Blandino 'adjusted' the rule the casebook disappeared and caseplays became included in the rule book.

So in 2014 the 3 step process continues during going to the ground, which is why, as Percy has said many times, they kept talking about a football move. So when Dez landed, turned, and stepped he completed the 3 steps to become a runner. He also changed hands, braced, and extended so in reality Dez made FIVE moves common to the game to complete the catch process.

They make changes to rules just about every year, if not the catch rule specifically so that would need to be updated every year, wouldn't it? If there was no booklet published for the previous 2 years, you can't say that it definitely applied.

As Pereira said, surviving the ground trumps everything. Who with authority has said he's wrong? Surely some Pittsburgh superfan would have by now. Where are they? That is why it makes sense that Johnson, Dez, and now James' calls were all consistently not catches. Again, even if not, my counter question is if there were more football moves than the failed reach, why was no one asked about those? Wouldn't they proceed down the line if they were armed with 5 football moves to ask about? I mean, that's what any good reporter would do.

 

[JustChip]

I didn’t believe a 50-50 jump ball from that far out gave us the best opportunity to score. Had we played it safe and just picked up the first down we could have taken some time off the clock and set ourselves up for a fade to Dez in the end zone. Romo and Dez had the fade down perfectly and Dez was almost impossible to defend on a fade. We could have moved down to around the 10 yard line or so and set ourselves up for a fade to Dez.

Yes, sir...I’m with ya on this.

 

[hairic]

What it looks like when Dez is making a football move for additional yardage off his left foot in another context. It's on the football todo list to join with the 2014 play, but football is now like a septenary focus.

 

[blindzebra]

They make changes to rules just about every year, if not the catch rule specifically so that would need to be updated every year, wouldn't it? If there was no booklet published for the previous 2 years, you can't say that it definitely applied.

As Pereira said, surviving the ground trumps everything. Who with authority has said he's wrong? Surely some Pittsburgh superfan would have by now. Where are they? That is why it makes sense that Johnson, Dez, and now James' calls were all consistently not catches. Again, even if not, my counter question is if there were more football moves than the failed reach, why was no one asked about those? Wouldn't they proceed down the line if they were armed with 5 football moves to ask about? I mean, that's what any good reporter would do.

That is not how officiating works. The 2012, 2013, and 2014 catch rules were EXACTLY the same. They made no changes in the catch rules. There were no points of emphasis or clarifications in the rules for catches or going to the ground either.

It is really simple why it happened. The party bus. Blandino got on TMZ that summer riding the Cowboys party bus. It was a big story that went away until the flag got picked up for PI in the Detroit game and all week long going into GB Blandino was grilled again about the party bus. We were not going to get a replay call in our favor that day regardless of the rules. The Cobb catch that gave them a FG before halftime clearly bounced off the turf, but low and behold it was upheld. They had to find a way to make Dez' catch an incompletion so they wrongly applied the going to the ground rule, as the caseplay I presented clearly shows. The revamping of the rule in 2015 to remove the move common to the game was to give the impression that the 3 step process didn't matter when going to the ground, even though based on that caseplay it did.

 

[DogFace]

They make changes to rules just about every year, if not the catch rule specifically so that would need to be updated every year, wouldn't it? If there was no booklet published for the previous 2 years, you can't say that it definitely applied.

As Pereira said, surviving the ground trumps everything. Who with authority has said he's wrong? Surely some Pittsburgh superfan would have by now. Where are they? That is why it makes sense that Johnson, Dez, and now James' calls were all consistently not catches. Again, even if not, my counter question is if there were more football moves than the failed reach, why was no one asked about those? Wouldn't they proceed down the line if they were armed with 5 football moves to ask about? I mean, that's what any good reporter would do.

They make changes to the rule book “JUST”
about every year. That’s your reply? Well they didn’t that year. That’s a fact.

@blindzebra explained the process to you clearly in the above post. Are you now arguing the issue of when new casebooks should or shouldn’t be issued? It wasn’t and the reason was spelled out.

Now do what you’ve conveniently ignored( he posted this example several pages back. Twice) and compare this casebook example with Dez’s catch. Get your friend @KJJ to help and see what you two come up with.

Did you ever answer @percyhoward ’s question about why Blandino was looking for a football move if it didn’t matter? That’s also an important question for you to understand so you can better understand the Dez catch.

 

[Jake]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the NFL cleansed the entire internet of the previous versions of rule books that included cases as examples. I kept my copy immediately after the catch was taken away.

Yeah, I can just see it.

"You know, three years from now some Cowboys fans on a message board might still be going on about that play. Better get the forensics team online to cleanse the internet of all the evidence." - Dr. Evil Goodell, 2015

 

[slick325]

He had control of the ball when he reached for the goal line but the ball came loose when it contacted the ground. Because he was going to the ground the ball had to survive the ground.

I understand the rule as it is written but much like pornography, I know a catch when I see it. The rules committee needs to treat a catch much like the Supreme Court Justice did when he defined porn.

Stop taking autonomy from the refs.

 

[BrassCowboy]

Oh lord, here we go. Here's the difference. Dez jumped up to highpoint the ball and Ertz caught the ball while on his feet taking 3 steps and then executed a proper lunge/reach. Dez did not do the last part so the going to the ground rule applied. Just stop.

Sorry you need to rewatch that play again. Dez took three physical steps and he did lunge, a football move

 

[G2]

They make changes to rules just about every year, if not the catch rule specifically so that would need to be updated every year, wouldn't it? If there was no booklet published for the previous 2 years, you can't say that it definitely applied.

As Pereira said, surviving the ground trumps everything. Who with authority has said he's wrong? Surely some Pittsburgh superfan would have by now. Where are they? That is why it makes sense that Johnson, Dez, and now James' calls were all consistently not catches. Again, even if not, my counter question is if there were more football moves than the failed reach, why was no one asked about those? Wouldn't they proceed down the line if they were armed with 5 football moves to ask about? I mean, that's what any good reporter would do.

@CPanther95 is a Pitt fan and pretty knowledgeable. What say he?

 

[G2]

They make changes to the rule book “JUST”
about every year. That’s your reply? Well they didn’t that year. That’s a fact.

@blindzebra had explained the process to you clearly in the above post. Are you now arguing the issue of when new casebooks should or shouldn’t be issued? It wasn’t and the reason was spelled out.

Now do what you’ve conveniently ignored( he posted this example several pages back. Twice) and compare this casebook example with Dez’s catch. Get your friend @KJJ to help and see what you two come up with.

Did you ever answer @percyhoward ’s question about why Blandino was looking for a football move if it didn’t matter? That’s also an important question for you to understand so you can better understand the Dez catch.

Sounds like you're rallying the troops for a witch hunt! Lmao...

I'm going with the information Pereira provided over the vast majority of armchair refs here.

 

[Ken]

Oh lord, here we go. Here's the difference. Dez jumped up to highpoint the ball and Ertz caught the ball while on his feet taking 3 steps and then executed a proper lunge/reach. Dez did not do the last part so the going to the ground rule applied. Just stop.

That's great but there was no going to the ground rule at that time.

 

[DogFace]

Sounds like you're rallying the troops for a witch hunt! Lmao...

I'm going with the information Pereira provided over the vast majority of armchair refs here.

So you still take a small minority of the armchair refs over Pereira. Good.

Pay attention to the rally. Maybe they’ll point out again how Pereira has admitted to getting “off track” with the catch rule.

"Let’s have all of us who had any part in tinkering with this rule since 1999 admit that we got off track."
—Mike Pereira

That’s from @percyhoward last page.


Also, please address the casebook example. Or you can continue to blindly follow the authority Pereira.

 

[Ken]

Sorry you need to rewatch that play again. Dez took three physical steps and he did lunge, a football move

He switched freaking hands with the ball and reached for the goaline. Anyone who says otherwise is blind.

 

[Ken]

Not trying to be anything. Both plays were completely different. Plain and simple. Any comparison is as attempt to whine. Both were catches to me but only because with Dez the rule sucks

Yes, no comparison. Are you serious?

Both caught the ball at the 5, both took three steps, both demonstrated control, both had the ball pop up from the ground in the endzone. Are you really not seeing the comparison?

 

[Ken]

I have debated the Dez no-catch for years so I know this rule front to back. Being a "runner" and "number of steps" is important in explaining the rule. If you complete that 3-part process you list there, you are considered a runner. That's why Ertz' catch was a TD as soon as he crossed the goal line and why you heard the announcers mention that he was a runner. The lunge part is an act common to the game. You admit Ertz' was more demonstrative than Dez'. That is the difference. Dez intended to dive, but Ertz actually executed. If Dez caught the ball on his feet like Ertz did and not while going to the ground, which is Item 1 of that rule that you didn't post, then Dez would have had a catch. But since going to the ground applied, it made no difference how many steps one takes on the way to the ground. Everyone asked mentioned that Dez' lunge was not a demonstrative lunge. Pereira said it during the broadcast, Steratore said it after the game, Blandino said it in an interview on the NFL Network all the same day.

This make sense now?

NO, and you have no idea what you are talking about. Ertz was tripped into the endzone and his momentum propelled him. Dez carried a defender on his back to the end zone.

Make sense?

 

[CPanther95]

@CPanther95 is a Pitt fan and pretty knowledgeable. What say he?

If you're talking about the James catch, it's the same thing as the Dez catch and dozens of other calls in between. It's not a catch based on their ridiculous definition of a catch, but they all should be catches.

The Ertz catch was the right call.

In order to justify their call against Johnson, they've gone off the rails with the definition.

 

[MarcusRock]

That is not how officiating works. The 2012, 2013, and 2014 catch rules were EXACTLY the same. They made no changes in the catch rules. There were no points of emphasis or clarifications in the rules for catches or going to the ground either.

It is really simple why it happened. The party bus. Blandino got on TMZ that summer riding the Cowboys party bus. It was a big story that went away until the flag got picked up for PI in the Detroit game and all week long going into GB Blandino was grilled again about the party bus. We were not going to get a replay call in our favor that day regardless of the rules. The Cobb catch that gave them a FG before halftime clearly bounced off the turf, but low and behold it was upheld. They had to find a way to make Dez' catch an incompletion so they wrongly applied the going to the ground rule, as the caseplay I presented clearly shows. The revamping of the rule in 2015 to remove the move common to the game was to give the impression that the 3 step process didn't matter when going to the ground, even though based on that caseplay it did.

Yes, yes, I know. One word would have summed up everything regarding the call: CONSPIRACY!!!

 

[MarcusRock]

Sounds like you're rallying the troops for a witch hunt! Lmao...

I'm going with the information Pereira provided over the vast majority of armchair refs here.

This is why I said he can't be a ringleader in that other thread. Dude needs to call for backup instead of entering the debate with anything of substance himself. He'd be better served by just quoting percy's posts and adding, "What he said" or "Yeah that's right. You tell 'em." Lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

If you're talking about the James catch, it's the same thing as the Dez catch and dozens of other calls in between. It's not a catch based on their ridiculous definition of a catch, but they all should be catches.

The Ertz catch was the right call.

In order to justify their call against Johnson, they've gone off the rails with the definition.

The James catch is the proof that going to the ground takes precedence over the 3-part rule because he made the demonstrative football move that Dez didn't make but likewise didn't survive the ground. This is why the catch theorists have avoided making comparisons to the James catch, which is far more egregious concerning the rule and instead deathly try to make Dez upright. But they're the same as you say, which is why Pereira and Blandino link them when they explained the rule concerning James. So now the needle just moves more towards conspiracy as the last resort.