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

[G2]

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.

I've noticed something here we didn't have at our old forum. Post count matters here, lol. The E-bullying is actually hilarious.

 

[G2]

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.

We're on the same page. I don't particularly agree with everything the rules states, but after getting a better understanding of it's meanings I don't have an issue with saying the Dez or Ertz plays were correctly called. I honestly think id coaches and players were better educated on how the rule works more WR's would do a better job of simply wrapping the ball up and taking what you get from that. Unless of course you've been running downfield.

 

[Kevinicus]

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.

Even the James catch is a catch according to the definition of a catch (the current version). "Initial contact."

 

[Kevinicus]

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.

The James catch is under different rules than the Dez catch. Also, according to the language of the rule, the James catch was in fact, a catch.

 

[G2]

The James catch is under different rules than the Dez catch. Also, according to the language of the rule, the James catch was in fact, a catch.

Nope. He didn't keep control of the ball after going to the ground.

 

[btcutter]

Dez took multiple steps and lunged forward. What the hell are you talking about

Dez's catch involved insane athletic ability that average person cannot comprehend (some human can jump so high to catch it then switch the ball to his dominant hand while taking another step. And while being tackled going to the ground has the presence to extend the ball in his hand (full control) to break the plane of the goal line for a mind boggling TD). All this was done withing 2-3 sec period.....because it was too amazing. Therefore, NFL says no catch.

 

[Kevinicus]

Nope. He didn't keep control of the ball after going to the ground.

The rule says he has to maintain possession through "initial contact." Initial contact was his knee and he maintained control throughout that contact. The ball came loose on subsequent contact, which is not required in the language of the rule.

 

[glimmerman]

Either way you want to call it. The NFL needs to do something different about this rule. In older days all of these were catches. Dez caught the ball, had control and two feet in. Same with the others. Had control, two feet in and had control when the ball broke the plain of end zone. The NFL wonders why viewership is down. Obviously there are several reasons. But rules like this that leave it up to refs interpretation makes people wonder if it’s fixed.

 

[DogFace]

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.

What a dumb dumb commmet. I’d expect no less at this point from someone who continually avoids the questions asked that make your argument look even stupider. That’s the only smart thing you’ve done while on this forum.

I guess in your old forum you’d steal others arguments and make them your own. Then, sadly, refer to yourself as an internet ringleader. That’s not what I do and not just because it’s pathetic to want to be an internet ringleader. It’s wrong.

I’m giving credit to the people that have done a very good job of making the argument(like two years ago) in such a clear and convincing way that a person such as yourself would be forced to continually avoid the questions asked or expose your argument as poorly thought out and quite wrong.


So I’m asking them again.

1. Address why Blandino looked for a move if it didn’t matter
2. Expalin why the casebook example laid out to you in clear English is incorrect or not like the Dez catch.
3. Why would Dez “take his hand off the ball”, As you say, if he was still trying to catch it? Seems like an act common to the game.

 

[Sydla]

I believe the Ertz call was correct.

I still debate the Clement catch. To me, he clearly was moving the ball in his hands when his toe came down on the line. I was pretty stunned they didn't overturn that one.

 

[DallasEast]

Either way you want to call it. The NFL needs to do something different about this rule. In older days all of these were catches. Dez caught the ball, had control and two feet in. Same with the others. Had control, two feet in and had control when the ball broke the plain of end zone. The NFL wonders why viewership is down. Obviously there are several reasons. But rules like this that leave it up to refs interpretation makes people wonder if it’s fixed.

 

[DogFace]

I've noticed something here we didn't have at our old forum. Post count matters here, lol. The E-bullying is actually hilarious.

Oh the irony. You co-sign everything your special buddy from the other forum says and call others out for bullying while he continually tries to insult others with cut little terms like “catch theorists”.

Im guessing you two contributed greatly to the demise of that forum.

Use your head.

 

[DogFace]

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.

Keep avoiding the questions honey, it’s cute.


Or did you answer them in another thread again?

 

[DogFace]

Nope. He didn't keep control of the ball after going to the ground.

Ask her to answer these for you or give it a try. He seems to be avoiding them.

1. Address why Blandino looked for a move if it didn’t matter
2. Expalin why the casebook example laid out to you in clear English is incorrect or not like the Dez catch.
3. Why would Dez “take his hand off the ball”, As your good friend said, if he was still trying to catch it? Seems like an act common to the game.


Please get permission before replying.

 

[G2]

The rule says he has to maintain possession through "initial contact." Initial contact was his knee and he maintained control throughout that contact. The ball came loose on subsequent contact, which is not required in the language of the rule.

Hmm, I thought the rule said a WR had to maintain control throughout the process.

Oh the irony. You co-sign everything your special buddy from the other forum says and call others out for bullying while he continually tries to insult others with cut little terms like “catch theorists”.

Im guessing you two contributed greatly to the demise of that forum.

Use your head.

Oh great, another internet tough guy. Lol Too funny.

 

[G2]

Ask her to answer these for you or give it a try. He seems to be avoiding them.

1. Address why Blandino looked for a move if it didn’t matter
2. Expalin why the casebook example laid out to you in clear English is incorrect or not like the Dez catch.
3. Why would Dez “take his hand off the ball”, As your good friend said, if he was still trying to catch it? Seems like an act common to the game.


Please get permission before replying.

What's the "C" stand for?

 

[MarcusRock]

What's the "C" stand for?

Confidenceless.

 

[OmerV]

Nope. He didn't keep control of the ball after going to the ground.

That's not the controlling part of the rule since he established himself as a runner prior to going to the ground by taking three steps and making a cut on his own, and not while in the act of going to the ground. Once he did that all he had to do was break the plane of the end zone with the ball.

 

[G2]

Confidence-less.

I guess I'm a bigger A-hole than you...

 

[G2]

That's not the controlling part of the rule since he established himself as a runner prior to going to the ground by taking three steps and making a cut on his own, and not while in the act of going to the ground. Once he did that all he had to do was break the plane of the end zone with the ball.

James didn't take any steps.