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

[OmerV]

Yes, it was complete. The rulebook's phrase, "going to the ground" has nothing that defines anything other than one foot hitting the ground. So, yes, Dez was a runner, who also had made 7 football moves during his run.

Your logic is flawed, because the one foot hitting the ground only applies if he is hit after the one foot hits the ground, and that hit was what caused him to go to the ground. If the ref decided Dez was going to the ground even before, and regardless of the contact, that doesn't apply.

 

[nathanlt]

Your logic is flawed, because the one foot hitting the ground only applies if he is hit after the one foot hits the ground, and that hit was what caused him to go to the ground. If the ref decided Dez was going to the ground even before, and regardless of the contact, that doesn't apply.

If the ref decided he was going to the ground, that process was completed, the INSTANT his foot hit the ground. The ball didn't move, there was nothing else to wait for in terms of controlling the ball. the second foot made it a catch.

There's nothing in the rulebook that defines and entire body hitting the ground. Your boldface is not written in the rulebook anywhere, its pure speculation/hearsay after you've listened to the PR spin of Blandino, etc. The written rule is all that matters.

By rule, CATCH.

 

[DFWJC]

It was a catch, by any common sense standard.
Period

 

[OmerV]

If the ref decided he was going to the ground, that process was completed, the INSTANT his foot hit the ground. The ball didn't move, there was nothing else to wait for in terms of controlling the ball. the second foot made it a catch.

There's nothing in the rulebook that defines and entire body hitting the ground. Your boldface is not written in the rulebook anywhere, its pure speculation/hearsay after you've listened to the PR spin of Blandino, etc. The written rule is all that matters.

By rule, CATCH.

That's not what the casebook says. It says it has to be the contact that causes him to go to the ground, otherwise he is just ruled to be going to the ground, and the standard to maintain possession all the way through applies.

By the way, how is the process of "going to the ground" completed before actually hitting the ground. Going to the ground isn't about a foot touching the ground, it's about a player falling to the ground.

 

[JoeKing]

Rulebook does not match what they are saying after the fact. It's public relations nightmare, so they were trying to verbally change the written rule.

I'm going to put you in the "want to be difficult" category. It's a nightmare in your own mind because you want it to be.

 

[KC10Sooner]

We can argue all day about falling or not falling, but the reality is that he secured the ball with both hands. He then made a playmakers decision to switch the ball solely to his left hand, for the only purpose of scoring.

I think we can all agree that had he just kept the ball firmly in both hands by his chest, there is no doubt it’s a catch.

That can be interpreted two ways. He made a mistake of reaching for the goaline orrrrr

He had the ball long enough to establish himself as a runner and make a football move. If you say that, it’s clearly a catch.

 

[OmerV]

We can argue all day about falling or not falling, but the reality is that he secured the ball with both hands. He then made a playmakers decision to switch the ball solely to his left hand, for the only purpose of scoring.

I think we can all agree that had he just kept the ball firmly in both hands by his chest, there is no doubt it’s a catch.

That can be interpreted two ways. He made a mistake of reaching for the goaline orrrrr

He had the ball long enough to establish himself as a runner and make a football move. If you say that, it’s clearly a catch.

Like it or not, there is a rule about a receiver going to the ground, and we can't have a reasonable discussion by just ignoring parts of the rules we don't like.

 

[DogFace]

Rodgers is just a great QB. As much as i hate him when he beats us he is a joy to watch. The way he is moving in the pocket and makes his OL look great is amazing.
To me he was the only reason the packers beat us this day. But thats just me loving to watch great player.

The Murray fumble killed me. I never was a fan of him. And the way he left to the Eagles for me was the nail in his coffin.
maybe if Dez' catch would have been ruled good we had a chance to win the game. But then ? What does it matter today....

And i think you are right. We wouldnt be able to win the big game anyway. Our defense was not good enough this year. And i too dont think we were robbed this day. In the end its who scores more points who deserves to win the game.

I disagree that Rodgers is a joy to watch. I dislike him more than any other player and yes it’s mostly jealousy. I hope his dog bites him and State Farm denies his next claim because he’s not smart enough to keep Mathews away from his stuff.

I also think we could’ve probably won that game with the Dez catch and definetly if Murray scores rather than fumbling away my dreams.

 

[DogFace]

You don't have to assure me that's you really feel he may have stayed up - that point is just a matter of personal perception, and we all have to be influenced by what we believe we saw.

As for the 3 step process, see the discussion of the casebook play above.

I did see the casebook. Pretty sure I’ve replied to you before on the matter.

It seems clear to me that the casebook confirms they missed the call and it was a catch.

If you don’t think that which part of it do you disagree with being like the Dez catch?

 

[OmerV]

I disagree that Rodgers is a joy to watch. I dislike him more than any other player and yes it’s mostly jealousy. I hope his dog bites him and State Farm denies his next claim because he’s not smart enough to keep Mathews away from his stuff.

I also think we could’ve probably won that game with the Dez catch and definetly if Murray scores rather than fumbling away my dreams.

The Murray fumble was really the play that hurt the Cowboys. The Dez play gets the attention because it was a dramatic moment, but without the fumble the dramatic moment likely wouldn't have even occurred.

 

[DogFace]

Like it or not, there is a rule about a receiver going to the ground, and we can't have a reasonable discussion by just ignoring parts of the rules we don't like.

There was also contact after Dez landed. It’s hard to argue that absolutey did not contribute to him going down.

In any case there was contact exactly like the case play.

 

[OmerV]

I did see the casebook. Pretty sure I’ve replied to you before on the matter.

It seems clear to me that the casebook confirms they missed the call and it was a catch.

If you don’t think that which part of it do you disagree with being like the Dez catch?

You may have replied, but, again, for the casebook play to apply the receiver has to come down, in control and not be falling to the ground until he his hit by a defender, and then it is the hit that specifically causes him to fall to the ground. If a person believes Dez was going to the ground all the way, even before, and regardless of any contact, that casebook example doesn't apply. If a person believes he wasn't going down all the way, the casebook example would apply. If all that is what you and I disagree on, then it isn't the rules we are discussing, it is our perceptions of whether Dez was going to the ground from the time he came down from his leap, or if he was going to be able to remain upright and it was only the contact from the defender that caused him to fall.

 

[nathanlt]

I'm going to put you in the "want to be difficult" category. It's a nightmare in your own mind because you want it to be.

When the announcers in the Super Bowl years later say they STILL don't know what a catch is, IT IS a public relations nightmare for everyone.

 

[G2]

Yes, it was complete. The rulebook's phrase, "going to the ground" has nothing that defines anything other than one foot hitting the ground. So, yes, Dez was a runner, who also had made 7 football moves during his run.

You're exaggerating quite a bit. Is it that hard for you to have an adult convo with inserting nonsense?

Going to the ground trumps your "7 football moves here."

 

[G2]

If the ref decided he was going to the ground, that process was completed, the INSTANT his foot hit the ground. The ball didn't move, there was nothing else to wait for in terms of controlling the ball. the second foot made it a catch.

There's nothing in the rulebook that defines and entire body hitting the ground. Your boldface is not written in the rulebook anywhere, its pure speculation/hearsay after you've listened to the PR spin of Blandino, etc. The written rule is all that matters.

By rule, CATCH.

Not what the rule book says man.

 

[KC10Sooner]

Like it or not, there is a rule about a receiver going to the ground, and we can't have a reasonable discussion by just ignoring parts of the rules we don't like.

Like it or not, going to the ground is very subjective. Show me where that definition is in the rule book. It’s the interpretation by the ref...or in this case dean blandino that he was falling. He took 3 steps. Ertz only had two. If Dez has taken 4-6 but was still stumbling would it have been falling? It’s subjective to the core.

I personally think it’s stupid that they disregarded the fact that he clearly had the ball and was attempting to reach for the goaline. That’s not really subjective, but they overruled it with their opinion that he was “going to the ground”. I wouldn’t have been so upset about this had they called it incomplete on the field, but to overturn it with that rationale is absurd.

The reason we are still arguing this 3 years later is because the league lawyered up their own rule
And they still haven’t figure it out.

 

[G2]

The Murray fumble was really the play that hurt the Cowboys. The Dez play gets the attention because it was a dramatic moment, but without the fumble the dramatic moment likely wouldn't have even occurred.

I'll add it was extremely risky to go for the end zone on 4th and 2.

 

[G2]

Like it or not, going to the ground is very subjective. Show me where that definition is in the rule book. It’s the interpretation by the ref...or in this case dean blandino that he was falling. He took 3 steps. Ertz only had two. If Dez has taken 4-6 but was still stumbling would it have been falling? It’s subjective to the core.

I personally think it’s stupid that they disregarded the fact that he clearly had the ball and was attempting to reach for the goaline. That’s not really subjective, but they overruled it with their opinion that he was “going to the ground”. I wouldn’t have been so upset about this had they called it incomplete on the field, but to overturn it with that rationale is absurd.

The reason we are still arguing this 3 years later is because the league lawyered up their own rule
And they still haven’t figure it out.

They ruled it incomplete because he didn't maintain possession. But I get why you would be upset, it's a screwy thing.

 

[kskboys]

I disagree that Rodgers is a joy to watch. I dislike him more than any other player and yes it’s mostly jealousy. I hope his dog bites him and State Farm denies his next claim because he’s not smart enough to keep Mathews away from his stuff.

I also think we could’ve probably won that game with the Dez catch and definetly if Murray scores rather than fumbling away my dreams.

More like, we might win the game if Romo doesn't make a stupid throw on 4th and 2 and hits a wide open Beasely for a 1st down instead. No matter if Dez catches/caught it or not, it was an extremely stupid play to try. A pass like that is a low percentage pass that you do not utilize on 4th down w/ the game on the line. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

 

[MarcusRock]

Anybody who weighs in (on either side) should first be required to explain what a football move is for. In their own words.

I think catch theorists should have to prove that their suppositions aren't slanted in attempts to shoehorn the result they wanted to see since the play was ruled on and defended by the league. Suppositions such as:
"upright long enough" is "going to the ground trumps the catch process"
the catch process can't be completed while falling now

Continuing to trot out the same case play does nothing if you can't compare it to an identical case play (one that says a player lunged) from 2015 onward. This is why I focus on the 2014 case play's language that says a lunge, already meeting the 3-part requirement as an act common to the game "is not part of the process of the catch," that INCLUDES an act common to the game, clearly meaning it is considered a separate act like the case play says it is. Otherwise, why not just say he had control, 2 feet, and performed an act common to the game?