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

[JoeKing]

If you've followed this thread for the past few pages, announcers aren't the only ones to do this.

I don't care who is doing it. If I'm smart enough to know what is a catch and what isn't then others should be able to do the same thing. I definitely see the difference in the Dez non-catch and the Pats guy's TD catch and run.

 

[KJJ]

Maybe i watched a different game then you.

We had momentum when the Murray fumble happend. Sure we still may have lost the game. But the fumble took the air out of us. Thats what i define as a killer moment.

We can discuss wether our defense was our achilles heel in 2014. But that has nothing to do with a killer moment in a game.

You must have watched a different game because Murray’s fumble happened early in the 3rd quarter and only led to a FG for Green Bay. We still maintained a one point lead after the fumble. We then went on to score a TD taking a 21-13 lead Into the 4th quarter. We couldn’t stop Rodgers in the 4th quarter. Our defense did what it did in the playoffs in 2016 against the Packers it started to cave with the game on the line. We had an opportunity to take control of the game in the first half when Rodgers was clearly off.

The sequence right before the half was inexcusable and cost us momentum. That’s when Rodgers began to heat up. The decision Romo made with over 4 minutes to play to go to Dez on a 50-50 jump ball on a manageable 4th and 2 was another blow to our chances. He should’ve gone to Beasley or Witten, picking up the first down and milking the clock. We could have worked the ball closer to the end zone allowing Murray who was having a solid game to punch it in or we could have gone to Dez on a fade which was better than 50-50 in 2014.

Had Dez’s catch not been overturned the Packers had plenty of time left to win the game. We still had an opportunity to win the game had we been able to get one stop in the final 4 minutes. Our defense lost that game for us.

 

[glimmerman]

What if his GF Danica Patrick gives him cooties?

She is not as attractive as she used to be.

 

[KJJ]

We had momentum when the Murray fumble happend. Sure we still may have lost the game. But the fumble took the air out of us. Thats what i define as a killer moment.

The sequence right before halftime was a 6 point swing and we lost the game by 5 points. We were setting up for a makeable FG and had a penalty that moved us back 5 yards, then our FG attempt was blocked. In less than 40 seconds the Packers drove into FG range. Rodgers who had been off started to heat up and it carried over into the second half. As I pointed out in the other post we ended up scoring a touchdown after Murray’s fumble to take a 20-13 lead.

 

[JoeKing]

She is not as attractive as she used to be.

Especially since contracting cooties.

 

[MarcusRock]

The 2015 casebook says the lunge was part of the catch process
The 2014 casebook says the lunge was NOT part of the catch process.

Go back to post #770 and extend out the post I quoted. Look at the quoted post and look at what I posted. Do the words from the two A.R. 8.12 match exactly, word for word? I even provided a link and page number to the 2015 rulebook, which is where I copied mine from on the browser I had the document up in so people could verify for themselves. I don't "conveniently" leave things out to back my stances.

 

[GenoT]

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.

The Murray play...and the fact that our defense couldn’t contain, pressure or sack a one-legged Rodgers — all game long.

Stop just one of ARs numerous 3rd-down conversions, or one of his three passing TDs, and this thread never happens.

And he did it to us again in 2016.

 

[BlindFaith]

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.

You do realize you can be going to the ground without ever being in the air? Right?

So how do you justify your position? If a receiver is stumbling and will clearly fall to the ground but yet manages to catch the ball, you're saying that all he needs to do is have a foot touch and that fulfills "maintaining control through contacting the ground". That's just absurd. Contacting the ground is the player physically being on the ground to a point where he'd have to make some action to get off of it. Getting a foot down as you are falling to the ground is not being on the ground, it's preparing to be on the ground.

As has been stated before, if you don't think Dez was ever going to the ground, that's one thing. If you think he would have some how magically prevented himself from doing so you see something that most rational people dont. I don't care if there wasn't a person within 10 feet of him, he still would have fell to the ground. Doesn't matter if he removed the lunge or any of it. How he jumped, how fast he was moving and how he started to land all point to he would have ended up on the ground.

And when you END up on the ground is where you have to maintain control of the ball. Not where you first, second, third or 10th touch the ground on the way down.

NOT A CATCH.

 

[DallasEast]

The disputed catch occurred in the January 11, 2015 NFC divisional game, which happened during the 2014 NFL postseason.

The 2014 NFL casebook would apply to that particular game and all games through Super Bowl XLIX only.

The 2015 NFL casebook would apply to the start of the 2015 regular season and beyond.

Is all of the above correct? Or is all of it incorrect?

 

[nathanlt]

You do realize you can be going to the ground without ever being in the air? Right?

So how do you justify your position? If a receiver is stumbling and will clearly fall to the ground but yet manages to catch the ball, you're saying that all he needs to do is have a foot touch and that fulfills "maintaining control through contacting the ground". That's just absurd. Contacting the ground is the player physically being on the ground to a point where he'd have to make some action to get off of it. Getting a foot down as you are falling to the ground is not being on the ground, it's preparing to be on the ground.

As has been stated before, if you don't think Dez was ever going to the ground, that's one thing. If you think he would have some how magically prevented himself from doing so you see something that most rational people dont. I don't care if there wasn't a person within 10 feet of him, he still would have fell to the ground. Doesn't matter if he removed the lunge or any of it. How he jumped, how fast he was moving and how he started to land all point to he would have ended up on the ground.

And when you END up on the ground is where you have to maintain control of the ball. Not where you first, second, third, 10th touch the ground on the way down.

NOT A CATCH.

Did his foot contact the ground? Then that meets "maintaining control through contacting the ground" That's just plain English, right there in the rule book! NOTHING absurd about reading the words as they are written.

"Being on the ground" is not in the rule book, "Preparing to be on the ground" is not in the rule book, either. Neither is "ending up on the ground". So, one foot contacting the ground meets "maintaining control through contacting the ground" The rule is horribly written, and therefore does not justify taking the catch away.

Your last statement is the most absurd. First, second, third, 10th ... WHY STOP THERE?? Within 10,000 steps after catching a football and not getting tackled, but falling to the ground in celebration, the receiver gives the ball back to the referee. So, by that logic, nothing is a catch after the receiver gives the ball back to the official. The rule is insanity as you are trying to apply it.

And your whole premise is not written in the rule book, it is based on press conferences and verbal excuses by NFL spokesmen. Their confusion on the rule is deliberate, they'd rather have the general public throw up their hands in confusion, and let catches in the NFL have no standard whatsoever, they are whimsically taken away whenever the NFL feels like it.

However, by written rule, CATCH.

 

[MarcusRock]

The disputed catch occurred in the January 11, 2015 NFC divisional game, which happened during the 2014 NFL postseason.

The 2014 NFL casebook would apply to that particular game and all games through Super Bowl XLIX only.

The 2015 NFL casebook would apply to the start of the 2015 regular season and beyond.

Is all of the above correct? Or is all of it incorrect?

All of that is correct.

 

[DallasEast]

All of that is correct.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[blindzebra]

Much of what you miss is that the play in the casebook is specific to the receiver coming down with one foot and in control and doesn't start going to the ground until a defender hits him, and it's the hit that causes him to go to the ground.

If you believe, as I do, that Dez was going to the ground before and regardless of whether there was contact, the play you cite in the casebook doesn't apply. They didn't plug in the words, "He goes to the ground as a result of the contact" just for grins - that is a requirement for this play to apply.

That said, if we simply disagree on whether Dez was "going to the ground" from the time his first foot hit the ground, then that's just a matter of perception, not the rule book.

The casebook would have a billions of plays in it if ever possible situation was covered. It does not matter if Dez landed on 1 foot. The entire point of that caseplay was that the process continues and can be completed after a player starts to go to the ground.

 

[nathanlt]

The casebook would have a billions of plays in it if ever possible situation was covered. It does not matter if Dez landed on 1 foot. The entire point of that caseplay was that the process continues and can be completed after a player starts to go to the ground.

except that one foot contacting the ground meets "throughout the process of going to the ground". The casebook in effect for 2014 showed that Dez caught the ball.

By rule, through 7 football moves, CATCH

By rule, going to the ground, CATCH.

There's simply no WRITTEN justification otherwise in any rulebook in effect at the time.

 

[blindzebra]

Here is your smoking gun, buddy.

From the 2015 NFL Rulebook and Casebook
The very top of Page 120

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out.
Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The pass is complete. When the receiver hits the ground in the end zone, it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of the catch. Since the ball crossed the goal line, it is a touchdown. If the ball is short of the goal line, it is a catch, and A2 is down by contact.
.
.
EXACT ... SAME ... WORDING ... in 2015, not 2014.


Do you and @percyhoward yield on this or is there still a CONSPIRACY! / coverup going on?
.
.

You do realize that proves Dez caught it right?

 

[nathanlt]

You do realize that proves Dez caught it right?

I couldn't believe he quoted that. It completely supports the catch!

Ruling: TOUCHDOWN.

In Dez's case, "CATCH, down at the 1/2 yard line"

 

[Smashmouth24]

Hey guys. Eagles fan here.

Upon careful consideration I now strongly agree that Dez play was a catch.

 

[blindzebra]

except that one foot contacting the ground meets "throughout the process of going to the ground". The casebook in effect for 2014 showed that Dez caught the ball.

By rule, through 7 football moves, CATCH

By rule, going to the ground, CATCH.

There's simply no WRITTEN justification otherwise in any rulebook in effect at the time.

Buddy let me fix this. Hands and feet are the only things touching the ground that does not make you down by contact. Think about it, if not every play would end the second there was contact.

 

[phildadon86]

Explain how it was redefined? You could never see the ball clearly touch the ground on the Cobb play. It wasn’t conclusive. Besides that was a completely different play from the Dez play.

What game were you watching? There was like 2 angles that show the ball touch the ground.

 

[glimmerman]

Especially since contracting cooties.

Especially now she has packer cooties.. lol