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

[MarcusRock]

You do realize that proves Dez caught it right?

Not the question I asked you. You claimed the rule was changed and provided A.R. 8.12 as proof that you could complete the process of the catch while falling. This exact same case play appears in the 2015 casebook. So does that mean that there was no CONSPIRACY! to cover up the Dez play by changing this rule and retroactively applying a different one?

So once you've answered the above question, you can then proceed to shifting the CONSPIRACY! back to saying that officials purposely ignored all the phantom football moves you said Dez performed and the catch theory can then morph to a different form for the 12th time since the play happened to shoehorn what they wanted to see.

 

[KJJ]

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

This is the only angle I’ve been able to find and you can’t “conclusively” tell if the ball touched the ground from that angle. It could be argued that his hands were under the ball from that angle. It’s not 100% clear-cut that the ball touched the ground. They determined his hands were under the ball and it’s hard to dispute it from that angle. It appeared the ball landed in his right hand. That replay certainly doesn’t provide the best angle. If you or someone else has another angle provide it and let’s analyze it.

 

[blindzebra]

Not the question I asked you. You claimed the rule was changed and provided A.R. 8.12 as proof that you could complete the process of the catch while falling. This exact same case play appears in the 2015 casebook. So does that mean that there was no CONSPIRACY! to cover up the Dez play by changing this rule and retroactively applying a different one?

So once you've answered the above question, you can then proceed to shifting the CONSPIRACY! back to saying that officials purposely ignored all the phantom football moves you said Dez performed and the catch theory can then morph to a different form for the 12th time since the play happened to shoehorn what they wanted to see.

Way to move the goal posts. I supplied that caseplay as proof it was a catch and that it existed in 2014.
As I said before them missing it and why it happened are two separate things.
They did change the rule in 2015 with upright long enough, that is a fact. That caseplay does not fit with the upright long enough now does it? Maybe you should find the casebook for 2016 and 2017?

And since you want to focus on other things, care to chime in on the Cobb catch right before the half that clearly bounced was reviewed and upheld?

 

[BlindFaith]

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.

That's why the rule is poorly written. But that is the intent and is why all similar plays are called that way. So they need to clarify the rule so folks like you who don't understand what going to the ground means, can.

And it's not insane. It's actually pretty logical. If you are going to the ground, hang on to the ball until after making impact to the ground. This is to prevent and protect the WR from having this be called a fumble. Pretty simple really.

 

[phildadon86]

This is the only angle I’ve been able to find and you can’t “conclusively” tell if the ball touched the ground from that angle. It could be argued that his hands were under the ball from that angle. It’s not 100% clear-cut that the ball touched the ground. They determined his hands were under the ball and it’s hard to dispute it from that angle. It appeared the ball landed in his right hand. That replay certainly doesn’t provide the best angle. If you or someone else has another angle provide it and let’s analyze it.

During the game they showed the angle facing him and it clearly touched the ground. I am at work so bear with me while I look for it.

 

[MarcusRock]

Way to move the goal posts.
As I said before them missing it and why it happened are two separate things.
They did change the rule in 2015 with upright long enough, that is a fact. That caseplay does not fit with the upright long enough now does it? Maybe you should find the casebook for 2016 and 2017?

And since you want to focus on other things, care to chime in on the Cobb catch right before the half that clearly bounced was reviewed and upheld?

You accuse me of focusing on other things and then ask me to focus on another thing in the same sentence? Lol.

You got owned. You told me you were going to make it "simple" for me so that even I could understand it. I just made it simpler. Accept it and move back to your predictable stance of the entire NFL ignoring phantom football moves that didn't happen (CONSPIRACY! to the lay person).

 

[LACowboysFan1]

 

[KJJ]

During the game they showed the angle facing him and it clearly touched the ground. I am at work so bear with me while I look for it.

If the angle you’re talking about was available to the official during replay and it CLEARLY showed the ball touch the ground they wouldn’t have called it a catch. I don’t recall seeing an angle that conclusively showed the ball touch the ground first. It has to be 100% conclusive. The angle I provided wasn’t conclusive.

 

[blindzebra]

You accuse me of focusing on other things and then ask me to focus on another thing in the same sentence? Lol.

You got owned. You told me you were going to make it "simple" for me so that even I could understand it. I just made it simpler. Accept it and move back to your predictable stance of the entire NFL ignoring phantom football moves that didn't happen (CONSPIRACY! to the lay person).

So just how did the person that presented a casebook play that destroys your argument, that was found to have existed in 2014, that you yourself reposted get owned?
But by all means just keep focusing on side issues that have no baring on if it was a catch or not, to attempt to save face.

 

[KJJ]

His hand appears to be under the ball in that picture. It’s not conclusive that it touched the ground first. The ball can touch the ground but if a receiver’s hand is under the ball they’re going to call it a catch.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Unless Cobb has fingers six inches long, this ball is touching the ground.

But I think the issue is the referee felt his had was under the ball, not that it touched the ground. The ball can touch the ground if you have and maintain control.

At least that's my interpretation, for what little it matters

 

[blindzebra]

If the angle you’re talking about was available to the official during replay and it CLEARLY showed the ball touch the ground they would not have called it a catch. I don’t recall seeing an angle that conclusively showed the ball touch the ground. It has to be 100% conclusive. The angle I provided wasn’t conclusive.

The damn video you posted clearly shows it go off his right hand then hit the ground and bounce up...lol

 

[KJJ]

The damn video you posted clearly shows it go off his right hand then hit the ground and bounce up...lol

You’re a blindzebra what do you know? lol The damn video I posted appears to show the ball land in his right hand and bounce. His hand appeared to be under the ball. Nowhere in that video does it show the ball conclusively bouncing off the ground and not his hand.

 

[MarcusRock]

So just how did the person that presented a casebook play that destroys your argument, that was found to have existed in 2014, that you yourself reposted get owned?
But by all means just keep focusing on side issues that have no baring on if it was a catch or not, to attempt to save face.

Projection is your friend. Go with that. Now get back to your side issue of debating the Cobb catch.

 

[nathanlt]

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.

No, I'm not saying he was down by contact when his foot hit the ground. I've never said that.

I'm saying that Dez met the "going to the ground" requirement when his foot hit the ground.

 

[blindzebra]

You’re a blindzebra what do you know? lol The damn video I posted appears to show the ball land in his right hand and bounce. His hand appeared to be under the ball. Nowhere in that video does it show the ball conclusively bouncing off the ground and not his hand.

The point of the ball rolls off his hand and then it bounces up into his chest. Aikman, Buck and Pereria all said it should be overturned during the broadcast.

 

[blindzebra]

No, I'm not saying he was down by contact when his foot hit the ground. I've never said that.

I'm saying that Dez met the "going to the ground" requirement when his foot hit the ground.

No, I am saying that a foot can't meet that requirement because hands and feet can touch the ground and not cause a runner to be down. In officiating sometimes you have to combine different rules to fully understand something. Now when his right wrist/forearm hit that did cause him to be down by contact.

 

[KJJ]

The point of the ball rolls off his hand and then it bounces up into his chest. Aikman, Buck and Pereria all said it should be overturned during the broadcast.

Like I said the replay appears to show his hand under the ball and nowhere do you see the ball actually touch the ground. It’s debatable which means it’s not conclusive. We’re not going to be arguing a clear-cut call. The call could have gone either way it was based on judgment. The reason it was called a catch was because you couldn’t clearly see the ball touch the ground at least not from that angle.

 

[nathanlt]

No, I am saying that a foot can't meet that requirement because hands and feet can touch the ground and not cause a runner to be down. In officiating sometimes you have to combine different rules to fully understand something. Now when his right wrist/forearm hit that did cause him to be down by contact.

Yes, I agree that eventually was down by contact. He was down by contact at the 1/2 yard line.

 

[Hoofbite]

Once he was “still” in control of the ball after the second foot came down he satisfied the time element. That is, he didn’t lose control as the second foot hit.

100th of a second? I don’t know. The case example says it was a catch and the time requirement was met.

Rule is pretty clear. Control plus a second foot doesn’t satisfy the time requirement. Time comes after.