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

[KJJ]

More proof that you don't have a clue about rules. Yes Dez was going to the ground, but in 2014 THAT DID NOT MATTER ONCE HE CHANGED THE BALL TO HIS LEFT HAND AND EXTENDED FOR THE GOALLINE BECAUSE THAT COMPLETED THE THREE PART PROCESS OF CONTROL, TWO FEET, AND AN ACT COMMON TO THE GAME. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CASEBOOK SAID AND ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS HOW TO READ AND INTERPRET A RULEBOOK GETS IT.

Dude we’ve been through this numerous times. If you want to argue the Cobb play, fine but I’m done arguing the Dez play with you. Anyone who understands how the rule has been officiated since the Calvin Johnson play knows a receiver ruled “going to the ground” must complete the process. Only a fool would keep ignoring that.

 

[KJJ]

Are you really this dense?
What part of both had a hand on the ball, both balls hit the ground, and both balls moved after they hit the ground can't you understand?

I’m not the one who’s dense you are! I’m done wasting anymore time with you.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

I have been reading this entire debate. I declare the "it was a catch" debaters as the winners so far!

 

[blindzebra]

Dude we’ve been through this numerous times. If you want to argue the Cobb play, fine but I’m done arguing the Dez play with you. Anyone who understands how the rule has been officiated since the Calvin Johnson play knows a receiver ruled “going to the ground” must complete the process. Only a fool would keep ignoring that.

Johnson was in the endzone where an act common to the game can't happen, but if you understood how rules worked you could see the difference.

 

[MarcusRock]

The call has been officiated the same way it was when everyone first became aware of the rule in 2010 during the Calvin Johnson play

For all those "controversial catch plays" I believe this to be true which is why they were all called the same, especially James' who did the best 3-part process of them all that got negated by going to the ground.

More proof that you don't have a clue about rules. Yes Dez was going to the ground, but

There is no but. If you admit Dez was going to the ground then according to Pereira's Video, going to the ground trumps the 3-part process which he directly linked to the Dez play as well. The casebook examples being thrown around say that a lunge is separate to the catch process, which is what I kept trying to tell you and percy. Percy already admitted that a lunge didn't happen after avoiding my questioning of it 4 times without answering. So switching hands, changing directions in the sky, having his elbow down, and any other creative nonsense of a football move got trumped by the going to the ground rule. Even Pereira doesn't like it but he stated it's the rule in place now and was then.

 

[MarcusRock]

Johnson was in the endzone where an act common to the game can't happen

Which is why the ball was required to survive the ground per the going to the ground rule. It's there for that reason. If you can't fulfill the time requirement, then the ball needs to survive the ground to make up for it.

 

[DogFace]

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

The case book example says “then after the second foot is down he “still”in control of the ball he lunged”
I think the “still” is saying the time element has been satisfied which is after the second foot was down.

It says the lunge was not part of the process and the time element had been satisfied.

I’m guessing you’re disagreeing with the example, which as you know is an example to make clear how to apply the rule.

In this example the time does come after the second foot with “still” being the key word. IMO.

This is also an exemple and much less than what happened with Dez.
1. Control in the air
2. Lands with one foot and brings it to his right shoulder
3. Othe foot lands as he switches from his right shoulder and two hands into one hand.
4. Prepares for a lunge
5. Lunges while preparing to brace.
6. Then braces with his right hand.

 

[DogFace]

We been through all that in previous threads. I told you I’m not going to engage in the same arguments with the same posters from the previous threads.

That is an argument you continually have with yourself. We’d believe you except you continue to do it over and over and...

 

[TwoDeep3]

I keep seeing these posts trying to justify the catch, and as they include moment by moment bullet points with excuses about football moves and driving to the end zone, I do not see one of these posts which brings up Shield's leg wrapping around Dez's leg and him tilting and falling, which negates all the BS excuses because that meant he had to control the ball to the ground.

The elbow on the turf does not kill the play. The continuation to hold onto the ball and it popping out because it contacted the ground is why this was not a catch.

Back in the day I bartended in this place when the Cowboys lost to the Stealers for the first time in the Super Bowl. At my bar there were fans who replayed that game in a conversation for six months and the Cowboys won every time.

Yet when you look at the record books the Stealers won. Just like this play. It has been rewritten so many times by people who refuse to look and see why it was not a catch. Yet in the record books it was not a catch.

 

[DogFace]

I’m not the one who’s dense you are! I’m done wasting anymore time with you.

The I know you are, but what am I tactic!!??

Brilliantly strategy!!

You’ve got him on the run now!!!

 

[nathanlt]

I keep seeing these posts trying to justify the catch, and as they include moment by moment bullet points with excuses about football moves and driving to the end zone, I do not see one of these posts which brings up Shield's leg wrapping around Dez's leg and him tilting and falling, which negates all the BS excuses because that meant he had to control the ball to the ground.

The elbow on the turf does not kill the play. The continuation to hold onto the ball and it popping out because it contacted the ground is why this was not a catch.

Back in the day I bartended in this place when the Cowboys lost to the Stealers for the first time in the Super Bowl. At my bar there were fans who replayed that game in a conversation for six months and the Cowboys won every time.

Yet when you look at the record books the Stealers won. Just like this play. It has been rewritten so many times by people who refuse to look and see why it was not a catch. Yet in the record books it was not a catch.

And when Dez's first step hit the ground, he controlled "through the process of going to the ground" The ball did not come loose when the first step hit the ground, so CATCH!

Many frames later, when the ball did move, Dez was down by contact at the 1/2 yard line.

 

[KJJ]

We’ve reached the point where the idiot patrol is starting to form. It took 40+ pages but you just knew it was coming.

 

[MarcusRock]

We’ve reached the point where the idiot patrol is starting to form. It took 40+ pages but you just knew it was coming.

It does seem like a "blood in the water" moment, doesn't it?

 

[blindzebra]

For all those "controversial catch plays" I believe this to be true which is why they were all called the same, especially James' who did the best 3-part process of them all that got negated by going to the ground.



There is no but. If you admit Dez was going to the ground then according to Pereira's Video, going to the ground trumps the 3-part process which he directly linked to the Dez play as well. The casebook examples being thrown around say that a lunge is separate to the catch process, which is what I kept trying to tell you and percy. Percy already admitted that a lunge didn't happen after avoiding my questioning of it 4 times without answering. So switching hands, changing directions in the sky, having his elbow down, and any other creative nonsense of a football move got trumped by the going to the ground rule. Even Pereira doesn't like it but he stated it's the rule in place now and was then.

He is wrong in 2014 it did not trump it, as the caseplay clearly says. When they changed the rule in 2015 to upright long enough then, and only then, did the process have to be done before going to the ground. For crying out loud that is not how caseplays work. If a lunge was separate from any other act common to the game it would have an article saying so in the rule book. Lunge is a football act common to the game, just like a step, wrapping up, turning upfield, or in this case moving the ball to his left hand, bracing and extending.

 

[TwoDeep3]

And when Dez's first step hit the ground, he controlled "through the process of going to the ground" The ball did not come loose when the first step hit the ground, so CATCH!

Many frames later, when the ball did move, Dez was down by contact at the 1/2 yard line.

If you search this thread you will see a post I made to Percy where I took the video on Youtube, slowed it to half speed and actually broke this down per second. The leg wrap happened when his right foot hit the ground. You will see in the video that Dez lost control of the ball because of Shield's, pinning it to his shoulder pad, Then his foot came down and that is when Shield's leg wraps around his. Dez is stepping with his left foot, but he is falling forward.

Frankly, the rest of your explanation is bogus since he is falling, or going to the ground as some seem to prefer, and that means he has to maintain the catch. He does not. The elbow down does not end the catch sequence. The ball clearly hits the ground. There is a huge blow up, I think by KJJ which shows the ball CLEARLY touching the ground right before the pop-up.

Since this is all one move the ruling was accurate on the replay in NY.

All this football move and he was down by contact absolutely ignores the fact he was going to the ground after contact on a catch and control has to be continued throughout the entire catch. Not some arbitrary point that changes the outcome.

 

[blindzebra]

I keep seeing these posts trying to justify the catch, and as they include moment by moment bullet points with excuses about football moves and driving to the end zone, I do not see one of these posts which brings up Shield's leg wrapping around Dez's leg and him tilting and falling, which negates all the BS excuses because that meant he had to control the ball to the ground.

The elbow on the turf does not kill the play. The continuation to hold onto the ball and it popping out because it contacted the ground is why this was not a catch.

Back in the day I bartended in this place when the Cowboys lost to the Stealers for the first time in the Super Bowl. At my bar there were fans who replayed that game in a conversation for six months and the Cowboys won every time.

Yet when you look at the record books the Stealers won. Just like this play. It has been rewritten so many times by people who refuse to look and see why it was not a catch. Yet in the record books it was not a catch.

The caseplay says you are wrong.

 

[KJJ]

It does seem like a "blood in the water" moment, doesn't it?

It usually takes about 25 pages for frustration to start setting for the jr high crowd before the insults start flying.

 

[TwoDeep3]

The caseplay says you are wrong.

I have no clue what the case play is.

However, I thought this very thing the evening of the game itself when the video hit youtube. Nothing in the way of the deniers has changed anything for me. Youtube now has the ability to slow the video down and go almost frame by frame - but not quiet. You can see the sequence and the continued motion as Dez is going to the ground.

I see no need to rewrite history on this sibject. I thought it then and I still think it now. This was not a catch.

 

[blindzebra]

I have no clue what the case play is.

However, I thought this very thing the evening of the game itself when the video hit youtube. Nothing in the way of the deniers has changed anything for me. Youtube now has the ability to slow the video down and go almost frame by frame - but not quiet. You can see the sequence and the continued motion as Dez is going to the ground.

I see no need to rewrite history on this sibject. I thought it then and I still think it now. This was not a catch.

The case play says a receiver with control gets one foot down, gets contact, starts to the ground, gets second foot down, braces and lunges is a completion...almost identical to the Dez play.

 

[blindzebra]

I have no clue what the case play is.

However, I thought this very thing the evening of the game itself when the video hit youtube. Nothing in the way of the deniers has changed anything for me. Youtube now has the ability to slow the video down and go almost frame by frame - but not quiet. You can see the sequence and the continued motion as Dez is going to the ground.

I see no need to rewrite history on this sibject. I thought it then and I still think it now. This was not a catch.

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.