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

[MarcusRock]

That isn't the 2015 rule.

Right. It's the 2014 rule he was talking about.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

We have to understand the rule first though.

2015-17:
Item 1. Player Going to the Ground.
A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner.
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

2014:
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone.

 

[MarcusRock]

The play can be argued equally well on both sides. I can see why people say catch, and people say no catch. He was going to the ground, but during that, he had enough ability and balance to make a football move. The ball definitely hit the ground as he fell. But given it was called complete on the field, it should have stayed that way. Too close to reverse.

Except that if going to the ground trumps any football move except a proper lunge, then the correct application is no catch precisely because the ball hit the ground. If replay can help you apply the right rule, you apply the right rule.

 

[MarcusRock]

Because it completed the process under the 2014 rules, by your argument the James play should have been a catch because he lunged, so why wasn't it? No, that is not what they said, they said reaching out with one hand wasn't enough of a football move, which like everything else they said is complete BS.

Did James "brace himself" and lunge like your case example says or was he already lying half on the ground and reached over?

 

[percyhoward]

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

That's not a supposition, it's just logic.

Can you give an example of a player who wasn't upright long enough to become a runner, but became a runner anyway?

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?

The heading of the scenario you're talking about is "Act common to the game," for crying out loud.

 

[DogFace]

The time element is satisfied because he executed a lunge, which the case says is separate from the process of a catch. The caseplay explains itself.

Then why does it say the lunge is NOT part of the process of the completion in the example?

 

[ThreeandOut]

After Goodell comes out stating they need to change the catch rule, the last thing the refs wanted was to overturn a potentially game-changing touchdown catch in the Super Bowl based on rules that won't apply next year.

 

[MarcusRock]

Compare what you and Pereiria say to the case book example.

Explain how it is unlike the Dez catch.

The only difference is Dez had more time and actually did at least two acts common to the game to demonstrate that.

I’ve listed them before.

Pereira never spoke on the case play. I hope someone puts a mic in his face so he can answer so I can confirm I'm right about this. The difference between the caseplay and the Dez play is the lunge. The caseplay player executes. Dez does not.

 

[percyhoward]

Here is your smoking gun, buddy.

This is a smoking gun how exactly?

 

[MarcusRock]

Then why does it say the lunge is NOT part of the process of the completion in the example?

That was my question to the catch theorists. If it is an act common to the game but considered separate from the 3-part process that requires performance of an act common to the game to be satisfied, why didn't the caseplay just say he had control, 2 feet, and performed an act common to the game? The caseplay says it's separate.

 

[MarcusRock]

This is a smoking gun how exactly?

Keep reading.

 

[DogFace]

Pereira never spoke on the case play. I hope someone puts a mic in his face so he can answer so I can confirm I'm right about this. The difference between the caseplay and the Dez play is the lunge. The caseplay player executes. Dez does not.

Your reply:The time element is satisfied because he executed a lunge, which the case says is separate from the process of a catch. The caseplay explains itself.

Then why does the case say the lunge was NOT part of the completed pass on the example?

 

[DogFace]

Keep reading.

Everyone read it and most don’t understand what you meant about it being a smoking gun.

 

[DogFace]

That was my question to the catch theorists. If it is an act common to the game but considered separate from the 3-part process that requires performance of an act common to the game to be satisfied, why didn't the caseplay just say he had control, 2 feet, and performed an act common to the game? The caseplay says it's separate.

Again. It does not say the performance of the act is required. Only the time element to do so has been satisfied. That why in the case it says after his second foot is down he is “still” in control of the ball—meaning he didn’t lose control and therefore satisfied the time requirement.

Are you arguing with us or the case book play?

 

[MarcusRock]

Your reply:The time element is satisfied because he executed a lunge, which the case says is separate from the process of a catch. The caseplay explains itself.

Then why does the case say the lunge was NOT part of the completed pass on the example?

The case considers it separate. Whatever it is as a separate entity fulfills the time element to the 3-part process. Again, it's probably why Blandino, Pereira and Steratore were asked about a lunge. It would have fulfilled the time element of the 3-part process. They weren't taken by surprise by these questions. They are paid to know the rules and they do.

 

[percyhoward]

[QUOTE="MarcusRock, post: 7903136, member: 35939"Percy already admitted that a lunge didn't happen after avoiding my questioning of it 4 times without answering. [/QUOTE]
Got a link?

 

[MarcusRock]

Again. It does not say the performance of the act is required. Only the the time element to do so has been satisfied. That why in the case it says after his second foot is down he is “still” in control of the ball—meaning he didn’t lose control and therefore satisfied the time requirement.

Are you arguing with us or the case book play?

The "still in control of the ball" statement is to let the reader know that the 1st of 3 checkboxes (control) can stay checked. 2 feet got checked next and then the lunge as a separate entity fulfilled the football move or time to perform a football move checkbox of which the case says was the time to perform a football move.

 

[DogFace]

Pereira never spoke on the case play. I hope someone puts a mic in his face so he can answer so I can confirm I'm right about this. The difference between the caseplay and the Dez play is the lunge. The caseplay player executes. Dez does not.

The lunge was not part of the completion in the example. It says that very clearly so I’m not sure why you’re saying the lunge was the difference.

Again, it says it was NOT part of the completion in the example.

 

[MarcusRock]

[QUOTE="MarcusRock, post: 7903136, member: 35939"Percy already admitted that a lunge didn't happen after avoiding my questioning of it 4 times without answering.

Got a link?[/QUOTE]

HERE. You enter at Post #119.

 

[DogFace]

The "still in control of the ball" statement is to let the reader know that the 1st of 3 checkboxes (control) can stay checked. 2 feet got checked next and then the lunge as a separate entity fulfilled the football move or time to perform a football move checkbox of which the case says was the time to perform a football move.

Why does it say the lunge was NOT part of the completion in the example ?