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

[percyhoward]

The process of the catch already includes a requirement for an act common to the game. Why would a specific act common to the game not be part of the catch process, one part of which is required to be an act common to the game? The answer is that lunging is a separate act on its own according to the caseplay itself.

The lunge isn't a part of the process of catching the ball, it's a separate act that proves the catch process was already completed. Having control of the ball long enough to perform a lunge is one thing that satisfies the time requirement.

Basically, if he's lunging, he's no longer trying to catch the ball.

 

[MarcusRock]

Got a link?

HERE. You enter at Post #119.[/QUOTE]

Forgot the admission in Post #152 HERE.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

It's the difference as in, Dez didn't lunge and the caseplayer did. So if people are using the caseplay to say that Dez' play should have been a catch, the lunge is the difference as to why it's not a catch.

 

[percyhoward]

Forgot the admission in Post #152 HERE.

In what language does that translate into "I admit Dez didn't lunge?"

You asked me to compare the reach to those of the players in the videos, so I did.

 

[DogFace]

It's the difference as in, Dez didn't lunge and the caseplayer did. So if people are using the caseplay to say that Dez' play should have been a catch, the lunge is the difference as to why it's not a catch.

I’m using the case play to say it was a catch because Dez fulfilled the time requirement prior to the lunge.
By switching the ball from his two hands and right shoulder to one hand, preparing to brace, reaching with his left hand and bracing with his right hand were acts that demonstrated the time element had been satisfied.

 

[percyhoward]

In 2015, Note 1 was deleted and language was put in about a player being "upright long enough." Note 1 was about TIME. "Upright long enough" is about TIME. The 3-part process of a catch has always been about control, two feet, and TIME. So the rule didn't change. The wording did because people "couldn't understand.".

You're pretty close to the center of the sun with this one, so let me take advantage of the moment.

Yes, both "upright long enough" and the football move that it replaced were about TIME. With the football move, officials looked for a physical act that told them the TIME requirement had been met. With "upright long enough," they don't. It's just their own judgment about how upright is upright enough, and how long is long enough. There is no football move to tell them.

Which way seems more objective?

 

[MarcusRock]

In what language does that translate into "I admit Dez didn't lunge?"

You asked me to compare the reach to those of the players in the videos, so I did.

Didn't execute a lunge. In that first link we discussed intent vs. execution and in all the examples that were posted I held those up as execution compared to Dez' intent to execute.

 

[percyhoward]

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

Or how about "If it's not about an act common to the game, why is it under the heading 'Act common to the game?'"

 

[MarcusRock]

You're pretty close to the center of the sun with this one, so let me take advantage of the moment.

Yes, both "upright long enough" and the football move that it replaced were about TIME. With the football move, officials looked for a physical act that told them the TIME requirement had been met. With "upright long enough," they don't. It's just their own judgment about how upright is upright enough, and how long is long enough. There is no football move to tell them.

Which way seems more objective?

In the 2014 rule, they also looked for TIME for an act, if an act didn't occur. The act is covered by the new rules by describing "demonstrating" one's self to be a runner. A runner does certain things. They can look for those things. Back to TIME, the 2014 rule mentioned "long enough" to perform an act; in 2015, a player has to be "upright long enough." There's judgment of time either way. And even if they look for acts in 2014 or 2017 they have to judge whether those acts were demonstrative enough to qualify (just like our intent vs. execution discussion).

For the Dez play, all the major players were asked and all stated that Dez' act was not demonstrative enough. His intent was to lunge, which would have put him squarely in line with that caseplay posted that was in effect in 2014 and 2015. He didn't execute on his intent and it was his undoing.

 

[MarcusRock]

Or how about "If it's not about an act common to the game, why is it under the heading 'Act common to the game?'"

The catch theorists are the ones who produced that caseplay which is why I asked them.

 

[percyhoward]

The catch theorists are the ones who produced that caseplay which is why I asked them.

Gonna try this one more time. If it's not about an act common to the game, why is it under the heading "Act common to the game?"

 

[MarcusRock]

Gonna try this one more time. If it's not about an act common to the game, why is it under the heading "Act common to the game?"

Have you not seen me ask that question the past few pages several times? If you think you have an answer, let's hear it.

 

[MarcusRock]

Time to start the weekend. As of now, I think you still believe that the rules changed from 2014 to 2015 and I just explained above how Note 1 from 2014 was just moved into the rule but is still the same rule. So if there's anything else besides "Dez did execute 5 other football moves" in light of the backdrop of the going to the ground rule trumping those, I'd like to read it sometime.

 

[percyhoward]

In the 2014 rule, they also looked for TIME for an act, if an act didn't occur.

Right. In the end zone. The act wouldn't occur in the end zone, and they didn't want to make a separate rule for end zone plays.

The act is covered by the new rules by describing "demonstrating" one's self to be a runner. A runner does certain things. They can look for those things.

Please tell me what you think the football move was supposed to demonstrate, if not that the player had become a runner. Yes, a runner does certain things. Those things are called football moves. When the official saw a football move, he knew the TIME requirement for becoming a runner was met.

Back to TIME...

We never went away from it.

...the 2014 rule mentioned "long enough" to perform an act; in 2015, a player has to be "upright long enough." There's judgment of time either way. And even if they look for acts in 2014 or 2017 they have to judge whether those acts were demonstrative enough to qualify (just like our intent vs. execution discussion).

They're not looking for "acts" according to the 2017 rules. They're looking at whether the body of a player is upright, and how long it stays upright.

They're so far off track, that they've gone from asking "what is a catch?' to asking "what is going to the ground?"

For the Dez play, all the major players were asked and all stated that Dez' act was not demonstrative enough. His intent was to lunge, which would have put him squarely in line with that caseplay posted that was in effect in 2014 and 2015. He didn't execute on his intent and it was his undoing.

Yes, all the major players were asked. That includes the head of officials who overturned a catch that should have stood, the ref who worked for him, and the former head of officials who now looks back on this play as an example of "falling into the trap of becoming too technical and losing sight of the most important part of the decision, which is what was called on the field."

 

[percyhoward]

If you think you have an answer, let's hear it.

How many times do you want to hear the answer?

https://cowboyszone.com/threads/i-d...ay-in-2014-merged.396223/page-34#post-7900753\

https://cowboyszone.com/threads/i-d...ay-in-2014-merged.396223/page-46#post-7903351

 

[blindzebra]

How many times do you want to hear the answer?

https://cowboyszone.com/threads/i-d...ay-in-2014-merged.396223/page-34#post-7900753\

https://cowboyszone.com/threads/i-d...ay-in-2014-merged.396223/page-46#post-7903351

Percy it is no use. God could pop in and say it was a catch and these guys would still say, but he was going to the ground and that is all that matters.

 

[Hoofbite]

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.

The element of time is only a factor when a player doesn't perform a act common to the game after having gained control and getting 2 feet down.

a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

In the case play, the lunge is the act common to the game. Time isn't considered because the act itself satisfies the requirement. Possession with 2 feet is not an act common to the game and cannot satisfy the requirement. Consequently, possession with 2 feet cannot satisfy the element of time in instances when a player does not perform an act common to the game.

It's pretty clear. C must come after A and B, therefore C cannot be comprised of A and B.

Agree or disagree with the example, it doesn't matter. The rule allows for both outcomes because the determining factor in a real game is whether or not a single official believes the player completed the process before going to the ground or went to the ground prior to completing the process.

There are many aspects of the going to the ground situation, what the actual requirements for a completed pass are is not one of them. The requirements are clearly stated.

 

[Hoofbite]

Right. In the end zone. The act wouldn't occur in the end zone, and they didn't want to make a separate rule for end zone plays.

Most wouldn't but avoiding or warding off contact are pretty common.

 

[percyhoward]

As of now, I think you still believe that the rules changed from 2014 to 2015 and I just explained above how Note 1 from 2014 was just moved into the rule but is still the same rule.

They completely changed the standard for the time requirement that completes the catch process.

You can see a football move when it happens, so you know if the replay official missed it. Notice with the new standard how there's nothing to look for in the replay? No precise moment to identify when the catch process was completed. So we just sit and wait for the decision based on the replay official's opinion that can't be questioned. "Same rule" my butt.

 

[BlindFaith]

Percy it is no use. God could pop in and say it was a catch and these guys would still say, but he was going to the ground and that is all that matters.

Well the closest thing to a definitive truth you'll get is the NFL and the folks who actually get paid to understand the rules and their intent.

So try taking your argument to them. They made the call. They've made similar calls since.