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

[G2]

I’ve asked several posters, including your friend @MarcusRock, one simple question and not one person will attempt to answer. He even left the thread apparently and I don’t blame him. He fought hard, but too may facts got the better of him.

Explain the difference between the Dez catch and the case play that is in this thread. It’s nearly identical to the Dez catch and is in the official case book for officials to help them properly make rulings on plays.

And you’re wrong again. It is, in fact, less filling.

You're not very good at this. One, your lame attempt to bait me into an argument you "think" you have won but can't seem to move on from isn't working. I couldn't possibly care about your opinion. I'm sure that others share that same opinion because you come across purposely salty. Maybe that's why some fans don't care to respond. Two, I posted it was less filling - pay attention. Three, Dez DIDN'T catch according to the rule. And if it were up to me, I would have called it incomplete because he didn't maintain possession. There. I'm done. There's no use trying to reason with homeristic fans who can't accept other perspectives. have fun!

 

[DogFace]

And I still haven’t seen one person change their opinion in the 3 years of debating. At this point responses could pretty much be cut and pasted from other posts to save key strokes.

Essentially some have by “tapping out” when questions that the answers to didn’t fit their narrative.

 

[TwoDeep3]

The truth is it was ruled correctly as a non-catch, thus making the argument pointless for those who understand that, and crack for those who simply don't allow themselves to take off the Cowboy blinders and see it for what it is.

 

[BlindFaith]

Here is a very articulate explanation of how the catch rule has been modified since 1998.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2639506-how-the-nfls-catch-rule-became-the-worst-rule-in-sports

 

[BlindFaith]

I’ve asked several posters, including your friend @MarcusRock, one simple question and not one person will attempt to answer. He even left the thread apparently and I don’t blame him. He fought hard, but too may facts got the better of him.

Explain the difference between the Dez catch and the case play that is in this thread. It’s nearly identical to the Dez catch and is in the official case book for officials to help them properly make rulings on plays.

And you’re wrong again. It is, in fact, less filling.

Stop, just stop. Mostly everyone agrees that Dez didn't catch the ball. And more importantly, those who do it for a living.

THAT shouldn't even be the debate anymore. And in NFL circles it's not.

The question is do you change the rule and if so, how?

 

[TwoDeep3]

Stop, just stop. Mostly everyone agrees that Dez didn't catch the ball. And more importantly, those who do it for a living.

THAT shouldn't even be the debate anymore. And in NFL circles it's not.

The question is do you change the rule and if so, how?

I think you need to take out the speculation in the catch aspect.

If the ground does not cause a fumble with a runner, then why should it not be so with a receiver? Or put it back the other way and the ground can cause a fumble for both.

Two feet down is a catch, but if it pops out and the other team gets it, fumblerooski!

 

[DogFace]

You're not very good at this. One, your lame attempt to bait me into an argument you "think" you have won but can't seem to move on from isn't working. I couldn't possibly care about your opinion. I'm sure that others share that same opinion because you come across purposely salty. Maybe that's why some fans don't care to respond. Two, I posted it was less filling - pay attention. Three, Dez DIDN'T catch according to the rule. And if it were up to me, I would have called it incomplete because he didn't maintain possession. There. I'm done. There's no use trying to reason with homeristic fans who can't accept other perspectives. have fun!

Right. You’re done without answering the question. The case play says it all. Consult with your friend and maybe he can help.

The case play is nearly identical to the Dez play. That’s the rule book.

The truth can hurt.

I can admit that I misremembered your lame joke from the 1960’s in an attempt to pacify you by reaching out.
You and your friend have been “salty” since you first came on. I guess you feel entitled to be that way because of the time on Dc.com.

Either way, you failed to answer a simple question and resorted to insults. Which I’m not opposed to. However, I always answer all questions because if I think I’m right I should have no problem or I simply admit I’m wrong and move one. As you should do.

I’ll take your silence as an admission as well.

Thank you for your time and effort.

 

[G2]

Right. You’re done without answering the question. The case play says it all. Consult with your friend and maybe he can help.

The case play is nearly identical to the Dez play. That’s the rule book.

The truth can hurt.

I can admit that I misremembered your lame joke from the 1960’s in an attempt to pacify you by reaching out.
You and your friend have been “salty” since you first came on. I guess you feel entitled to be that way because of the time on Dc.com.

Either way, you failed to answer a simple question and resorted to insults. Which I’m not opposed to. However, I always answer all questions because if I think I’m right I should have no problem or I simply admit I’m wrong and move one. As you should do.

I’ll take your silence as an admission as well.

Thank you for your time and effort.

I don't care. The play was ruled incomplete because Dez didn't maintain possession and I agree with the ruling. You whine-fest about the case study being "nearly identical" is irrelevant. try asking other fans who might care what you think. I won't even address your other comments because they're just as lame. Pound your chest some more, it's hilarious.

 

[DogFace]

Stop, just stop. Mostly everyone agrees that Dez didn't catch the ball. And more importantly, those who do it for a living.

THAT shouldn't even be the debate anymore. And in NFL circles it's not.

The question is do you change the rule and if so, how?

You’ve been at this a long time. Since the very beginning I believe. I respect your arguments. They are well thought out and have some validity. You’re one of the few on that side of the argument that genuinely seems as intelligent and know the rules as well as Percy and blindzebra Who are obviously spearheading the other side of the argument. He may have backed some in a corner finally and blindzebras case book play( I believe he first posted it) is hard to argue with.

He never got an answer so I will continue to ask.

So is your opinion that the case play was incorrect? It was nearly identical to the Dez catch.

 

[KJJ]

There’s a good reason some quit. It’s very telling that after arguing for weeks, months, years in your case some give up when asked the question, that if answered, they know will concede defeat.

It’s very telling in your case you just come around to instigate and start personal attacks. You continue to stir the pot and use mentions despite a warning being passed out to stop it. Zebra was smart enough to move on. You continue to thumb your nose and do as you please. If anyone needs to quit it’s you

 

[BlindFaith]

I think you need to take out the speculation in the catch aspect.

If the ground does not cause a fumble with a runner, then why should it not be so with a receiver? Or put it back the other way and the ground can cause a fumble for both.

Two feet down is a catch, but if it pops out and the other team gets it, fumblerooski!

Because a runner has already established an ability to secure the ball - by definition.

A player diving and going to the ground has yet to have done that. And as I posted before, has a much more difficult task in doing so. These plays are a second or two at most. In that time, while falling to the ground, they would have to determine what they would allow as validation of securing the ball.

That's why when everyone claims they would like to see the rule changed, they don't know how to best do it. Primarily introducing more judgment into the process along with opening up the possibility of more fumbles- as Pereira himself said.

 

[BlindFaith]

You’ve been at this a long time. Since the very beginning I believe. I respect your arguments. They are well thought out and have some validity. You’re one of the few on that side of the argument that genuinely seems as intelligent and know the rules as well as Percy and blindzebra Who are obviously spearheading the other side of the argument. He may have backed some in a corner finally and blindzebras case book play( I believe he first posted it) is hard to argue with.

He never got an answer so I will continue to ask.

So is your opinion that the case play was incorrect? It was nearly identical to the Dez catch.

Can you please provide the case play in question? I honestly don't know the relevance of case plays as they relate to the actual enforcement of the rulebook. But perhaps there is significance.

But per the rulebook it's not a catch. That aspect is clear. No NFL official would argue that, nor is.

How to make what looks like it should be a catch, a catch, is our next step. If possible without actually making things worse.

I personally don't mind the rule as is. Consistently calling it the same way needs to be addressed. Even the actual act of when a wr becomes a runner is not as clearly called as it should be. Take a read through the link I posted.

 

[Point-of-the-Star]

<cough> Mike Pereira. <cough>

Uuhhhh, did you turn your head and then cough ?

 

[DogFace]

I don't care. The play was ruled incomplete because Dez didn't maintain possession and I agree with the ruling. You whine-fest about the case study being "nearly identical" is irrelevant. try asking other fans who might care what you think. I won't even address your other comments because they're just as lame. Pound your chest some more, it's hilarious.

Of course you won’t. Thank you for your admission. Leave the thread please.

Next!!

 

[Bleedblue1111]

So is your opinion that the case play was incorrect? It was nearly identical to the Dez catch.

I think Blandino didn't even refer to it before suggesting his ruling, further illustrating his incompetence. I've always believed it was a legitimate catch. Finding this out, further supports my opinion. Props to @blindzebra for digging the case play up.

 

[DogFace]

Can you please provide the case play in question? I honestly don't know the relevance of case plays as they relate to the actual enforcement of the rulebook. But perhaps there is significance.

But per the rulebook it's not a catch. That aspect is clear. No NFL official would argue that, nor is.

How to make what looks like it should be a catch, a catch, is our next step. If possible without actually making things worse.

I personally don't mind the rule as is. Consistently calling it the same way needs to be addressed. Even the actual act of when a wr becomes a runner is not as clearly called as it should be. Take a read through the link I posted.

From @blindzebra
The caseplay from the 2014 rules

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


From @MarcusRock
A.R. 15.95 Act common to game Third-and-10 on A20.
Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30. In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

 

[percyhoward]

But per the rulebook it's not a catch. That aspect is clear.

What part of the 2014 rules leads you to this conclusion?

We already know a player could make a football move while falling, so what is it that you see there that makes you, or anyone, continue to think this?

Are you saying he didn't make any football moves?

 

[DogFace]

It’s very telling in your case you just come around to instigate and start personal attacks. You continue to stir the pot and use mentions despite a warning being passed out to stop it. Zebra was smart enough to move on. You continue to thumb your nose and do as you please. If anyone needs to quit it’s you

Answer this

A.R. 15.95 Act common to game Third-and-10 on A20.
Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30. In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

Mentions are a legal act see:
A.b.c 1.23

 

[DogFace]

I think Blandino didn't even refer to it before suggesting his ruling, further illustrating his incompetence. I've always believed it was a legitimate catch. Finding this out, further supports my opinion. Props to @blindzebra for digging the case play up.

Give @MarcusRock credit as well. His is very slightly different.
A.R. 15.95 Act common to game Third-and-10 on A20.
Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30. In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

 

[DogFace]

From @blindzebra
The caseplay from the 2014 rules

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


From @MarcusRock
A.R. 15.95 Act common to game Third-and-10 on A20.
Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30. In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

@percyhoward or @blindzebra can you tell me why these are slightly different ?

Are they both definetly from 2014?