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

[MarcusRock]

If Dez had fumbled that ball and the defender recovered, we'd then be saying that he didn't catch it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly. People say they want a fairly-called game but what they really want is for all calls to go our way or else that means a CONSPIRACY! is amiss. This is why they will whine about calls that don't go our way but say "they owed us one" when we benefit from a blown call. Integrity of the game only matters when we don't get what we want.

 

[OmerV]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has seen what's been going on. It's like I said before, the tactic is to overwhelm with information in circles while tossing in suppositions to rules that aren't there, "summarizing" articles to say what's not in them, and throwing in a dash of TMZ conspiracy chatter for flavor. When one side of an argument has to do this, it is because they know theirs is a weak argument and the goal is to simply "outlast" the other side.

There is also the MO of shooting down comments by arguing they are only interested in the exact wording of the rule, and not what anyone thinks the rule means, then when you quote the exact wording of the rule they tell you that isn't what the rule actually means.

 

[blindzebra]

I think the crux of the confusion relates to the concept of going to the ground.

I read the rule to say that if the player is going to the ground during the process of catching the ball, then they must maintain possession through contacting the ground. This means going to the ground takes precedence. I think the modifications to the language they have made over time leads to this being the intent of the rule all along.

You seem to think that they can still become a runner while going to the ground. And I think you are getting this from the case plays. I personally think that the case plays contradict the actual rule as written and there is clearly no mention in the rule itself indicating how or what actions someone must take to become a runner while going to the ground.

I also think there is confusion around what going to the ground actually means as well. I know its a judgement call, but even some here who think the Dez catch was not a catch still can see how the Fitz catch was. I see going to the ground as falling. Not jumping straight up and landing where the player can still become a runner. I see both of those catches being similar in that, in my opinion, they were both going to the ground (falling). You can't try to interject some other basis, such as he turned his shoulders, or he reached or took steps while falling.

If you want to go that route, then add this language to the actual rule itself.

The case book play is not in conflict with the rules before 2015. Case plays are real life illustrations of how the rule is meant to be interpreted. What is in conflict is thinking going to the ground trumps the process before the rule was changed to fit what happened in GB.
This is really simple, you have the case play, no explicit language saying going to the ground takes precedence, no indication of anything in the rules even remotely similar to upright long enough until it was added in 2015. It all conclusively points to a misapplication of the rules in GB, and an adjustment after the fact to make the rule fit the mistaken call. The whole point of going to the ground was to make sure a receiver maintains control, and if you complete the catch process you are a runner. 2014 backwards those thing lived simultaneously. From 2015 to today one must come before the other, and that is an absolute based on the rule books, case plays, the way the play was called prior to 2015, and in the very language used by those involved after the Dez play talking about football moves.

 

[MarcusRock]

There is also the MO of shooting down comments by arguing they are only interested in the exact wording of the rule, and not what anyone thinks the rule means, then when you quote the exact wording of the rule they tell you that isn't what the rule actually means.

Right. The only people who do stuff like that are those that don't want to admit something (and will NEVER admit something). This is why we'll cross 70 pages with this today.

 

[blindzebra]

I don't disagree that the rules are poorly written, and I agree that the casebook and the way the rule is written don't exactly mesh as they should, but percy is cherry picking whichever parts of each suit him, and ignoring whichever parts don't.

I find it interesting that you call these guys experts in one sentence, then talk about how they can't write a rule worth a darn, and have conflicting case plays in the next.
A much more likely scenario is you are not interpreting the rule correctly, the case play is correct, and language that never appeared in any way, shape or form was added to the rule in 2015.

 

[blindzebra]

Right. The only people who do stuff like that are those that don't want to admit something (and will NEVER admit something). This is why we'll cross 70 pages with this today.

Hello pot meet the kettle.

 

[OmerV]

I find it interesting that you call these guys experts in one sentence, then talk about how they can't write a rule worth a darn, and have conflicting case plays in the next.
A much more likely scenario is you are not interpreting the rule correctly, the case play is correct, and language that never appeared in any way, shape or form was added to the rule in 2015.

Who did I call an expert?

As for the case play, if you are switching back to that, again, it says specifically says "going to the ground" has to be the result of contact from an opponent after the first foot is down, so if a person believes Dez was going to the ground on his own, regardless of contact, that case doesn't apply. Now, here's the part where you forget the case example and discuss the wording in the rule .....

 

[KJJ]

That may be true but the point here is that you are engaging in topics that you identify as three years old. You are helping to fuel these discussions, which I have no problem with, but you gotta understand that you really can't cry Wolf and then also be the guy who is feeding the Wolf, so to speak.

Many are helping fuel this discussion which is why it’s pushing 70 pages and everyone is entitled to their opinion. If a few are incapable of being civil due to opposing views they should stay out. This topic angers and frustrates a few who can’t handle opposing views.

 

[blindzebra]

Who did I call an expert?

As for the case play, if you are switching back to that, again, it says specifically says "going to the ground" has to be the result of contact from an opponent after the first foot is down, so if a person believes Dez was going to the ground on his own, regardless of contact, that case doesn't apply. Now, here's the part where you forget the case example and discuss the wording in the rule .....

I rest my case. You have absolutely no understanding of how rules and case plays work, none, zip, nada.

It did not say that at all. If going to the ground was the dominate part of the rule, don't you think prior to 2015 a simple sentence of, "The catch process must be complete before a player catching a ball begins going to the ground?" The case play says you can complete it after you start going to the ground, which is EXACTLY how the rule was written in 2014. As for specific case play wording, you want a case book 5 million pages in length? Because that would be what it would take to have every possible scenario covered. To officiate you have to be able to connect the dots by seeing how things fit together. How many types of going to the ground catches have there been? We have had them on the sidelines, endzone, field of play, with 1 foot, two feet, three feet down, control from the start, control in the middle, no control at all, with contact, without contact, and on and on. There were three case plays in the case book on going to the ground, THREE. By your logic if a play doesn't exactly fit those three plays it is useless....WRONG. One supplied, ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR, never becoming a runner and containing control. One supplied, ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR, for the time element to become a runner making maintaining through the ground unnecessary. The third supplied, ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR, a football act, bracing to lunge, as an element to becoming a runner again ending the ground requirement.

I find it laughable that you guys keep saying how fixated we are on the rule book, while all along using it as the backbone of a flawed argument. You care to know why we keep bring the case play and the rule changes up? Because they supply FACTUAL EVIDENCE that the misapplied the rule in GB and then re-worked the rule in 2015 to erase that mistake.

 

[kskboys]

Exactly. People say they want a fairly-called game but what they really want is for all calls to go our way or else that means a CONSPIRACY! is amiss. This is why they will whine about calls that don't go our way but say "they owed us one" when we benefit from a blown call. Integrity of the game only matters when we don't get what we want.

There is one guy in my football group who simply thinks we're getting screwed w/ every call. You can't argue w/ him.

 

[DogFace]

The rule does say if a player is going to the ground he has to maintain possession without the ball touching the ground. So, yes, a pass can be completed to a player going to the ground, but that requires the ball never touching the ground.

Read it again. It says a receiver going to the ground. Not a runner. A receiver becomes a runner after the 3 part catch process is completed. Which can happen on the way to the ground.

 

[OmerV]

I rest my case. You have absolutely no understanding of how rules and case plays work, none, zip, nada.

It did not say that at all. If going to the ground was the dominate part of the rule, don't you think prior to 2015 a simple sentence of, "The catch process must be complete before a player catching a ball begins going to the ground?" The case play says you can complete it after you start going to the ground, which is EXACTLY how the rule was written in 2014. As for specific case play wording, you want a case book 5 million pages in length? Because that would be what it would take to have every possible scenario covered. To officiate you have to be able to connect the dots by seeing how things fit together. How many types of going to the ground catches have there been? We have had them on the sidelines, endzone, field of play, with 1 foot, two feet, three feet down, control from the start, control in the middle, no control at all, with contact, without contact, and on and on. There were three case plays in the case book on going to the ground, THREE. By your logic if a play doesn't exactly fit those three plays it is useless....WRONG. One supplied, ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR, never becoming a runner and containing control. One supplied, ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR, for the time element to become a runner making maintaining through the ground unnecessary. The third supplied, ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR, a football act, bracing to lunge, as an element to becoming a runner again ending the ground requirement.

I find it laughable that you guys keep saying how fixated we are on the rule book, while all along using it as the backbone of a flawed argument. You care to know why we keep bring the case play and the rule changes up? Because they supply FACTUAL EVIDENCE that the misapplied the rule in GB and then re-worked the rule in 2015 to erase that mistake.

lol - here you are backing away from the case example and going back to the rule. When the rule doesn't suit, you go back to the case. You always have an argument despite the fact every time you switch you are negating your previous argument.

As for the 3 cases in the case book, 8.11 discusses a play where the player maintains control all the way through - so that doesn't apply to Dez. 8.12 is the case we've discussed where it is the contact by an opponent that specifically has to cause the player to go to the ground. 8.13 is a play where, despite contact, the receiver maintains his balance the after coming down with both feet and only goes to the ground because of a lunge toward the goal line. This only applies if you believe Dez was upright and had his balance and wouldn't have gone to the ground except he decided to "lunge".

 

[OmerV]

Read it again. It says a receiver going to the ground. Not a runner. A receiver becomes a runner after the 3 part catch process is completed. Which can happen on the way to the ground.

The "going to the ground" standard is printed after the 3 part process is printed to show that "going to the ground" is a different situation. If going to the ground were not a different situation, why would they have printed it at all?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Many are helping fuel this discussion which is why it’s pushing 70 pages and everyone is entitled to their opinion. If a few are incapable of being civil due to opposing views they should stay out. This topic angers and frustrates a few who can’t handle opposing views.

True, it's a message board and that's expected. But, only you are complaining at this point.

I don't think this is as one sided as you see it. Continue to fight the good fight if you wish but you can't complain when other people do not agree with your position.

 

[OmerV]

There is one guy in my football group who simply thinks we're getting screwed w/ every call. You can't argue w/ him.

There are people like that. Fandom (fanaticism) often isn't the realm of the reasonable person - emotions override logic. My brother in Law is a huge fan of the local high school, the Texas Longhorns and the Dallas Cowboys, and to hear him talk none of those teams ever lost. Either the opponent cheated or the refs screwed them.

 

[DogFace]

Of course my answers aren't correct. It's just like I said in the post you quoted: catch theorists never like answers that don't give them what they want
.
.
.
So as for the question I posted to percy that I'm still waiting on, he posted this:



To which I responded with:



My question is there in bold.

There are observable acts. Switching the ball from two hands to one is an example of one. As you know it’s not necessary to observe a move. The official can also observe that the time element has been satisfied. These acts can happen on the way to the ground.

One of the best questions I’ve heard from Percy is why would Dez switch to one hand or take his hand off the ball if he was still trying to catch it.

 

[KJJ]

True, it's a message board and that's expected. But, only you are complaining at this point.

I don't think this is as one sided as you see it. Continue to fight the good fight if you wish but you can't complain when other people do not agree with your position.

I complained about the personal attacks. I have no issue with those who don’t agree with my opinion you obviously haven’t been following this discussion. I have issues with those who toss insults due my opposing views. Is that acceptable? Apparently not because a warning was passed out. Some here just want to make this about me. Let’s get back to the topic.

 

[DogFace]

Many are helping fuel this discussion which is why it’s pushing 70 pages and everyone is entitled to their opinion. If a few are incapable of being civil due to opposing views they should stay out. This topic angers and frustrates a few who can’t handle opposing views.

Will you please post more about how you’re done with this subject.

I like when you do that.

 

[DogFace]

The "going to the ground" standard is printed after the 3 part process is printed to show that "going to the ground" is a different situation. If going to the ground were not a different situation, why would they have printed it at all?

It’s printed to show what happens when the 3 part process hasn’t been satisfied.

 

[aikemirv]

The case book play is not in conflict with the rules before 2015. Case plays are real life illustrations of how the rule is meant to be interpreted. What is in conflict is thinking going to the ground trumps the process before the rule was changed to fit what happened in GB.
This is really simple, you have the case play, no explicit language saying going to the ground takes precedence, no indication of anything in the rules even remotely similar to upright long enough until it was added in 2015. It all conclusively points to a misapplication of the rules in GB, and an adjustment after the fact to make the rule fit the mistaken call. The whole point of going to the ground was to make sure a receiver maintains control, and if you complete the catch process you are a runner. 2014 backwards those thing lived simultaneously. From 2015 to today one must come before the other, and that is an absolute based on the rule books, case plays, the way the play was called prior to 2015, and in the very language used by those involved after the Dez play talking about football moves.

I think I agree with this!!!!