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

[ABQCOWBOY]

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 wage personal attacks and 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.

Yes, obviously it's me.


By all means, do get back to the topic, just try not to complain so much when people disagree.

Please and thank you ,

ABQ

 

[OmerV]

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.

A person could be entirely airborne and switch the ball from two hands to one, but that doesn't establish a catch. As for Percy's quote, it ignores the fact that by rule a catch isn't simply having a grasp on the ball, it is also either establishing that a player is in control, if he is upright, or if he is going to the ground, that he never loses possession with the ball hitting the ground.

 

[blindzebra]

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".

How is describing the caseplays backing away from them?
Going to the ground is different because it is about a receiver. Complete the catch process and you are a runner. Two of the three caseplays are receovers going to the ground becoming a runner before they contact the ground. Once again, you and your cohorts don't understand that.

 

[OmerV]

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.

And in the caseplay the "going to the ground" has to solely be as a result of contact by an opposing player.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

This is why we have the term "fake news" now. If it's not favorable to your side, then it's fake. That same source is righteous truth when the news is favorable though.

How that works in this debate is that if you can't overcome something Blandino or Pereira have stated, you go back to some explanation or something else they did maybe years before that seems iffy, and then bring that back as "proof" that what they say today about a completely different play is wrong because if they were iffy then, then they're iffy now.

 

[blindzebra]

A person could be entirely airborne and switch the ball from two hands to one, but that doesn't establish a catch. As for Percy's quote, it ignores the fact that by rule a catch isn't simply having a grasp on the ball, it is also either establishing that a player is in control, if he is upright, or if he is going to the ground, that he never loses possession with the ball hitting the ground.

Being upright was not part of the rule until 2015.

 

[KJJ]

Yes, obviously it's me.


By all means, do get back to the topic, just try not to complain so much when people disagree.

Please and thank you ,

ABQ

You’re the one complaining, you initiated this. lol Where have I complained about people disagreeing with me? Provide a link? It’s obvious you’re still angry about that argument we had at the end of the 2013 season involving Romo and his contract. Stop stirring the pot and let’s get back to the topic of this thread. You’re just another one trying to make this about me.

 

[blindzebra]

And in the caseplay the "going to the ground" has to solely be as a result of contact by an opposing player.

No it does not. The rule says with or without contact. Again 3 case plays thousands of possible scenarios...common sense is in short supply.

 

[OmerV]

How is describing the caseplays backing away from them?
Going to the ground is different because it is about a receiver. Complete the catch process and you are a runner. Two of the three caseplays are receovers going to the ground becoming a runner before they contact the ground. Once again, you and your cohorts don't understand that.

Because when I talk about the flaw in your reliance on the caseplay you talk about how the rule was written. When I talk about how the rule was written, you switch back and act as if the caseplay is what matters. You never stick with what they both say, you just cherry pick whatever parts you want of each.

As for the 2 of 3 case plays you talk about, one, again, specifically says the "going to the ground" has to be the result of contact by the defender, and the second is that two feet have to be down and balance on two feet established with only a lunge after that causing him to go to the ground. In your posts you provide only a general idea of the cases and skip over the details.

 

[OmerV]

No it does not. The rule says with or without contact. Again 3 case plays thousands of possible scenarios...common sense is in short supply.

There you go - switching back to the rule book.

The rule book is what talks about "with or without contact", not the casebook. And, by the way, where the rulebook says "with or without contact" it says possession has to be maintained without the ball hitting the ground, so quoting that standard goes against your argument.

Now it's time for you to run from that and switch back to the casebook .... lol

 

[OmerV]

Being upright was not part of the rule until 2015.

Except that there is a rule about going to the ground, so that kind of makes being upright part of it. Or is there something between?

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

Your answer in bold is the answer I seek from percy, because according to your answer, percy is flat out wrong then, right?

The rest of what you post is just add-on material to try to obscure the fact that y'all disagree, IMO. I already know that catch theorists think Dez completed 12 football moves in the space of a millisecond. However, the answer to that is that going to the ground trumps the 3-part process per the call video from Pereira I produced where he directly links that statement to the Dez catch ("...just like with Dez Bryant a few years ago ...).

 

[blindzebra]

Because when I talk about the flaw in your reliance on the caseplay you talk about how the rule was written. When I talk about how the rule was written, you switch back and act as if the caseplay is what matters. You never stick with what they both say, you just cherry pick whatever parts you want of each.

As for the 2 of 3 case plays you talk about, one, again, specifically says the "going to the ground" has to be the result of contact by the defender, and the second is that two feet have to be down and balance on two feet established with only a lunge after that causing him to go to the ground. In your posts you provide only a general idea of the cases and skip over the details.

In 2014 where is the explicit language that says going to the ground trumps the catch process? Where was it in any rule book prior to 2015?
What the 2014 and prior rules said was here is how a receiver becomes a runner and if they are going to the ground and don't establish themselves a runner before they hit the ground they must maintain control. That is the rule as written and exactly in line with the case plays.

 

[OmerV]

No it does not. The rule says with or without contact. Again 3 case plays thousands of possible scenarios...common sense is in short supply.

lol - so, what the casebook says is irrelevant ... well, except whatever parts you cherry pick out of context.

Again, though, the rule that says "with or without contact" requires the receiver to maintain control without the ball ever hitting the ground. You sure that's the language you want to use as an argument?

But, of course the language in the rule is irrelevant too, except for the parts of that you want to cherry pick out of context.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You’re the one complaining, you initiated this. lol Where have I complained about people disagreeing with me? Provide a link? It’s obvious you’re still angry about that argument we had at the end of the 2013 season involving Romo and his contract. Stop stirring the pot and let’s get back to the topic of this thread. You’re just another one trying to make this about me.

This is weird, I could have sworn that you just said you wanted to get back on topic?

Do you wanna do that or do you wanna complain more? Here's an idea, maybe you should report my post and claim that it's a personal attack.

Grow up man.

 

[KJJ]

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.

That’s the biggest problem here emotions override logic with many. If the same exact call happened to the Packers and the Cowboys went on to win no one would be claiming the Packers got screwed and the rule would be a lot clearer to everyone.

 

[OmerV]

In 2014 where is the explicit language that says going to the ground trumps the catch process? Where was it in any rule book prior to 2015?
What the 2014 and prior rules said was here is how a receiver becomes a runner and if they are going to the ground and don't establish themselves a runner before they hit the ground they must maintain control. That is the rule as written and exactly in line with the case plays.

Where is the specific language that says the 3 part process trumps going to the ground? Two can play that.

Again, if the elements for a catch are the same regardless of going to the ground or not, why would there be a rule specifically about "going to the ground". Obviously it's because a player going to the ground is treated differently.

 

[OmerV]

That’s the biggest problem here emotions override logic with many. If the same exact call happened to the Packers and the Cowboys went on to win no one would be claiming the Packers got screwed and the rule would be a lot clearer to everyone.

Without a doubt.

 

[blindzebra]

There you go - switching back to the rule book.

The rule book is what talks about "with or without contact", not the casebook. And, by the way, where the rulebook says "with or without contact" it says possession has to be maintained without the ball hitting the ground, so quoting that standard goes against your argument.

Now it's time for you to run from that and switch back to the casebook .... lol

Not sure what part of the rule and case book work in unison. They are not separate things. Officials use both to correctly interpret the rules...something that you are not doing. You are trying to spin it away by making ridiculous claims instead of dealing with the facts.

 

[blindzebra]

Where is the specific language that says the 3 part process trumps going to the ground? Two can play that.

Again, if the elements for a catch are the same regardless of going to the ground or not, why would there be a rule specifically about "going to the ground". Obviously it's because a player going to the ground is treated differently.

I explained the reason already about 20 times. Go find it and maybe you will learn something.