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

[blindzebra]

So explain this one:

GOING TO GROUND A.R. 15.112 Going to ground before process complete Second-and-9 on A18. QBA1 throws a pass to A2 at the A31. A2 controls the ball and just as his second foot touches the ground, he is contacted by a defender and driven to the ground. Before the receiver hits the ground, the defender pulls the ball loose. The loose ball is recovered by B3 and returned to the A5. The officials rule catch and fumble. Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. Because the receiver did not complete the catch before being contacted, he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. A’s ball third-and-9 on A18. Adjust clock and start on the snap. Only the Replay Official can initiate a review of this play

I guess I need to read through all of these stupid case plays. Because I'm just going on the cherry picked ones you guys have picked out and are just mixing parts of use cases with actual rules.

Because the receiver never became a runner, or did you miss why the play was reviewed?
This is about a receiver being called a runner who fumbled, who did not make or have time to make a football move, so he had to maintain control through the ground.

 

[OmerV]

Google is your friend, but since you apparently can't figure it out, here it is for the 4th time in the thread

http://test.footballzebras.com/files/original/d7f57f11109a4a4353de0d4fe3437d4c.pdf

In past years the casebook could be googled as a separate item, that's not the case here, and I just happened to scroll through enough to find it picked up after the rulebook ended. Nobody has explained this 4 times, and even those arguing your side missed it.

Hell, you are the one that said the 2014 casebook had 3 caseplays regarding going to the ground, and there are actually 6. It seems you aren't as sharp about this as you claim.

In any case, the only one of the caseplays you could possibly be hanging your hat on is 8.12, which does, in fact, say contact from an opponent is what causes the receiver to go down.

 

[KJJ]

It is not you at all. It’s everyone else. They all want this thread to be about you. That doesn’t seem abnormal at all to think that either.

You want it to be about me because I’m in your head. My opinions have a negative affect on you. Most of the posters in this thread have been able to handle my opinions on this issue but you and a couple of others can’t. Your focus is totally on me.

 

[MarcusRock]

We’ve discussed that play many times.

It’s the one where the Detroit player grabbed and held Hichens face mask and Hichens pushed his arm to get his hand off of his mask. Right?

There was contact early in the play, but that would’ve been holding because the ball was still in Stafford’s hand and that’s not what the ref threw the flag on.

Hitchens didn't push his arm to get his hand off the face mask. Pettigrew pushed the facemask to get separation then had his arms extended to catch the pass when Hitchens shoves him in the shoulder.

 

[OmerV]

Having time to make a football move does establish the player is in control of the ball. Switching from two hands to one and preparing to lunge both establish that in the Dez catch.

So, Dez never had to even touch the ground to establish the catch. If while in his leap he had moved the ball from 2 hands to one hand that's all he needed to do, and touching the ground at all didn't matter?

Come on - besides, you are still ignoring the fact that there is a separate standard for a player falling to the ground, which is why there was a separate section for that rather than just saying the process you are talking about applies whether a player is falling to the ground or not.

 

[OmerV]

We’ve discussed that play many times.

It’s the one where the Detroit player grabbed and held Hichens face mask and Hichens pushed his arm to get his hand off of his mask. Right?

There was contact early in the play, but that would’ve been holding because the ball was still in Stafford’s hand and that’s not what the ref threw the flag on.

You don't think Hitchens contacted the receiver while the ball was in the air? With his back to the QB and no idea where the ball was?

 

[blindzebra]

In past years the casebook could be googled as a separate item, that's not the case here, and I just happened to scroll through enough to find it picked up after the rulebook ended. Nobody has explained this 4 times, and even those arguing your side missed it.

Hell, you are the one that said the 2014 casebook had 3 caseplays regarding going to the ground, and there are actually 6. It seems you aren't as sharp about this as you claim.

In any case, the only one of the caseplays you could possibly be hanging your hat on is 8.12, which does, in fact, say contact from an opponent is what causes the receiver to go down.

I clearly meant three types of case plays, since they cover Item 1, becoming a runner by time, and becoming a runner by act common to the game.

 

[blindzebra]

So, Dez never had to even touch the ground to establish the catch. If while in his leap he had moved the ball from 2 hands to one hand that's all he needed to do, and touching the ground at all didn't matter?

Come on - besides, you are still ignoring the fact that there is a separate standard for a player falling to the ground, which is why there was a separate section for that rather than just saying the process you are talking about applies whether a player is falling to the ground or not.

That is a completely ludicrous statement, that clearly shows you still have no grasp of the rule.

 

[blindzebra]

You don't think Hitchens contacted the receiver while the ball was in the air? With his back to the QB and no idea where the ball was?

It was difficult not to with the receiver yanking his head down by the facemask.

 

[nathanlt]

Yes, the Lions receiver did do that I agree. But Hitchens did shove him while not playing the ball plus pulled the TE's jersey tail during the route. It should have at least been offsetting fouls and Detroit gets to replay 3rd Down.

That'd be fine. Then maybe Dallas wouldn't have had that cloud looming over their head of "Dallas got away with one" I want the officials to call the game accurately, even if it hurts Dallas.

Dallas gets some bizarre applications of rules, or lack of holding calls on the Packers, for example. Let em play!

I know we're on different sides of this, but the catch rule was worded so strangely, that officials shouldn't take away any catch that passes the eyeball test. That's a critical takeaway during a primetime game. You just can't do that, when 3 years later, people still argue what the applicable sections of rulebook even mean.

 

[nathanlt]

You want it to be about me because I’m in your head. My opinions have a negative affect on you. Most of the posters in this thread have been able to handle my opinions on this issue but you and a couple of others can’t. Your focus is totally on me.

A bit self centered, don't you think? sounds like you've lost an argument...

 

[blindzebra]

A bit self centered, don't you think? sounds like you've lost an argument...

And after two mods told him to give it a rest too.

 

[KJJ]

A bit self centered, don't you think? sounds like you've lost an argument...

Your argument was lost more than 3 years ago on the Dez overturn.

 

[KJJ]

There’s three things to blame for this ongoing issue. The first was Romo’s decision to go for a 50-50 jump ball on a manageable 4th and 2 with over 4 minutes to play. Dez on not concentrating on securing the ball and making sure it didn’t touch the ground and a bad rule that forced him to complete a step-by-step process through the contact of the ground. Dez has had repeated problems surviving the ground. That issue contributed to a loss in the 2015 opener. You would have thought he would’ve learned his lesson after what happened a few months earlier in Green Bay. He should have known the rule by then.

 

[Denim Chicken]

 

[BlindFaith]

A.R. 8.8 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE OR INCOMPLETE PASS Second-and-5 on A35. A1 throws a forward pass to A2 at the A40. A2 dives for the ball and controls the ball in the air. The first thing to hit the ground is the point of the ball. a) A2 briefly loses control of the ball when it hits the ground; or b) A2 never loses control of the ball. Rulings: a) Third-and-5 on A35. Incomplete pass. b) First-and-10 on A40.

A.R. 8.9 GOING TO THE GROUND—INCOMPLETE PASS First-and-10-on A30. A1 throws a pass to A2 who dives and controls the ball while airborne at the A38, but the ball comes out as he hits the ground. Ruling: Second-and-10 on A30. The pass is incomplete, as the receiver went to the ground in the process of making the catch and did not maintain possession of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. 32

A.R. 8.10 GOING TO THE GROUND—INCOMPLETE 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. The contact by B1 sends him across the goal line and to the ground in the end zone. The ball comes out as he hits the ground. Ruling: Second-and-10 on B25. The pass is incomplete, as the receiver went to the ground in the process of making the catch and did not maintain possession of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. A.R.

8.11 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS First-and-10-on A30. A1 throws a pass to A2 at the A45 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. The contact by B1 causes A2 to go to the ground where he maintains control of the ball. Ruling: First-and-10 on A45. The pass is complete, as the receiver went to the ground in the process of making the catch and maintained possession of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground.

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.

A.R. 8.13 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who is contacted by a defender before he completes the catch at the three-yard line. Despite B2’s contact, A2 keeps his balance, gets both feet down, and lunges over the goal line. The ball comes out as he hits the ground. Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The receiver went to the ground as the result of lunging for the goal line, not in the process of making the catch.

Take that play and compare it to AR 8.13, it is identical. What it says is the catch process was completed and stopped the going to the ground subsection of the rule because of the time element.

AR 8.12 the brace was the act common to the game that ended the catch process and made A2 a runner.

AR 8.11 is the completion of Item 1, and A2 never became a runner.

AR 8. 8-10 all have a receiver that never completed the catch process to become a runner, so Item 1 was applied and they did not maintain control.

This is my last response. I think it comes down to intent and poorly written rules.

The intent was that if while going to the ground the player regains balance or braces themselves, then that does complete the process. But simply taking a step or lunging while falling does not. Unless if the player was forced to the ground when they otherwise would have remained upright.

I can truly see how one could come to the conclusion that it was a catch. I concede that. If you mix in all of the various play cases with the actual rules themselves, it gets very convoluted.

But Dez did not regain his balance enough to be considered a runner. If you want to say that the extra step he took and or the lunge he made fulfilled a time aspect, then I think it's a fair case to make due to how the case plays were written.

Out.

 

[nathanlt]

I'm glad to be the first one to "like" that.

 

[big dog cowboy]

And after two mods told him to give it a rest too.

I'm staying out of it. Birds eye view just watching the punches.

At this point all the grey areas have been erased.

It's probably obvious which way I'm leaning in this discussion.

Sorry for the interuption. Please continue. This could be the "thread of the offseason" award winner.

 

[blindzebra]

This is my last response. I think it comes down to intent and poorly written rules.

The intent was that if while going to the ground the player regains balance or braces themselves, then that does complete the process. But simply taking a step or lunging while falling does not. Unless if the player was forced to the ground when they otherwise would have remained upright.

I can truly see how one could come to the conclusion that it was a catch. I concede that. If you mix in all of the various play cases with the actual rules themselves, it gets very convoluted.

But Dez did not regain his balance enough to be considered a runner. If you want to say that the extra step he took and or the lunge he made fulfilled a time aspect, then I think it's a fair case to make due to how the case plays were written.

Out.

He stepped a third time, braced and reached, there is absolutely no doubt that he made a move common to the game in my mind.

 

[KJJ]

He caught it then it came loose. You don’t even need the blown up pictures I’ve posted to show the ball was going to contact the ground in that position. All anyone has to do is look at the position of his hand on the ball. The force of impacting the ground caused the ball to pop loose. The old rule many years ago would’ve had that down by contact.