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

[KJJ]

The only whining going on in the thread has been by you. Boring same old topic, stupid fans, stop picking on me...sound familiar?

 

[KJJ]

I give Percy and blindzebra credit. They have gone into case plays that very few have really even looked at.

It’s a way to keep this going. They simply don’t want to move on and let this issue die. No one not even the media/talking heads or the league has gone into case plays because it’s a waste of time. The rule is clear and most rational fans know that a receiver that’s going to the ground has to hold onto the ball through the contact of the ground. It’s called completing the process. Any fan with a clue gets that part but no one likes the rule.

 

[blindzebra]

I am going to laugh my butt off when the NFL comes out and says they will be going back to the pre-2014 rule and the rule book says explicitly that the 3 step process being completed trumps going to the ground.

 

[KJJ]

Butch Johnson’s catch in the Super Bowl wouldn’t stand today. He was clearly going to the ground and didn’t complete the process.

 

[blindzebra]

Butch Johnson’s catch in the Super Bowl wouldn’t stand today. He was clearly going to the ground and didn’t complete the process.

And this means what exactly?

 

[MarcusRock]

That is a case play, show me the RULE that says it is a special move that stops going to the ground. Where is the rule support to explain the case play.
When I used that case play I used rule support. 8.1.3.a.b.c, 3.2.7 to explain it. Show me your rules savvy.

It is talking about the time element in the rule. In 2014 it's "maintaining control long enough" in part c. In 2015, it's "clearly become a runner" in part c. This is why the other similar case rule spells out that the time element was met. It is the same thing that applies like I said, where if Dez keeps the ball off the ground, he could have tapped the ball around like a volleyball a few times so long as he regained full control at some point and it would have been a catch no matter what rule they applied. It is the same as the example play I drew up myself where a receiver is prevented from making a football move by a defender and then they go to the ground where the ball pops out. That is a catch by Note 1 in 2014 and "clearly become a runner" in part c in 2015. It is simply a judgment call by the official.

I forget if it was you that said bracing in the case rule was the thing that completed the catch process, but that is incorrect. It was bracing and lunging that met that time requirement. If the receiver pulls a muscle or something as he braces and just crumples to the ground instead of lunging, then he went to the ground per Item 1 and if the ball comes out after hitting the ground, that pass is incomplete. How savvy was all that?

 

[blindzebra]

It is talking about the time element in the rule. In 2014 it's "maintaining control long enough" in part c. In 2015, it's "clearly become a runner" in part c. This is why the other similar case rule spells out that the time element was met. It is the same thing that applies like I said, where if Dez keeps the ball off the ground, he could have tapped the ball around like a volleyball a few times so long as he regained full control at some point and it would have been a catch no matter what rule they applied. It is the same as the example play I drew up myself where a receiver is prevented from making a football move by a defender and then they go to the ground where the ball pops out. That is a catch by Note 1 in 2014 and "clearly become a runner" in part c in 2015. It is simply a judgment call by the official.

I forget if it was you that said bracing in the case rule was the thing that completed the catch process, but that is incorrect. It was bracing and lunging that met that time requirement. If the receiver pulls a muscle or something as he braces and just crumples to the ground instead of lunging, then he went to the ground per Item 1 and if the ball comes out after hitting the ground, that pass is incomplete. How savvy was all that?

Here is the rule:

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is
complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
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.

You completely butchered that interpretation.

You are combining two separate case plays. The time element has A1 keeping his balance and lunging, The time being met ended the catch process, which ended going to the ground. That is why the lunge was not part of the catch, A1 is a runner because he completed a,b, and c. BEFORE the lunge.

In the other case play when A1 got the second foot down and then braced he completed the catch process making the lunge a move by a runner. That runner part is why it says the lunge was not part of the catch process, that is because in both case plays A1 was a runner BEFORE the lunge.

You also, once again failed to give a rule from the rule book that says the words a lunge is a separate enity.
What you did do was confirm that in 2014 going to the ground goes bye bye when the catch process is completed. You know exactly what Percy, Mr. C and I have been telling you for 77 pages.

 

[DogFace]

The only way the case play provides a bailout is via a properly executed lunge. It says that it fulfills the time element, not the football move element. This is what Dez didn't do. It's clear it's what he intended, but did not execute which was his undoing. His only other out was to not let the ball hit the ground because that would have been a catch no matter what rule was applied and likewise would have fulfilled the time element in the absence of a football move.

The caseplay says it was a catch and that the lunge was not part of the catch process because the time element, which is the other way to complete the third part of the 3 part process, has already been completed.

Marcus, it says the play is a completion. It also says that lunge wasn’t part of the completion. I’m not sure what you’re saying.
We’re talking about the case you originally posted. Right?
Blindfaith admitted there has to be a mistake in how that caseplay was written. If it’s accurately written then the Dez play should stand as a catch. I believe it is written correctly.

 

[DogFace]

Here is the rule:

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is
complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
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.

You completely butchered that interpretation.

You are combining two separate case plays. The time element has A1 keeping his balance and lunging, The time being met ended the catch process, which ended going to the ground. That is why the lunge was not part of the catch, A1 is a runner because he completed a,b, and c. BEFORE the lunge.

In the other case play when A1 got the second foot down and then braced he completed the catch process making the lunge a move by a runner. That runner part is why it says the lunge was not part of the catch process, that is because in both case plays A1 was a runner BEFORE the lunge.

You also, once again failed to give a rule from the rule book that says the words a lunge is a separate enity.
What you did do was confirm that in 2014 going to the ground goes bye bye when the catch process is completed. You know exactly what Percy, Mr. C and I have been telling you for 77 pages.

I’ve been trying to explain this. You’ve done a much better job.

I’m confused about him saying the lunge is what’s needed to complete the process when the caseplay specifically says the lunge isn’t part of the process in the completed catch presented in the case. That is what he’s saying. Correct?

I may be missing something.

 

[blindzebra]

I’ve been trying to explain this. You’ve done a much better job.

I’m confused about him saying the lunge is what’s needed to complete the process when the caseplay specifically says the lunge isn’t part of the process in the completed catch presented in the case.

I may be missing something.

The lunge was as a runner. Time was the act common in one case play and the brace was in the one almost identical to Dez.
In either case, there is no super secret, magical, Marcus dreamed up, ridiculous, the only way to trump going to the ground, to try to save my argument, lunge.

 

[DogFace]

The lunge was as a runner. Time was the act common in one case play and the brace was in the one almost identical to Dez.

Am I missing something? Is he saying the lunge was needed? The case specifically says the lunge wasn’t part of the process of this completed reception in this case.

Maybe I’m not getting what he’s saying.

 

[blindzebra]

Am I missing something? Is he saying the lunge was needed? The case specifically says the lunge wasn’t part of the process of this completed reception in this case.

Maybe I’m not getting what he’s saying.

Yes he is saying there is a magical lunge and it is the only thing that trumps going to the ground.

 

[Bleu Star]

Jettison the trash.....

G.R.O.D.

 

[Hostile]

Thank you. @Hostile said it first, I think. You'll still get people saying that's not a football move, though. Just a part of Dez's fall to the ground.

The removing of his right hand from the football is big to me. No human being can not be in control of an object they are trying to catch and do that. it simply goes 180 degrees opposite of basic human instincts.

Anyone who doubts this, try this as an experiment. Blindfold yourself and have someone throw something to you that brushes one hand or the other. If you can sit there and honestly say your other hand never moves to help you secure the object then you are truly unique, and maybe a little strange. The fact of the matter is we see all the time that when athletes lose a football their instinct is to try and grab it and usually with both hands if they can. Even a guy who has done a full sommersault on the ground who loses the ball will instinctively try and grab it. He may at times realize he doesn't need to and back off but his first move is instinctual and it is secure the football. That makes it a football move in my mind.

I just don't understand how any rational thinking individual can even doubt this.

On top of this, as most likely already been discussed, his left knee and right elbow touched the ground before the ball in his left hand ever got close to the ground. See below for reference.

He got 3 feet down, this makes him a runner. Even if the ground suddenly CAN cause a fumble, knee or elbow down is STILL down by contact. Unless of course anyone maintains Sam Shields did not touch him so he wasn't down. I am fine with this interpretation too, because he recovered the football in the end zone. So he is either down at the 1 yard line by contact, or he scored.

There was in no way enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. It is supposed to be irrefutable or indisputable or whatever the adjective is. No clear shot of the ball clearly on the ground, left knee and right elbow hit before anyway, 3 feet down, and he shifted the ball to one hand.

CATCH!!!!

This guy agrees.

Sorry if anything I posted is redundant to already posted commentary or picture.

 

[Typhus]

The removing of his right hand from the football is big to me. No human being can not be in control of an object they are trying to catch and do that. it simply goes 180 degrees opposite of basic human instincts.

Anyone who doubts this, try this as an experiment. Blindfold yourself and have someone throw something to you that brushes one hand or the other. If you can sit there and honestly say your other hand never moves to help you secure the object then you are truly unique, and maybe a little strange. The fact of the matter is we see all the time that when athletes lose a football their instinct is to try and grab it and usually with both hands if they can. Even a guy who has done a full sommersault on the ground who loses the ball will instinctively try and grab it. He may at times realize he doesn't need to and back off but his first move is instinctual and it is secure the football. That makes it a football move in my mind.

I just don't understand how any rational thinking individual can even doubt this.

On top of this, as most likely already been discussed, his left knee and right elbow touched the ground before the ball in his left hand ever got close to the ground. See below for reference.

He got 3 feet down, this makes him a runner. Even if the ground suddenly CAN cause a fumble, knee or elbow down is STILL down by contact. Unless of course anyone maintains Sam Shields did not touch him so he wasn't down. I am fine with this interpretation too, because he recovered the football in the end zone. So he is either down at the 1 yard line by contact, or he scored.

There was in no way enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. It is supposed to be irrefutable or indisputable or whatever the adjective is. No clear shot of the ball clearly on the ground, left knee and right elbow hit before anyway, 3 feet down, and he shifted the ball to one hand.

CATCH!!!!

This guy agrees.

Sorry if anything I posted is redundant to already posted commentary or picture.

Nope,, but beat like a dead horse,,, but you are correct, unfortunately cant change history Hos, bad history.
Screwed out of our best opportunity..... Love me some Cowboys... but hate me some league.

 

[OmerV]

The removing of his right hand from the football is big to me. No human being can not be in control of an object they are trying to catch and do that. it simply goes 180 degrees opposite of basic human instincts.

Anyone who doubts this, try this as an experiment. Blindfold yourself and have someone throw something to you that brushes one hand or the other. If you can sit there and honestly say your other hand never moves to help you secure the object then you are truly unique, and maybe a little strange. The fact of the matter is we see all the time that when athletes lose a football their instinct is to try and grab it and usually with both hands if they can. Even a guy who has done a full sommersault on the ground who loses the ball will instinctively try and grab it. He may at times realize he doesn't need to and back off but his first move is instinctual and it is secure the football. That makes it a football move in my mind.

I just don't understand how any rational thinking individual can even doubt this.

On top of this, as most likely already been discussed, his left knee and right elbow touched the ground before the ball in his left hand ever got close to the ground. See below for reference.

He got 3 feet down, this makes him a runner. Even if the ground suddenly CAN cause a fumble, knee or elbow down is STILL down by contact. Unless of course anyone maintains Sam Shields did not touch him so he wasn't down. I am fine with this interpretation too, because he recovered the football in the end zone. So he is either down at the 1 yard line by contact, or he scored.

There was in no way enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. It is supposed to be irrefutable or indisputable or whatever the adjective is. No clear shot of the ball clearly on the ground, left knee and right elbow hit before anyway, 3 feet down, and he shifted the ball to one hand.

CATCH!!!!

This guy agrees.

Sorry if anything I posted is redundant to already posted commentary or picture.

Where is it written in either the rules or the casebook that 3 feet touching the ground is all that is needed to establish a catch? Where is it written that this overrides the "going to the ground" rule?

 

[MarcusRock]

You completely butchered that interpretation.

You are combining two separate case plays. The time element has A1 keeping his balance and lunging, The time being met ended the catch process, which ended going to the ground. That is why the lunge was not part of the catch, A1 is a runner because he completed a,b, and c. BEFORE the lunge.

You really don't get this and this is why no one should ever self-proclaim themselves anything before they are shown to not be what they claim. I didn't butcher anything. I notice you didn't say I was wrong, because you know I'm not. I didn't combine the 2 case plays, they are just both about time. This one is 15.95, which was presented first in this thread:

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.​

If you say the time element was completed BEFORE the lunge, then the lunge isn't necessary and he can fall flat on his face without doing anything and still meet the time checkbox if he loses the ball. That is not true and doesn't make sense. Think lightning quick, bang-bang play where the hit and journey to the ground is almost instant. If the ball comes out, that is not a catch. However, the player here does something different, other than just falling (going to the ground) by interrupting that fall with a lunge. The act of the lunge proves he had the ball "long enough" to make a football move (Note 1 in the rules). With no lunge, how do you prove "long enough" in a bang-bang play - every player that hits the ground is a catch in that case. Think. This is why Blandino said they "absolutely" looked at Dez' failed lunge attempt because it would have proved "long enough." It didn't.

In the other case play when A1 got the second foot down and then braced he completed the catch process making the lunge a move by a runner. That runner part is why it says the lunge was not part of the catch process, that is because in both case plays A1 was a runner BEFORE the lunge.

Here is 8.12 that you refer to:

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.​

Again, almost the same thing is true like I explained above. If all a player has to do is touch his hand to the turf as a bracing action, then everyone who catches a pass on the way to the ground just needs to make sure they also get a knee down beforehand and can again just fall flat on their face and lose the ball with no penalty. This makes no sense in a bang-bang play. Once again, the lunge proves "long enough" which is why the other case play mentions that time is what is checked off, not the act itself which is "not part" of the catch process. Look at Blandino's video explanation and the difference in lunges he presents. Clear as freakin' day. Y'all just don't like the answer but can't bend the rules to refute it.

You also, once again failed to give a rule from the rule book that says the words a lunge is a separate enity.
What you did do was confirm that in 2014 going to the ground goes bye bye when the catch process is completed. You know exactly what Percy, Mr. C and I have been telling you for 77 pages.

What you're saying here is not some new thing. Blandino and Pereira have always said this. That is the order of the rule. If you don't complete the 3-part process and you're going to the ground, the ball has to survive the ground (which is why GTG trumps an incomplete 3-part process because it is a sub for a time element that hasn't been met). Here is the video from Blandino explaining this from about 1:40 onward very clearly. Notice that he explains part c as "have the ball long enough" to make a football move. Y'all can say that Blandino is an idiot, yadda, yadda, yadda, all you want but it doesn't change the fact that he knows the rules in and out and you're scraping for something to hang on to.

So what you've proved is that you don't know the rules you purport to know. And now instead of thinking you're "schooling" someone else, you're just another one taking lessons.

 

[OmerV]

The caseplay says it was a catch and that the lunge was not part of the catch process because the time element, which is the other way to complete the third part of the 3 part process, has already been completed.

Marcus, it says the play is a completion. It also says that lunge wasn’t part of the completion. I’m not sure what you’re saying.
We’re talking about the case you originally posted. Right?
Blindfaith admitted there has to be a mistake in how that caseplay was written. If it’s accurately written then the Dez play should stand as a catch. I believe it is written correctly.

It is only a catch under the case play if a person believes Dez would not have gone down after his first foot touched except for the contact with the defender. If you believe that, and it's your right to do so, then by your perception of the play the case play does apply. If a person believes, as I do, that Dez was going down all the way regardless of contact by the defender, then by that perception of the play the case play does not apply.

 

[PUSHfold]

He caught it man....you guys are ridiculous.

 

[MarcusRock]

Another thing to @blindzebra, what this process has revealed about you catch theorists is that you don't actually have a stance and just seek to discredit Blandino or find some hole you think you can exploit. It's a piñata approach where you just hope to hit something and can then say "a-ha, you have to throw the whole thing out now." This is why catch theorists' stories have changed time and time again.

I could see you butchering the rules to @OmerV and @BlindFaith but stayed out of it to not make it worse because after all, you’re just a wingman. But they saw what I saw, that you and the other theorists were attempting to backwards shoehorn things in the rules to fit the “Dez caught it” agenda including the CONSPIRACY! that the NFL changed the rules the next year as a coverup but can’t explain how other than that weaksauce “they forgot to remove the caseplay” excuse.

By the way, how about you and percy tell us how the NFL “changed the rules” the following year to invalidate the Dez “mistake” they made? Y’all have been very quiet as I’ve asked multiple times now. Are y’all avoiding the question being rules geniouses and all?