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

[OmerV]

Again, he did because he was able to shift the football to one hand only. That cannot physically be done without control of the football. The natural instinct is to grab it with both hands if you do not have it.

Problem with that argument is that having control of the football at an individual point in the play is not, in and of itself, the standard for completing a catch, particularly when the player is going to the ground where there is a standard of maintaining control all the way through the play. The reality is a player can actually leap for a ball, and while still in mid air pull the ball down to one hand, but he still has to come down and be able to either establish himself as a runner, or if he is going to the ground, maintain possession all the way through the play.

 

[OmerV]

Thank you. The rest is irrelevant to me. You cannot break the instincts of man nor usurp the laws of physics, so there is no way on this earth a no catch ruling can be justified regardless of how something is written unless it is interpreted wrong and it was, and apparently still is.

Thank you for the civil discourse.

This nonsense because you are using your own rules to say the refs got it wrong rather than the rules the NFL plays by. You may think a law in your town is plain wrong, but if you break it and end up in front of a judge it's not going to do you any good to claim you didn't break the law because you prefer to go by your own law rather than the one that is written.

 

[blueblood70]

lets just agree the rule is bad included all the sub rules it needs complete rewrite given athletes like dez can in fact catch aball with one hand bring it in while taking a step move it to the other hand and tak another step and lunge for the endzone..it was a catch but negated by bad rules..so not so much on the refs as a confusing rule that are left up to interpretation..he showed control he showed possession and was trying to move the ball across the goal line.. just a suck butt rule ugh!

 

[OmerV]

Here you go, take note of the red.
In 2014 rule book: 8-1

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.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact
by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

The rule to illustrate a football move to become a runner in 2014:
Rule 3 section 25.2
(i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.). Note that it says etc. meaning that this is not an all inclusive list.

2015 rules:
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 after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner (see 3-2-7 Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Here is 3-2-7:
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.

So in 2015 we have some changes, we get upright long enough to clearly become a runner, yet the ways you can become a runner shrinks. But Dean, I thought this was to clarify the catch rule? That is what you said, it was not a change just making it clearer.

2016:
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 after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

3-2-7:
A player has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact
of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.

In 2016 they add a few more items to 3-2-7, but we still have no clarification of what upright long enough means.

2017: Is identical to 2017

For fun here is 2012 and 2013:

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.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

3-2-7 just says act common to the game.

And then you have this from the 2014 case book:

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.

Note that there is nothing in those rules that says going to the ground takes precedence over the catch process prior to 2015.

Sorry, but this is just another very long winded post that doesn't answer the question. None of this uses 3 steps as the standard, which is off base anyway since Dez actually only took one step - the first two were just his feet landing after the leap for the ball - and none of this says the going to the ground rule is overridden by anything else. The rule does not indicate that Item 1 is a secondary application that only kicks in if the 3 step process fails, it only sets out that there is a difference between a player who is going to the ground and one who is not.

 

[blindzebra]

In 2014 the key was what is an act common to the game, so let's list things a runner does:
1. Takes steps
2. Avoids defenders
3. Turns
4. Makes an attempt to advance the ball
5. Spins
6. Hurdles
7. Dives
8. Tucks the ball away
9. Moves the ball to the arm away from defenders
10. Tries to score is probably the intent of every runner

So logically an act common to the game should be defined as an intentional action designed to get the most yards you can get and score. If Dez is falling out of control has Blandino claims, what actions occurred that were without question only in the act of falling? One could argue that the turn, third step, and brace could all be related to falling and trying to break a fall. That leaves moving the ball to his dominate hand that was also closer to the goal line, pushing off with his left foot, throwing up turf trying to get closer to the end zone, and extending the ball out toward the goal line. None of these actions can be said to be part of falling. They are intentional acts by Dez trying to score. Blandino acknowledged the reach, and said not enough of a football move. People within this thread on the it was the correct call, have been calling Dez stupid for TRYING TO SCORE.

This is really simple, Blandino said they were looking for a football move. Dez said he was trying to score, and there are plays within this thread that show him extending, and he always puts it in his left hand, braces, and pushes off his left leg in these videos of other plays, including one where he lost the ball and was ruled down by contact and it was not overturned. So we have Blandino talking football moves, we have people blaiming Dez for trying to score, we have past plays where Dez did the exact same things trying to advance the ball as far as he could. So if we have Dez doing football things that are not part of getting control of the catch, or conclusively explained by falling, just what the hell are they?

Here is a clue...he was a runner trying to score.

 

[blindzebra]

Sorry, but this is just another very long winded post that doesn't answer the question. None of this uses 3 steps as the standard, which is off base anyway since Dez actually only took one step - the first two were just his feet landing after the leap for the ball - and none of this says the going to the ground rule is overridden by anything else. The rule does not indicate that Item 1 is a secondary application that only kicks in if the 3 step process fails, it only sets out that there is a difference between a player who is going to the ground and one who is not.

Yawn, not trying to teach calculus to rocks again. We get it, you know where the answer is located and you just want me to repeat it so you can again call it cherry picking and bouncing back and forth. Officiating requires using multiple source materials to correctly interpret the rules, and that is true of any rule that requires judgment.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

300 Feet in a football field...Dez controlled the ball for about 15 feet or 5% of the field, yet some people want me to believe it wasn't a catch!?

 

[BlindFaith]

A lunge is the only thing in the case plays to justify the rulings and is what those that overturned the Dez play were looking for. I just explained how that all worked last page. The lunge is the thing that proves the "long enough" of the rule. That's what makes it "magic."

Speaking of spinning, how about you explain how your story just changed with the changing of the thread page.

And why are you using 2016's rule language? You and percy stated they changed it in 2015 as part of a coverup. You specifically used your "they forgot to remove" the caseplay in their coverup as a weak excuse when you were cornered. Explain by the rules how they mastered the CONSPIRACY! except that one glaring detail, rules master. If refs in the NFL are as emotional as you are, maybe what people say about them is true after all, lol.

I think you just clarified a key point here. I know I said I was out of this, but just wanted to jot some things done for prosperity.

Lets break this down:

A.R. 15.95 Act common to game—COMPLETE PASS
1. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and ( We get what this means. )
2. then still in control of the ball ( This is the confusing part, a "time" element or what I think they are trying to refer to is some action that kind of stops them from falling or regaining their balance. )
3. he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed. ( According to the wording of the ruling, the lunge is NOT part of the process. So if they determined this to be a catch, it was either due to the "time" element, or that the lunge, while not technically part of the process, is something that can demonstrate point number 2 above. )
Ruling: 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

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
1. controls the ball and gets one foot down, he goes to the ground, gets his second foot down, ( We get what this means. )
2. with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself with his left hand ( This is less confusing, but still not really clear. This is the "time" element or more precisely, some action that kind of stops them from falling or regaining their balance.)
3. simultaneously lunges ( According to the wording of the ruling, the lunge is NOT part of the process. So if they determined this to be a catch, it was either due to the "time" element, or that the lunge, while not technically part of the process, is something that can demonstrate the act of trying to regain his balance. An act that could only be performed if one wasn't technically falling. )
Ruling: 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.

A.R. 8.13 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
1. before he completes the catch ( We get what this means. )
2. keeps his balance, gets both feet down, ( This is the clearest this part of the case play is written. The "time" element has been clearly been defined as "Keeps his balance. And remember, per the case play this is while going to the ground. But just as the other two case plays demonstrate, it is some act the interrupts or delays the act of falling. )
3. lunges over the goal line. The ball comes out as he hits the ground. ( And gain, the use of the lunging act is to try and confirm that the act of falling had been interrupted and they made an act that could only be performed if one wasn't technically falling. )
Ruling: The receiver went to the ground as the result of lunging for the goal line, not in the process of making the catch.


So lets break these down even further. I'm only going to be talking about the points 2 and 3 from each case play.

2. Clearly the case plays are trying to interject another component of going to the ground that is not in the actual rules themselves. Something of this magnitude should be clearly called out and defined. Because there is no rule language, we are left to assume the intent. Big no no and is exactly why we are still talking about this 3 years later.

My view is that the "time" element relates directly to cases where a player attempts to or actually interrupts the action of falling. That interruption, based on the case play language, in of itself completes the process of the catch, but only if they attempt to lunge. Even though the act of lunging is not part of the process. This is one of the most poorly written things I've ever seen. They don't clearly say what the time element requirement is and they don't clearly say that its some interruption of falling. They purposely keep it ambiguous. But its' clear that this is the intent because of the other language they use to setup the lunge. But it goes from:
then still in control of the ball TO
with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself with his left hand TO
keeps his balance, gets both feet down

3. I believe these are references to how one can interrupt the act of falling and complete the process of the catch, but only if there is an additional action confirming that they aren't really on the ground ( the lunge ). If that makes sense? And it is really, really hard to make sense of this rule if I haven't said it before.

Now the big question is, are there any other acts that can be performed besides a lunge? I think they chose a lunge because you can only lunge if you aren't already on the ground or if you have some sort of balance. Switching the ball in your hands - you can easily do that while falling. Reaching - easily do that while falling. Taking a step - still can be done while falling. Lunging - I still think you could, but it's much harder to do. But maybe not so much for these super athletes. And is yet another total judgement call.

Why the rule itself only talks about maintaining possession through contacting the ground, but yet buried away in the case play is some mysterious "time/interruption" factor is just wrong. Something that important needs to be clearly defined.

Now, I still stand by the Dez call as made. I don't see at any point while he is going to the ground that he ever regains his balance or braces or interrupts his fall and THEN performs a lunge. He performs the lunge while still falling. I think that's what Blandino was trying to explain. I emphasize trying. But that two part process which they try to say aren't part of the same process is a complete judgement call.

Even if they don't change the rule they absolutely need to clarify and rewrite it.

 

[blindzebra]

A lunge is the only thing in the case plays to justify the rulings and is what those that overturned the Dez play were looking for. I just explained how that all worked last page. The lunge is the thing that proves the "long enough" of the rule. That's what makes it "magic."

Speaking of spinning, how about you explain how your story just changed with the changing of the thread page.

And why are you using 2016's rule language? You and percy stated they changed it in 2015 as part of a coverup. You specifically used your "they forgot to remove" the caseplay in their coverup as a weak excuse when you were cornered. Explain by the rules how they mastered the CONSPIRACY! except that one glaring detail, rules master. If refs in the NFL are as emotional as you are, maybe what people say about them is true after all, lol.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean I changed my argument.

And no that is your interpretation of what the lunge in the case play means, which is ridiculously wrong, and again you did not answer the question of show where in the rule book it says a lunge is the only way the 3 part of the catch rule can be met. Here is a clue, a rule won't be in the case book.

I was asked to show what is an act common to the game based on football rules, so I gave him the 3.2.7 from 2012-2017 actually since it did not change fro 2012-2014, got reduced to avoiding a defender in 2015, and then 2016-2017 was the same.

And yet again we get the catchphrase instead of a logical argument. That is the section under dodging in the troll hand book in case anyone was wondering.

 

[OmerV]

300 Feet in a football field...Dez controlled the ball for about 15 feet or 5% of the field, yet some people want me to believe it wasn't a catch!?

You are setting your own standards rather than NFL standards. Trust me, we all would have loved for it to be a catch, but that doesn't make it so under the rules.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

You are setting your own standards rather than NFL standards. Trust me, we all would have loved for it to be a catch, but that doesn't make it so under the rules.

Yep. I didn't realize logic isn't part of making a judgement call, when judgement shouldn't have been part of the equation, overturning a call on the field.

 

[Direwolf63]

You are without a doubt the biggest spin doctor I have ever seen, you really should go into politics.

 

[blindzebra]

I think you just clarified a key point here. I know I said I was out of this, but just wanted to jot some things done for prosperity.

Lets break this down:

A.R. 15.95 Act common to game—COMPLETE PASS
1. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and ( We get what this means. )
2. then still in control of the ball ( This is the confusing part, a "time" element or what I think they are trying to refer to is some action that kind of stops them from falling or regaining their balance. )
3. he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed. ( According to the wording of the ruling, the lunge is NOT part of the process. So if they determined this to be a catch, it was either due to the "time" element, or that the lunge, while not technically part of the process, is something that can demonstrate point number 2 above. )
Ruling: 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

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
1. controls the ball and gets one foot down, he goes to the ground, gets his second foot down, ( We get what this means. )
2. with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself with his left hand ( This is less confusing, but still not really clear. This is the "time" element or more precisely, some action that kind of stops them from falling or regaining their balance.)
3. simultaneously lunges ( According to the wording of the ruling, the lunge is NOT part of the process. So if they determined this to be a catch, it was either due to the "time" element, or that the lunge, while not technically part of the process, is something that can demonstrate the act of trying to regain his balance. An act that could only be performed if one wasn't technically falling. )
Ruling: 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.

A.R. 8.13 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
1. before he completes the catch ( We get what this means. )
2. keeps his balance, gets both feet down, ( This is the clearest this part of the case play is written. The "time" element has been clearly been defined as "Keeps his balance. And remember, per the case play this is while going to the ground. But just as the other two case plays demonstrate, it is some act the interrupts or delays the act of falling. )
3. lunges over the goal line. The ball comes out as he hits the ground. ( And gain, the use of the lunging act is to try and confirm that the act of falling had been interrupted and they made an act that could only be performed if one wasn't technically falling. )
Ruling: The receiver went to the ground as the result of lunging for the goal line, not in the process of making the catch.


So lets break these down even further. I'm only going to be talking about the points 2 and 3 from each case play.

2. Clearly the case plays are trying to interject another component of going to the ground that is not in the actual rules themselves. Something of this magnitude should be clearly called out and defined. Because there is no rule language, we are left to assume the intent. Big no no and is exactly why we are still talking about this 3 years later.

My view is that the "time" element relates directly to cases where a player attempts to or actually interrupts the action of falling. That interruption, based on the case play language, in of itself completes the process of the catch, but only if they attempt to lunge. Even though the act of lunging is not part of the process. This is one of the most poorly written things I've ever seen. They don't clearly say what the time element requirement is and they don't clearly say that its some interruption of falling. They purposely keep it ambiguous. But its' clear that this is the intent because of the other language they use to setup the lunge. But it goes from:
then still in control of the ball TO
with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself with his left hand TO
keeps his balance, gets both feet down

3. I believe these are references to how one can interrupt the act of falling and complete the process of the catch, but only if there is an additional action confirming that they aren't really on the ground ( the lunge ). If that makes sense? And it is really, really hard to make sense of this rule if I haven't said it before.

Now the big question is, are there any other acts that can be performed besides a lunge? I think they chose a lunge because you can only lunge if you aren't already on the ground or if you have some sort of balance. Switching the ball in your hands - you can easily do that while falling. Reaching - easily do that while falling. Taking a step - still can be done while falling. Lunging - I still think you could, but it's much harder to do. But maybe not so much for these super athletes. And is yet another total judgement call.

Why the rule itself only talks about maintaining possession through contacting the ground, but yet buried away in the case play is some mysterious "time/interruption" factor is just wrong. Something that important needs to be clearly defined.

Now, I still stand by the Dez call as made. I don't see at any point while he is going to the ground that he ever regains his balance or braces or interrupts his fall and THEN performs a lunge. He performs the lunge while still falling. I think that's what Blandino was trying to explain. I emphasize trying. But that two part process which they try to say aren't part of the same process is a complete judgement call.

Even if they don't change the rule they absolutely need to clarify and rewrite it.

There is an easier way to view this.
1. You are expecting an exact wording in the rule book and case play and that rarely exists in any sport or any rule and case book.
2. Your entire argument is based on believing that Item 1 takes precedence before they made it so in 2015.
3. That belief is not upheld by the case plays that say if c happens during going to the ground they become a runner.
4. Because they used a lunge as an example you guys became fixated on that, even though the case play is under acts common to the game, and 3.2.7 in the rule book never even mentions lunge by name, they list several things and then etc.
5. Because of #4 common sense should tell you that a lunge is not some special thing, but only an example of many things that can establish a receiver becoming a runner.
6. If Dez did anything from landing on two feet and hitting the ground that was not 100% conclusive to be part of falling, and could be seen as attempting to advance the ball, than Dez completed part c and it was a catch.

 

[OmerV]

Yawn, not trying to teach calculus to rocks again. We get it, you know where the answer is located and you just want me to repeat it so you can again call it cherry picking and bouncing back and forth. Officiating requires using multiple source materials to correctly interpret the rules, and that is true of any rule that requires judgment.

The problem may be that you are worried about teaching mathematics to rocks rather than comprehension of the written word. Mathematical minded people are generally very weak with regard to language and logic outside the arena of mathematics.

As for using multiple sources to interpret rules, the case plays you have mentioned many times ARE the interpretation, yet when it is pointed out that the scenario in the case play doesn't match with the scenario you want it to match with, you ingore the portions of the casebook that doesn't suit you, then run back to the rule book and then ignore whatever portions that aren't to your liking as well. In the end you come up with a hybrid of the rule book and casebook that picks out language that suits you from each, and ignores language that doesn't from each. It's not employing multiple sources if you refuse to take into account the entirety of those sources and just selectively pick out what fits a narrative.

 

[OmerV]

Yep. I didn't realize logic isn't part of making a judgement call, when judgement shouldn't have been part of the equation, overturning a call on the field.

Using an alternative set of rules that don't fit with the NFL rules is not judgment. Refs don't get to make up their own rules if they don't like the ones that are on the books.

 

[KJJ]

Yep. I didn't realize logic isn't part of making a judgement call, when judgement shouldn't have been part of the equation, overturning a call on the field.

You have to understand and accept the rule to apply logic to it. Most in Cowboys Nation refuse to accept the rule. The key elements to the rule really aren’t that hard to understand it’s just many Cowboy fans won’t accept it. You and others are arguing against the league who confirmed the call to be correct under the rule. Yes there’s judgment involved but there’s judgment involved in every call and not everyone’s going to be happy with the final ruling. Many here are just making up their own rules and under their rules the Dez call should have never been overturned.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

Using an alternative set of rules that don't fit with the NFL rules is not judgment. Refs don't get to make up their own rules if they don't like the ones that are on the books.

Yep. I refuse to accept that a player traveling about 15 feet, while controlling a football isn't a catch. Any rule that says that isn't a catch, needs to be abolished immediately.

 

[blindzebra]

The problem may be that you are worried about teaching mathematics to rocks rather than comprehension of the written word. Mathematical minded people are generally very weak with regard to language and logic outside the arena of mathematics.

As for using multiple sources to interpret rules, the case plays you have mentioned many times ARE the interpretation, yet when it is pointed out that the scenario in the case play doesn't match with the scenario you want it to match with, you ingore the portions of the casebook that doesn't suit you, then run back to the rule book and then ignore whatever portions that aren't to your liking as well. In the end you come up with a hybrid of the rule book and casebook that picks out language that suits you from each, and ignores language that doesn't from each. It's not employing multiple sources if you refuse to take into account the entirety of those sources and just selectively pick out what fits a narrative.

Okay I am not going to teach Shakespeare to carrots then. Your interpretation of the case book plays are what is wrong, and not how they show the correct way to interpret the rule. That is the issue, the case play shows that an act common to the game ends going to the ground, and even though the rule book shows MULTIPLE examples of acts common to the game, you and your cohorts are saying only a lunge does, it is incorrect, and frankly showing a complete lack of common sense.

 

[BlindFaith]

There is an easier way to view this.
1. You are expecting an exact wording in the rule book and case play and that rarely exists in any sport or any rule and case book.
2. Your entire argument is based on believing that Item 1 takes precedence before they made it so in 2015.
3. That belief is not upheld by the case plays that say if c happens during going to the ground they become a runner.
4. Because they used a lunge as an example you guys became fixated on that, even though the case play is under acts common to the game, and 3.2.7 in the rule book never even mentions lunge by name, they list several things and then etc.
5. Because of #4 common sense should tell you that a lunge is not some special thing, but only an example of many things that can establish a receiver becoming a runner.
6. If Dez did anything from landing on two feet and hitting the ground that was not 100% conclusive to be part of falling, and could be seen as attempting to advance the ball, than Dez completed part c and it was a catch.

1. I am, for something this important.

2. Item one has to take precedence, you have to have possession of the ball on get two feet down. Now you can do that while falling, but if you are falling you have to maintain possession through contacting the ground. Unless you can interrupt the fall and perform a lunge. Which is the only act they refer to in the case plays.

3. The c part is the point of contention. From the rule book, acts common to the game are (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.). Honestly, a player in mid air can maintain control long enough to do some of those things before they even hit the ground. Does that mean they become a runner while still in the air? They can pitch it or pass it and are almost always advancing it. All while not even touching the ground. That just makes no sense.

4. I'm fixated on it because you brought up the case plays. The case plays only talk about some time element and then a lunge. Why didn't they at least have one example of a player going to the ground, does some "time" element thing and then some OTHER act common to the game? Like pitch the ball. Because you can pitch the ball while in mid air. You can't lunge while in mid air. And they should have that as an act common to the game. Lunging is certainly an act that runners do. But you have to be a runner first. That's why they say that the lunge is not part of the process. This time thing or falling interruption completes the process of the catch, but only if they can perform the lunge.

5. But it is a special thing. Its only something that you can do if you have some sort of balance. It clearly is something that you can not do while in mid air. You could throw the ball, or pitch the ball, clearly advance the ball or even possibly ward off a defender - all while flying through the air. But lunge you can not do. That is why they specifically added the lunge part, but then did not include it as part of the catch process. Its the time/balance/interruption piece that does that.

6. IMO he was clearly falling. If this all comes down to you not thinking he was falling then so be it. But then why all the debating. Would have saved a few hundred pages of debate. Just say "I don't think he was falling". At least then the points you are debating are relevant. You can then say that the steps he took made him a runner. Or that the steps, plus the lunge made him one. Or that the steps, plus the lunge plus the reach made him one. But I don't know how you can realistically say that when he had two feet down that he wasn't falling.

 

[BlindFaith]

Yep. I refuse to accept that a player traveling about 15 feet, while controlling a football isn't a catch. Any rule that says that isn't a catch, needs to be abolished immediately.

That is such a simplistic answer. There are reasons why there isn't just a simple possession and two feet down rule.

But hey, lets go for it. And like I said, folks can then start whining about fumbles and that the poor guy didn't have time to protect himself. Or that, well he was out of control stumbling to the ground and the ball flew out.