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

[KJJ]

This is real speed? Man you are delusional.

That’s real speed for maybe a video game or an old silent movie.

 

[blindzebra]

I can tell you how the whining has gone from then until right now. Catch theorists' stories have changed about 7 times complete with rebuttals. Observe:

1. “The ball never hit the ground”
Check the reverse angle

2. “No, no, Dez was running and got tripped”
Contact from a defender is irrelevant in going to the ground

3. “No, no, Dez reached or lunged or something”
He intended to lunge but did not execute

4. “No, no, Dez performed a bajillion football moves before that though”
Going to the ground trumps the 3-part process (unless they do something other than fall per A.R. 8.12 & 15.95)

5. “No, no, the replay wasn’t conclusive. The call should have stood.”
Replay confirmed that going to the ground should have been applied instead

6. “No, no, they took away the A.R. rule enabling an act on the way to the ground after the fact”
The rule was there in 2014 and 2015.

7. “No, no, they changed the catch rule in 2015 so refs can’t look for football moves”
A ref can judge that one has performed acts or had time to “clearly become a runner.” Same as before. Same rule, different wording.

8. "Oh yeah? Well, CONSPIRACY!"
Of course! How did we miss that?

Number three is a moronic statement, is a attempted lunge and a reach, part of the continuous momentum to the ground? There is no it wasn't enough of a move in the rules, it was either part of falling or a football act.
You do realize number four proves he caught it.
Number six that is a case play not a rule.
Number 7 is an outright lie. The rule changed because upright long enough never existed before 2015, and by including it it removed the an act ending Item 1 after it started, you know the thing that completely contradicts your smoking gun of the case play still being there in 2015.

Another lame attempt at comedy on your part...wait, failed comedian, Dean is that you?

You being Blandino would explain both the lack of rules knowledge and the stupidity involved with you trying to explain it.

 

[blindzebra]

This is real speed? Man you are delusional.

It has been sped up to make it look worse than it is, but then again it is coming from someone who replied, sure he reached and lunged in slow motion, but at real speed he didn't.

 

[blindzebra]

The most annoying thing about this thread is that the posters that believe it was catch are called conspiracy theorists. Nobody is talking about a conspiracy here, we are talking about whether a call was right or wrong. Officials make a ton of bad calls all the time, so why is it so crazy to think they made a mistake here. The NFL has amended this rule multiple times, announcers keep getting confused about it, etc. There is no way someone could say this rule is clear or straightforward.

Ah yes the discredit the facts by bad mouthing the messenger. That is troll 101. The funny thing is that they were actually arguing the we got the calls in the Detroit game as if it benefited their stance. It is a fact that Blandino got roasted before the season about the party bus, and got roasted again for it after the Detroit game. It is a fact that he used looking for a football move and the lunge and reach were not lungie and reachie enough in explaining the overturn. It is a ridiculous statement, that does nothing but increase the doubts about his competency and ethics. You can't say on one hand the entire play was him falling and all his actions were because he is falling on one hand, and then say well he lunged and reached, but not enough. If those things were not part of falling, they were football moves. He then lies about the we only clarified it in 2015. The rule was completely altered, and it just so happened that the change made a football move that happens after going to the ground starts go away. You don't say, the cough...cough...clarification just happened to take away the thing that you could argue made the Dez play a catch. Is it just a coincidence that the Dez play becomes the poster child clip for every catch rule discussion after 2015? Or is it, lets hammer it in there enough so that people will forget the rules in 2014, and really buy the BS we are selling. I guess I will end with this, I don't care how they try to discredit me and those that agree with me, because the facts and the truth is on our sides.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Guys, can we recap the details one more time?

 

[DogFace]

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.

I really don’t see how it makes a difference. He was, without question, contacted by Shields. Neither the case play or the rule say anything about if he was most likely going to fall before the contact that if he wasn’t contacted that would negate or impact any ruling.

That also seems like an extremely subjective and impossible to judge thing.

 

[DogFace]

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.

Why does the caseplay say the lunge isn’t part of the catch process? You then say the lunge is what satisfied the time element or proves the long enough element. Those seem contradictory.

This is the point I’m not understanding that you’re trying to make.

 

[DogFace]

I know this was a bit of a rhetorical question, but since I doubt it will be acknowledged otherwise, I'll answer it. The answer is it is not a catch if the player was going to the ground.

The Cincinnati playoff game mentioned earlier in this thread(I’m pretty sure) was exactly as you describe. It was called a catch.

Can’t find the clip, but it’s mentiioned here along with Blandino’s ridiculous contradictory explanation.

 

[DogFace]

On the sideline catches: If the ball hits the ground and the WR loses control is it a catch?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-jermaine-gresham-dez-bryant-catch-20150112-story.html

Note how Blandino says “the (on field)official determined”

 

[DogFace]

Oh and the lunge in the case play is clearly stated as not part of the process of the catch. But yet you have to have it since it is the only thing mentioned in those use cases.

So the act common to the game is what exactly? Time? Interrupting the fall? What?

The caseplay says the first foot was down with control then after the second foot was down he was “still” in control of the ball and that made the lunge not part of the process. So yes. It appears they’re saying the time element has been satisfied at that point with still being the key word.

 

[DogFace]

Nice. This would be the point where the wingman defers to the

Good. You’ve found your ringleader

 

[G2]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-jermaine-gresham-dez-bryant-catch-20150112-story.html

Note how Blandino says “the (on field)official determined”

Wow, thanks I did! It changed my life.

 

[DogFace]

Wow, thanks I did! It changed my life.

Then something needed and very positive did come of this thread.

Praise Tom Landry.

 

[G2]

Then something needed and very positive did come of this thread.

Praise Tom Landry.

In your head

 

[DogFace]

Clearly a lunge.

Watch his left leg. Pushed off with his left foot.

That makes it too simple. Although, they’ll likely say they don’t see the leg push off.

 

[G2]

Too bad he didn't maintain possession. Would have been one hell of a clutch catch.

 

[OmerV]

The Cincinnati playoff game mentioned earlier in this thread(I’m pretty sure) was exactly as you describe. It was called a catch.

Can’t find the clip, but it’s mentiioned here along with Blandino’s ridiculous contradictory explanation.

I don't know the situation, so I can't comment on it. If you find the clip let me know and I'll see what I think.

 

[MarcusRock]

The most annoying thing about this thread is that the posters that believe it was catch are called conspiracy theorists. Nobody is talking about a conspiracy here, we are talking about whether a call was right or wrong. Officials make a ton of bad calls all the time, so why is it so crazy to think they made a mistake here. The NFL has amended this rule multiple times, announcers keep getting confused about it, etc. There is no way someone could say this rule is clear or straightforward.

The people talking about a conspiracy are those that say the NFL changed the rules after the fact to then apply backward when the rule is the same with different wording, which the NFL did because people said it was "hard to understand." And yes, officials make bad calls all the time. That's why replay is there to help. The official in this case didn't see the ball hit the ground. He couldn't have because the evidence of the ball hitting the ground was on the reverse angle. So when an official makes the wrong call on the field, replay is there to correct it. That is what happened. Not liking the reversal doesn't make it wrong.

 

[G2]

The people talking about a conspiracy are those that say the NFL changed the rules after the fact to then apply backward when the rule is the same with different wording, which the NFL did because people said it was "hard to understand." And yes, officials make bad calls all the time. That's why replay is there to help. The official in this case didn't see the ball hit the ground. He couldn't have because the evidence of the ball hitting the ground was on the reverse angle. So when an official makes the wrong call on the field, replay is there to correct it. That is what happened. Not liking the reversal doesn't make it wrong.

I think it's a much less jagged pill to swallow when you expect a call reversal after seeing multiple replays.

 

[OmerV]

I really don’t see how it makes a difference. He was, without question, contacted by Shields. Neither the case play or the rule say anything about if he was most likely going to fall before the contact that if he wasn’t contacted that would negate or impact any ruling.

That also seems like an extremely subjective and impossible to judge thing.

They didn't set up the scenario and circumstances in the case play as they did by accident, and you can't pretend the scenario and circumstances in the case play don't apply because it doesn't suit you. It makes a difference because they are distinguishing between a player who was upright after the first foot came down, and would have remained upright if not for a defender knocking him to the ground, from one who was going to the ground from the moment his first foot came down regardless of contact. The ruling is different in those cases.