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

blindzebra · Feb 14, 2018

OmerV said:
lol - I never said it was the only possible scenario in the realm of all possible football scenarios, but it was the scenario you were hanging your hat on. Or are you telling me now that the scenario in the case book in which the receiver never even loses possession of the ball is the one you want to go by? We discussed the scenarios in the playbook yesterday, and none of them help you out without you cherry picking what you want to talk about and ignore the rest, which has been your MO throughout this entire discussion.

Total BS.
I find it funny that you just wrote I never said it was the only possible scenario in the realm of all possible football scenarios, that is exactly the point. The case can't cover every possible act that ends going to the ground, so you take the rule 8.1.3.c and see it lists several acts and the etc. meaning there are even more acts then the ones listed that are football moves. The case play gives an example of one act. It is the ruling at the end that matters and the case plays says an act common to the game ends going to the ground. That means any act.

blindzebra · Feb 14, 2018

OmerV said:
This is your most humorous post yet. You are now, on the one hand, arguing that your opinion is supported by the way officials read and interpret rules, and on the other hand saying the officials in the game got it wrong in how they read and interpreted the rules.

No the official in the game got it correct, the idiot in NY overturned it. FYI, that comment was directed at you and your buddies that have misinterpreted every rule they post or read.

blindzebra · Feb 14, 2018

KJJ said:

That tissue box does bring more to the table than anything you write.

G2 · Feb 14, 2018

kskboys said:
I'm well aware of the fact that we all repeat ourselves. But, Geeeezzzzzzz

You can say that again :muttley:

G2 · Feb 14, 2018

blindzebra said:
That tissue box does bring more to the table than anything you write.

Really? You seem like you're getting a little emotional over all of this discussion.

OmerV · Feb 14, 2018

blindzebra said:
No the official in the game got it correct, the idiot in NY overturned it. FYI, that comment was directed at you and your buddies that have misinterpreted every rule they post or read.

Oh, so your argument about how "officials" read an interpret rules isn't actually based on how "officals" read and interpret rules, but rather is based on how a single official that you happened to agree with made a ruling prior to seeing the replay.

KJJ · Feb 14, 2018

blindzebra said:
That tissue box does bring more to the table than anything you write.

ABQCOWBOY · Feb 14, 2018

So, I see this thread has come right along since yesterday. Tissue Boxes, OK then......

G2 · Feb 14, 2018

ABQCOWBOY said:
So, I see this thread has come right along since yesterday. Tissue Boxes, OK then......

To be fair, there is a flu going around. Cottonwood allergies?

blindzebra · Feb 14, 2018

OmerV said:
Oh, so your argument about how "officials" read an interpret rules isn't actually based on how "officals" read and interpret rules, but rather is based on how a single official that you happened to agree with made a ruling prior to seeing the replay.

Spin away. Your posts would male a great example for football moves with all the dodging, spinning, and avoiding going on.

MarcusRock · Feb 14, 2018

Maybe you didn't see this on the last page. You being blind and all.

blindzebra said:
Case plays give one of many possible plays that can happen. They are not all inclusive, they are just examples which is why you have to combine the rule language and the case play to understand all possible applications.

The case plays in question cover acts common to the game and going to the ground, which means the examples under 8.1.3.c and 3.2.7 ALL APPLY TO THE CASE PLAY.
It is not just the gather and lunge nonsense that Blandino pulled out of his butt, that you guys fixate on, it is all football moves.

Do any other football moves interrupt a player going to the ground? This is the question BF asks that you can't overcome.

This is why the Jesse James catch is not a catch. He was going to the ground and a reach out of the ball, way more demonstrative than Dez', mind you, didn't save him. It was a football move, right? Right?

KJJ · Feb 14, 2018

Streetwise said:
To be fair, there is a flu going around. Cottonwood allergies?

Too bad they don’t have a shot for the whine flu that keeps showing up here every offseason.

blindzebra · Feb 14, 2018

MarcusRock said:
Maybe you didn't see this on the last page. You being blind and all.

Do any other football moves interrupt a player going to the ground? This is the question BF asks that you can't overcome.

This is why the Jesse James catch is not a catch. He was going to the ground and a reach out of the ball, way more demonstrative than Dez', mind you, didn't save him. It was a football move, right? Right?

We are discussing a 2014 play when upright long enough was not invented yet, can't overcome that is funny.

blindzebra · Feb 14, 2018

KJJ said:
Too bad they don’t have a shot for the whine flu that keeps showing up here every offseason.

Yet here you are whining....hmmmm

G2 · Feb 14, 2018

KJJ said:
Too bad they don’t have a shot for the whine flu that keeps showing up here every offseason.

It was like that on the old forum I was on. Well, not this unreasonable, but you have to consider a gentleman with a screen name of "blindzebra" maybe doesn't side with refs.

DallasEast · Feb 14, 2018

It is a shame the interpretation of catching a football has mutated so badly over the past 20 or so years. The NFL would do itself a favor by erasing the ~~fat~~ added to the rulebook over the years determining what is and what is not a catch and scale it back to when everyone (literally) knew what a catch was. It has grown to the point that the act of receiving has become an atypical football concept, lol.

KJJ · Feb 14, 2018

Streetwise said:
It was like that on the old forum I was on. Well, not this unreasonable, but you have to consider a gentleman with a screen name of "blindzebra" maybe doesn't side with refs.

He claims to have been a ref. You would think someone who’s been a ref wouldn’t be so thin skinned.

DallasEast · Feb 14, 2018

Participation in threads is always voluntary. Nothing mandatory about any of it. There is no mental court order binding anyone to continually disagree with another member, especially if the member doing the disagreeing expresses exasperation about incessantly disagreeing with other members discussing any given topic. There are always other topics to talk about in other threads, lol.

blindzebra · Feb 14, 2018

Streetwise said:
It was like that on the old forum I was on. Well, not this unreasonable, but you have to consider a gentleman with a screen name of "blindzebra" maybe doesn't side with refs.

It is a joke, as any long-time poster knows, and was even brought up in this thread. I officiated for 25 years. It plays on all the ref jokes from fans.

blindzebra · Feb 14, 2018

KJJ said:
He claims to have been a ref. You would think someone who’s been a ref wouldn’t be so thin skinned.

That is funny coming from the king of reporting posts, screaming they are picking on me.

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Taco Engineer

Taco Engineer

Well-Known Member

You Have an Axe to Grind

Regular Joe....

Taco Engineer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

You Have an Axe to Grind

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Taco Engineer

Cowboys 24/7/365

You Have an Axe to Grind

Cowboys 24/7/365

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

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