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

[OmerV]

And we have seen plenty of times where the call on the field is correct and the replay official got it wrong.

I don't disagree with that.

 

[blindzebra]

Does the 2015 rule have a part a, b, and c? That is where you determine if someone is "clearly a runner" either by act or time (the 2nd question percy avoided). The Blandino video clearly shows the difference between Dez' 2 attempts at a lunge. The one in GB fell flat, so to speak and is nowhere close to the one he executed against the Giants earlier that year, nor any other examples of a lunge presented in this thread or the other recent threads on this topic (that was the 1st question percy avoided and has left off trying to claim Dez' attempted lunge as a football move since then). Full speed video is nothing more than proving that Dez was going to the ground the whole way and nothing he did prevented him from doing that (the question from BlindFaith that YOU avoid).

The only avoiding going on is on your side.
The upright long enough is not under 8.1.3.a.b.c, further the only football acts listed were ward off or avoid a defender in 2015. You should really stop trying to throw rules at me because you flat out suck at doing so.

Did you or did you not say Dez lunged and reached in GB? Yes or no?

 

[DogFace]

You are right, he did, and I understand why he did, but the reason instant replay exists is because the original viewpoint and the original call isn't always right.

So you’re saying it was overturned because the ref didn’t see that he was going to the ground regardless if Shields made contact or not and the replay official knew that he would go down whether there was contact or not? Of course there was contact, but, in your opinion, the replay official determined he would go down no matter what and the contact that did happen didn’t matter?

 

[blindzebra]

Again, the case play and the Dez play are nearly identical IF a person believes Dez came down in control and then went to the ground because of contact from the opponent. If that's what you believe happened, then you can apply that case play. I don't believe that's how it happened. I believe he was going to the ground the whole way, so in my perception of the play the case play does not fit the bill. As I've said before, if it's just a matter of perception, that's cool. Reasonable people sometimes see things differently. But if it comes down to ignoring a portion of the circumstances specifically set out in the case play in order to force the scenario to fit, I can't go along with that.

Oh, brother coming down with control is the the football, not the body, geesh, just stop already. Dez reached, Dez lunged, those are acts common to the game. The case plays say that completing an act common to the game before hitting the ground makes you a runner, that is it, period, the only thing that these case plays say.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It gets worse because the replay officials are not consistent either. Way too many times that the official on the field got it right and it gets overturned or they get it wrong and it stands after review.

That is a huge problem for the league, IMO. This entire catch thing has introduced a layer of complexity that makes the officiating inconsistent, at best. The solution to that was, strangely enough, adding another layer of complexity to the problem. The media starts a holy war about how instant replay is the natural evolution. The league institutes instant replay but nobody counts on it being in NY and not resting with the officials on hand. That pisses the fans off even more. Then, you get even more inconsistency by the IR Crews and that is the worst, by far, IMO. You set this thing up as a fix all and then they get it wrong. Then you wonder why the fan base believes there is a conspiracy going on? I mean, honestly, think about this for a second. This is so unbelievably ******** that nobody can actually believe that all of these "really smart, really rich" people could possibly be this stupid and can you blame them? I mean, i have a really hard time believing it. Of course, the mind accepts conspiracy, much more easily then it does, warping itself around the utter ridiculousness of a solution like the one the NFL actually implemented. Even now, as I write this, I can not really believe how stupid this was.

 

[blindzebra]

So you’re saying it was overturned because the ref didn’t see that he was going to the ground regardless if Shields made contact or not and the replay official knew that he would go down whether there was contact or not? Of course there was contact, but, in your opinion, the replay official determined he would go down no matter what and the contact that did happen didn’t matter?

They are just misrepresenting the case play to fit their argument. We say this, and they come back with it says one foot and Dez landed on two. It is a moronic attempt to use the facts we presented against us to prove they are right.

 

[OmerV]

So you’re saying it was overturned because the ref didn’t see that he was going to the ground regardless if Shields made contact or not and the replay official knew that he would go down whether there was contact or not? Of course there was contact, but, in your opinion, the replay official determined he would go down no matter what and the contact that did happen didn’t matter?

What I'm saying is with the play being in full speed, and a spur of the moment decision having to be made, the call wasn't easy for the ref in that position, and he may have perceived it one way, which, upon review, he may have seen another way, and that with the benefit of being able to take the time to review the play the replay officials actually did see it differently. That's exactly the point of instant replay, to take a minute to review, slow things down, look at different angles, and then make a judgment with these benefits, which weren't available to the refs on the field.

 

[KJJ]

I do not believe that Officials have been all that consistent, especially on the largest stages. However, that's here nor there. The point of all of this is that fans do not like it. All the rest really doesn't matter. All those rich, smart people, you would think that it would be pretty easy to figure out. Go back to a rule that the players, coaches, officials and fans liked more.

When a receiver who’s ruled going to the ground loses the ball when they contact the ground the officials have been consistent waving those catches off. It comes down understanding what going to the ground means. It’s impossible to get 100% consistency with any call because there’s going to be some judgment involved. Not everyone sees things exactly the same way and judgment is going to play a part. Unless a call is absolutely point blank obvious not everyone’s going to agree with it.

Everyone has an opinion and if a call goes against your team you’re not going to like the call. There was controversy in the other rule which led to this rule. Receivers would lose the ball as they were going to the ground and some of those were ruled fumbles. This is why they make the receiver hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. I prefer the old rule it was less controversial. With the amount of camera angles we have today it’s much easier to tell when a receiver has full control of the ball.

 

[OmerV]

Oh, brother coming down with control is the the football, not the body, geesh, just stop already. Dez reached, Dez lunged, those are acts common to the game. The case plays say that completing an act common to the game before hitting the ground makes you a runner, that is it, period, the only thing that these case plays say.

If that were the case then why would it matter that the contact is what caused him to go to the ground? You aren't using common sense. That element of the case play wasn't included for the purpose of being ignored or just because they felt they needed to use extra words that had no relevance to the play they were discussing. That seems to be your argument - that the specifics of the case play are supposed to be ignored, and that in setting up the case play they inexplicably threw in circumstances that don't apply, and that they didn't intend to apply.

 

[OmerV]

When a receiver who’s ruled going to the ground loses the ball when they contact the ground the officials have been consistent waving those catches off. It comes down understanding what going to the ground means. It’s impossible to get 100% consistency with any call because there’s going to be some judgment involved. Not everyone sees things exactly the same way and judgment is going to play a part. Unless a call is absolutely point blank obvious not everyone’s going to agree with it.

Everyone has an opinion and if a call goes against your team you’re not going to like the call. There was controversy in the other rule which led to this rule. Receivers would lose the ball as they were going to the ground and some of those were ruled fumbles. This is why they make the receiver hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. I prefer the old rule it was less controversial. With the amount of camera angles we have today it’s much easier to tell when a receiver has full control of the ball.

Very good post

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

When a receiver who’s ruled going to the ground loses the ball when they contact the ground the officials have been consistent waving those catches off. It comes down understanding what going to the ground means. It’s impossible to get 100% consistency with any call because there’s going to be some judgment involved. Not everyone sees things exactly the same way and judgment is going to play a part. Unless a call is absolutely point blank obvious not everyone’s going to agree with it.

Everyone has an opinion and if a call goes against your team you’re not going to like the call. There was controversy in the other rule which led to this rule. Receivers would lose the ball as they were going to the ground and some of those were ruled fumbles. This is why they make the receiver hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. I prefer the old rule it was less controversial. With the amount of camera angles we have today it’s much easier to tell when a receiver has full control of the ball.

I ask again, how does any of this matter? We have clearly seen times when the Officials didn't get it right. Even by the standards of their own rules. None of that really matters. The fans don't like it.

Here is the thing, and for a long time, this went on with the NFL. If you have one or two teams that are complaining, then it's easy for the NFL to spin it, in such a way as to make it look like another, "Here we go, the Cowboys are complaining about another call" kinda thing. That actually plays well with the rest of the league and then it's a win and a very manageable situation for the NFL. However, when you have fan bases across the league, complaining, then its not so easy to spin. Then you have a real problem. That's what you see going on now.

You can try and discuss the rules and how well the league has called the games all day long, for as long as it lasts. The problem there, and believe me it is a problem, is that it's not going to last. You better fix the game because if it continues down this path, you are going to see ratings that will continue to drop, fan bases going elsewhere, revenues dropping and eventually, nothing to discuss much. Nobody will care because nobody will be watching.

Thats the bottom line. Argue, discuss, post tissue boxes, do whatever but that's not going to change. They gotta fix it and the Commissioner knows it. That's why he has taken the position he has.

 

[OmerV]

I ask again, how does any of this matter? We have clearly seen times when the Officials didn't get it right. Even by the standards of their own rules. None of that really matters. The fans don't like it.

Here is the thing, and for a long time, this went on with the NFL. If you have one or two teams that are complaining, then it's easy for the NFL to spin it, in such a way as to make it look like another, "Here we go, the Cowboys are complaining about another call" kinda thing. That actually plays well with the rest of the league and then it's a win and a very manageable situation for the NFL. However, when you have fan bases across the league, complaining, then its not so easy to spin. Then you have a real problem. That's what you see going on now.

You can try and discuss the rules and how well the league has called the games all day long, for as long as it lasts. The problem there, and believe me it is a problem, is that it's not going to last. You better fix the game because it it continues down this path, you are going to see ratings that will continue to drop, fan bases going elsewhere, revenues dropping and eventually, nothing to discuss much. Nobody will care because nobody will be watching.

Thats the bottom line. Argue, discuss, post tissue boxes, do whatever but that's not going to change. They gotta fix it and the Commissioner knows it. That's why he has taken the position he has.

I don't think he was saying the rule shouldn't be fixed.

 

[KJJ]

I ask again, how does any of this matter? We have clearly seen times when the Officials didn't get it right. Even by the standards of their own rules. None of that really matters. The fans don't like it.

You may have clearly seen where the officials didn’t get it right on this call but that’s your opinion. Most of Cowboys Nation think the officials got the Dez call wrong because it went against the Cowboys. We wouldn’t be seeing any of this whining about the call if the exact same call was made against Green Bay. You wouldn’t see so many Cowboy fans confused about the rule if it happened Green Bay. I posted a video of Green Bay fans who seemed very clear on the rule that Dez didn’t complete the process. Not one of those fans said the Packers caught a break. We agree fans don’t like the rule and eventually it will be changed.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think he was saying the rule shouldn't be fixed.

I never said that he did or didn't say that. What I am saying is that the argument over how well officials are calling it is not important because the fans don't like it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You may have clearly seen where the officials didn’t get it right on this call but that’s your opinion. Most of Cowboys Nation think the officials got the Dez call wrong because it went against the Cowboys. We wouldn’t be seeing any of this whining about the call if the exact same call was made against Green Bay. You wouldn’t see so many Cowboy fans confused about the rule if it happened Green Bay. I posted a video of Green Bay fans who seemed very clear on the rule that Dez didn’t complete the process. Not one of those fans said the Packers caught a break. We agree fans don’t like the rule and eventually it will be changed.

It's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of many and the fact that the catch rule is widely unpopular is also the opinion of many. Argue it if you like but it doesn't change the reality. I advise you not to try and argue this point with me because I am always going to point you right back to the fact that the Fans are the ones who will ultimately win out.

JMO but I'm pretty sure it's right.

 

[KJJ]

If fans don’t like the rule or the way games are officiated or think there’s some conspiracy then don’t buy tickets to the games.

 

[KJJ]

It's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of many and the fact that the catch rule is widely unpopular is also the opinion of many. Argue it if you like but it doesn't change the reality. I advise you not to try and argue this point with me because I am always going to point you right back to the fact that the Fans are the ones who will ultimately win out.

JMO but I'm pretty sure it's right.

There’s many like me that don’t have that opinion. You can’t go by what the sentiment is here there’s a strong bias on this board because the rule caused an important play to be wiped out in a playoff game. I never said the fans won’t win out. I’ve been saying for three years that eventually the rule will be changed.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If fans don’t like the rule or the way games are officiated or think there’s some conspiracy then don’t buy tickets to the games.

LOL, you should go ahead and head right to the League Office with that plan. In fact, I encourage it!

 

[blindzebra]

If that were the case then why would it matter that the contact is what caused him to go to the ground? You aren't using common sense. That element of the case play wasn't included for the purpose of being ignored or just because they felt they needed to use extra words that had no relevance to the play they were discussing. That seems to be your argument - that the specifics of the case play are supposed to be ignored, and that in setting up the case play they inexplicably threw in circumstances that don't apply, and that they didn't intend to apply.

Item 1 specifically states with or without contact. The contact in the case play has no relevance to the outcome of the play. In case plays where different aspects matter they will use an a) or b) approach like this:


A.R. 4.71 OFFENSIVE FOUL PRIOR TO INTERCEPTION—LAST PLAY
Third-and-10 on 50. The score is tied with three seconds left in the first half. A1 drops back to pass, and as B1
rushes the passer, tackle A2 puts his hand on B1’s facemask and: a) continues to push B1’s head back without
grasping the mask; or b) grabs B1’s facemask and twists it. A1 then throws a pass which is intercepted by B2
and returned to the A16.
Rulings:
a) Half over. The illegal hands penalty by A2 is not carried over, so there is no opportunity for an extension. To
keep the ball, that penalty has to be declined.
b) B’s ball, first-and-goal on A8. Extend for an untimed down.

So no a and b about contact, or a and b about a different football act means those thing are not specifically important to the outcome of the case play.

I am sorry mods it took me 91 pages to point out this distinction, that kills the specific language issue in case plays...lol

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

There’s many like me that don’t have that opinion. You can’t go by what the sentiment is here there’s a strong bias on this board because the rule caused an important play to be wiped out in a playoff game. I never said the fans won’t win out. I’ve been saying for three years that eventually the rule will be changed.

The Commissioner said this himself. I mean, come on. Do you really believe that he is not seeing the entire fan base of the NFL? Do you really believe that the solve on this is to encourage the people who pay everyone's checks in the NFL to "don't buy tickets"? Do you really believe that it's just Cowboy Fans? If you do, that's cool but at that point, I'm good with just letting the chips fall where they may and everybody reading this thread can come to there own conclusions on all of this. I'm actually way good with it.