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

[KJJ]

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

With those here who claim the NFL is fixed especially against the Cowboys can’t understand why they continue to watch the game. There was one fan spinning a few weeks ago that everything has been predetermined by the league to favor certain teams. Absolutely laughable!

 

[OmerV]

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.

You did write "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."

In any case, it actually is important to note, as he did, that any time there is judgment involved there will be some level of inconsistency, and anytime there are fans involved, the way they view a call that involves judgment will be colored by whether their team benefitted or was hurt by the call. I don't think he was saying that to suggest the rule is fine as written, or that refs don't make mistakes, but maybe it was to put things in perspective a little by recognizing that that the passion of fans who feel their team has been harmed isn't automatically the best way to judge. As has been pointed out, had the situation been reversed, and it was Green Bay that had an incompletion ruled in a tight game, I don't think there is any doubt that a heck of a lot of Cowboy fans would be saying the officials made the correct call under the rules.

 

[KJJ]

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.

Have you even read what I’m saying? No one likes the rule including the commissioner and eventually it will be changed. I never said it was just Cowboy fans who didn’t like the rule but this fan base has been affected by the rule the most which is why this whine fest is into its third offseason. What’s happening here right now you won’t find on any other fan board. This is still going after 92 pages despite all the many debates we’ve had on it. This thread was started the night of the Super Bowl. lol

 

[MarcusRock]

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?

If you can complete a catch via being judged to be "clearly a runner" in part c via both an observable act and time (which your slanted stance says can't happen with 2015 rules), then what difference does it make that "upright long enough" is in the Item 1, going to the ground rule in 2015? If you're going to quote percy's slanted CONSPIRACY! accusation, at least get it right. This is why you are a wingman.

I've always said that Dez intended to lunge. I've always known the intent. He just didn't execute. THAT is what was required.

 

[OmerV]

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

Here you go again mixing and matching and creating a hybrid from the rule book and the case book based on cherry picking individual segments of the wording as it suits you. Even so, it always cracks me up when you start trying to defend yourself with that particular segment of Item one, because Item 1 actually indicates the correct call would be an incompletion.

What you fail to get is that the "with or without contact" language refers to the idea of the player going to the ground regardless of contact, which is the same thing being illustrated in the case play - that the requirement to maintain possession all the way through applies when a player is going to the ground all the way, as opposed to going to the ground only because of contact.

 

[blindzebra]

If you can complete a catch via being judged to be "clearly a runner" in part c via both an observable act and time (which your slanted stance says can't happen with 2015 rules), then what difference does it make that "upright long enough" is in the Item 1, going to the ground rule in 2015? If you're going to quote percy's slanted CONSPIRACY! accusation, at least get it right. This is why you are a wingman.

I've always said that Dez intended to lunge. I've always known the intent. He just didn't execute. THAT is what was required.

Lying again I see.

Your exact words were, "Yes Dez lunged and reached, but you could only see it in slow motion." Your words not mine." Not one person has said that part c said act and time, another lie.

In 2014 a receiver could become a runner at any point from standing to hitting the ground by having the time to or performing an act common to the game. The three case plays confirm this. The new language in 2015 says part c must happen before a player begins the process of going to the ground. Just as we have said all along.

You are attempting to make it an insult by calling me a wingman to Percy? I'd consider that a compliment, and so would every non-idiot on this forum.

 

[Kevinicus]

This works as long as you cherry pick what parts of the case play to pay attention to and what to ignore.

You are cherry picking. Using your logic, the case plays only apply to the specific downs and distances mentioned.

 

[blindzebra]

Here you go again mixing and matching and creating a hybrid from the rule book and the case book based on cherry picking individual segments of the wording as it suits you. Even so, it always cracks me up when you start trying to defend yourself with that particular segment of Item one, because Item 1 actually indicates the correct call would be an incompletion.

What you fail to get is that the "with or without contact" language refers to the idea of the player going to the ground regardless of contact, which is the same thing being illustrated in the case play - that the requirement to maintain possession all the way through applies when a player is going to the ground all the way, as opposed to going to the ground only because of contact.

You do realize that the reason case books and rule books both exist is because you need to draw from both to properly apply the rules right?

I just showed you what to look for in a case play if a specific element mattered in the outcome. If contact played a role the case play would have said, A1 landed on one foot and a) was contacted by B1 causing him to go to the ground, or b) there was no contact forcing him to the ground.

Get it now or do I need to draw you a picture too?

 

[BlindFaith]

If I’m not mistaken you’ve said before the wording of the caseplay was not correct or the caseplay itself wasn’t correct. That is, it contradicted(not contraction which I blame my iPhone for) the Dez call not standing as a catch.

The caseplay and the Dez play were nearly identical.

The wording is the problem. Or lack there of. It wasn't until I really started comparing the case plays did I figure out the intent. I did originally think that they were in conflict. It doesn't help matters that the rules and case plays are scattered about.

But the case play and the Dez play are not the same. Similar, but different in the main aspect of the case play. He never interrupted or gathered himself while falling. There was a continuing motion of falling. No time did he ever regain his balance.

 

[blindzebra]

You are cherry picking. Using your logic, the case plays only apply to the specific downs and distances mentioned.

I know right? It is all troll behavior at this point.

Make a hit on their argument and OmerV yells cherry pick, Marcus yells conspiracy, KJJ says stupid whining fans. Not one of them can make a factual argument to support their claims.

 

[blindzebra]

The wording is the problem. Or lack there of. It wasn't until I really started comparing the case plays did I figure out the intent. I did originally think that they were in conflict. It doesn't help matters that the rules and case plays are scattered about.

But the case play and the Sea play are not the same. Similar, but different in the main aspect of the case play. He never interrupted or gathered himself while falling. There was a continuing motion of falling. No time did he ever regain his balance.

See the a) and b) in case play discussion above. It will solve your confusion. If they intended an either, or scenario it would have an two part ruling.

 

[OmerV]

You do realize that the reason case books and rule books both exist is because you need to draw from both to properly apply the rules right?

I just showed you what to look for in a case play if a specific element mattered in the outcome. If contact played a role the case play would have said, A1 landed on one foot and a) was contacted by B1 causing him to go to the ground, or b) there was no contact forcing him to the ground.

Get it now or do I need to draw you a picture too?

lol - that's funny considering what you are drawing from both is limited only to the parts that suit you. Besides, as I've said before, the reason the casebook exists is to explain the rule book by setting out specific examples and specific circumstances and explaining how the rules apply to those specific examples and circumstances. It is not intended to be a vague or broad coupling to go along with vague and broad rules that anyone can interpret however they like.

 

[blindzebra]

lol - that's funny considering what you are drawing from both is limited only to the parts that suit you. Besides, as I've said before, the reason the casebook exists is to explain the rule book by setting out specific examples and specific circumstances and explaining how the rules apply to those specific examples and circumstances. It is not intended to be a vague or broad coupling to go along with vague and broad rules that anyone can interpret however they like.

You did not know a case book existed before Percy and I pointed it out to you, so don't even pretend you have a clue about how they work, because you don't.

FYI, if I was just using what suits me, why would I supply every rule and every case play on the subject?

 

[OmerV]

You did not know a case book existed before Percy and I pointed it out to you, so don't even pretend you have a clue about how they work, because you don't.

FYI, if I was just using what suits me, why would I supply every rule and every case play on the subject?

lol - that's not true at all, I just didn't know there was a 2014 version. Hell, Percy didn't either - when I couldn't find it he said we were still actually going under the 2012 version because the rule didn't change between 2012 and 2014. As for your claim I don't know how casebooks work and you do, what you you're saying is pretty much the equivalent of a child saying "because I said so!".

You aren't using logic, and you can't explain what the point would be of the casebook going into specific details in it's examples of those details have no bearing on the ruling. Saying the case involves a player having one foot down and then goes to the ground as a result of an opponent hitting him is pretty damn specific for it to be put into the example for no reason at all. What would be the point of adding in that kind of detail if it had no bearing on the case play and the ruling?

The casebook is actually very clear as to what it does. It gives specific examples and gives the ruling for those specific examples to help understand the rule, which is less specific. It is pretty ridiculous to claim that they bother to go into the specifics of how the play takes place for no reason, and intend the ruling to apply to a different set of circumstances that is open to interpretation.

 

[blindzebra]

lol - that's not true at all, I just didn't know there was a 2014 version. Hell, Percy didn't either - when I couldn't find it he said we were still actually going under the 2012 version because the rule didn't change between 2012 and 2014. As for your claim I don't know how casebooks work and you do, what you you're saying is pretty much the equivalent of a child saying "because I said so!". You don't use logic, you simply make up whatever you want as you go.

The casebook is actually very clear as to what it does. It gives specific examples and gives the ruling for those specific examples to help understand the rule, which is less specific. It is pretty ridiculous to claim that go into specifics of how the play takes place for no reason, and intend the ruling to apply to something else.

What is ridiculous is to circle back to the same lame excuse to not address the facts presented.

Simple question.
Is there a case play for every possible scenario for every rule in the rule book?

 

[OmerV]

What is ridiculous is to circle back to the same lame excuse to not address the facts presented.

Simple question.
Is there a case play for every possible scenario for every rule in the rule book?

lol - no, so what? That doesn't mean that an individual case play isn't written for an individual situation, or that one case play is intended to be interpreted to cover situations other than the actual situation set out in the case play.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

With those here who claim the NFL is fixed especially against the Cowboys can’t understand why they continue to watch the game. There was one fan spinning a few weeks ago that everything has been predetermined by the league to favor certain teams. Absolutely laughable!

Oh I don't think there is any question that there is some help lent to some teams. There is ample proof of it, IMO. The situation, over the years with the Pats, when they were winning championships, as example. The League could have taken a very, very different approach to that. Liberal blocking calls and allowable technique when Denver was very good, I think that does happen so I am the wrong guy to discuss that with. I believe it does happen, to an extent.

 

[MarcusRock]

Lying again I see.

Your exact words were, "Yes Dez lunged and reached, but you could only see it in slow motion." Your words not mine." Not one person has said that part c said act and time, another lie.

In 2014 a receiver could become a runner at any point from standing to hitting the ground by having the time to or performing an act common to the game. The three case plays confirm this. The new language in 2015 says part c must happen before a player begins the process of going to the ground. Just as we have said all along.

You are attempting to make it an insult by calling me a wingman to Percy? I'd consider that a compliment, and so would every non-idiot on this forum.

If those were my "exact words" then quote the post.

If you are using the case plays to support that a receiver could become a runner at any point from standing to hitting the ground, then why is A.R. 8.12 in the 2014 rules AND the 2015 rules if you couldn't do so in 2015?

And from my point of view, wingman just means lightweight.

 

[OmerV]

You are cherry picking. Using your logic, the case plays only apply to the specific downs and distances mentioned.

Please pay attention. The reason it sets out the down, ball position and distance before the play is to be able to illustrate what the new down, ball position and distance will be as a result of the ruling on the play. It's a point of reference to show the before and after.

 

[blindzebra]

If those were my "exact words" then quote the post.

If you are using the case plays to support that a receiver could become a runner at any point from standing to hitting the ground, then why is A.R. 8.12 in the 2014 rules AND the 2015 rules if you couldn't do so in 2015?

And from my point of view, wingman just means lightweight.

↑post 1686
Clearly a lunge.

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

Sure, when you slow it down. At real speed, is it as "clear" or a straight line to the ground? Sure seems to be you saying it was a lunge, huh?

The lightweight that has bested you at every turn, so what does that make you?