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

[ABQCOWBOY]

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.

I did write that and I meant it, but that doesn't mean that you are going to have any success with that point of view. Happens to me all the time. I often think stuff that is not very popular on this board. It is what it is.

 

[Kevinicus]

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.

I know what it's for. You are the one struggling to understand the case plays and how they tie into the rules.

 

[blindzebra]

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.

So what the hell are officials supposed to do to apply the other rules correctly?

That case play covers act common to the game, remember the rule says:

pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc. That is five other things plus a big fat etc. Not to mention that the word lunge isn't even included, so it must be under that big fat etc. along with spin, hurdle, stiff arm, take additional steps...and whatever else that a football act might cover.

So how does an official apply those? They just don't matter? Then why are they there?

And if contact and lunge were more important than why didn't the case play have an a) b) ruling like the offensive penalty during an interception case play?

If the case play meant what you claim it would have said something like this:
A1 receives a pass from A2, has control and gets one foot down when a) he is contacted by B2 causing him to go to the ground or b) there is no contact and A1 goes to the ground. A1 then gets a second foot down and a) lunges or b) reaches for the endzone.
Rulings:
a) A lunge is not part of the process of a catch, TD
b) A reach is not considered an act common to the game, therefore A1 was still a receiver going to the ground, Incomplete pass.

That is how a case play would read if it meant as you claim.

It didn't so guess what?

 

[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."

↑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?

Exact words, huh? How many times do you need to be shown doing the very thing you accuse others of?

 

[MarcusRock]

And why aren't you answering my question?

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?

 

[blindzebra]

Exact words, huh? How many times do you need to be shown doing the very thing you accuse others of?

So the hell what? Did you say Dez lunged or not?

 

[MarcusRock]

So the hell what? Did you say Dez lunged or not?

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?

 

[blindzebra]

And why aren't you answering my question?

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?

Then if AR 8.12 was relevant to the upright long enough only why doesn't it say that, and if it was why isn't it still a case play in 2016 or 2017?

 

[blindzebra]

And why aren't you answering my question?

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?

Been answered.

 

[blindzebra]

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?

Been answered.

 

[MarcusRock]

Then if AR 8.12 was relevant to the upright long enough only why doesn't it say that, and if it was why isn't it still a case play in 2016 or 2017?

You're the one who complained about "upright long enough" saying it meant a receiver couldn't become a runner at any point before hitting the ground via an act or time, then mentioned the "case plays confirmed this" for the 2014 rules. You and percy said that ability was taken away in 2015 yet one of your "confirmation" case plays is also in the 2015 rules. Who cares about 2016 or 2017? You two were talking about 2015.

 

[blindzebra]

You're the one who complained about "upright long enough" saying it meant a receiver couldn't become a runner at any point before hitting the ground via an act or time, then mentioned the "case plays confirmed this" for the 2014 rules. You and percy said that ability was taken away in 2015 yet one of your "confirmation" case plays is also in the 2015 rules. Who cares about 2016 or 2017? You two were talking about 2015.

Not my fault you are not smart enough to figure it out.

 

[MarcusRock]

Not my fault you are not smart enough to figure it out.

Thanks for confirming lightweight status.

 

[blindzebra]

Thanks for confirming lightweight status.

Yawn.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

Police take statements from witnesses at crime sceaboutand if the witness changes his story, they know he's not a credible witness. That video is from Total Access, the day after the game. As the host told him, "You've been looking at this all day long, so you've got your explanation down pat." Wink, wink.

Before Blandino had had a full day to prepare an explanation, when he was first interviewed by Eisen on Game Day Final, he was specifically asked about the football move. He didn't say one word about the lunge.

"In order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line. This is all part of in our view, all part of his momentum in going to the ground."

Who knows why he actually overturned the catch? An hour afterward, it was because the reach wasn't obvious enough. 24 hours later, it was because the lunge wasn't as good as a better lunge they'd found. In any case, he says all Dez did was fall. He has to say that, because if Dez did anything to advance the ball, by definition it's a football move and it completes the catch.

Here's Dez just falling on his ***.

Dez turning upfield, then taking another step, then tucking the ball in one hand, then lunging, then reaching for the goal line.

He even cuts with his right foot back towards the sideline. Had he just been falling, his momentum would have taken him about yard towards the middle of the field. Good job, certainly looks like a runner when you compare the two.

 

[KJJ]

He even cuts with his right foot back towards the sideline. Had he just been falling, his momentum would have taken him about yard towards the middle of the field. Good job, certainly looks like a runner when you compare the two.

He was going to the ground that’s not being a runner. Some of you can’t figure out what going to the ground is or being a runner is. A receiver can’t establish themselves as a runner while falling to the ground. By the time he secured the ball he took two stumbling steps and was falling.

 

[blindzebra]

He even cuts with his right foot back towards the sideline. Had he just been falling, his momentum would have taken him about yard towards the middle of the field. Good job, certainly looks like a runner when you compare the two.

Haven't you heard? The Blandino club is saying that he made a football move but not enough of a football move for it to be a football move and since you can really only see it in slow motion, it doesn't really exist. That case book plays speak in absolutes so only a lunge is an act common to the game, when it comes to going to the ground, even though a lunge does not appear in the rule book under the act common to the game rule.

 

[blindzebra]

He was going to the ground that’s not being a runner. Some of you can’t figure out what going to the ground is or being a runner is. A receiver can’t establish themselves as a runner while falling to the ground.

You do realize that that argument died pages ago, the new argument is only a gather and a lunge does the trick. You are too busy whining about whining that you must have missed the new stance you and the rest of the Blandino club has taken.

 

[KJJ]

You do realize that that argument died pages ago, the new argument is only a gather and a lunge does the trick. You are too busy whining about whining that you must have missed the new stance you and the rest of the Blandino club has taken.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

Haven't you heard? The Blandino club is saying that he made a football move but not enough of a football move for it to be a football move and since you can really only see it in slow motion, it doesn't really exist. That case book plays speak in absolutes so only a lunge is an act common to the game, when it comes to going to the ground, even though a lunge does not appear in the rule book under the act common to the game rule.

Wow. But it's ok to use slow motion to see if the ball touched the ground? A tad hypocritical, yes?