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

[OmerV]

If it’s a clarification of the going to the ground rule and he goes to the ground and loses control, which he does in the caseplay, then why is it ruled complete?

I’m pretty sure this is a caseplay to be used as an example of completing the 3 step process on the way to the ground.

Blindzebra or Percy will know for sure. It’s clear neither of us do. @MarcusRock originally posted it. If he gets clearance from squadron leader(his words, sorry blindfaith) he can post what rule it was supposed to reinforce.

Because in the case play the player wasn't going to the ground regardless of contact. The point I was making is that the case play helps clarify Item 1 by showing there is a distinction between a player who is going to the ground regardless of whether there is contact (as in Item 1) and a player who only goes to the ground because of contact (and after one foot is down).

If you find a different case play that applies let me know and I'll be happy to consider it with an open mind.

 

[DallasEast]

Get rid of instant replay entirely. Live with the occasional bad call and benefit from the occasional break. The game isn’t played in slow motion viewed from 6 different angles. Over analyizIng replays is ruining the game more than just dealing with a bad call would do, IMO.

I partially agree. Over-analyzation bogs games down but I do not blame instant replay. Plays are continually replayed for spectators inside and around stadiums and for viewers sitting on their couch or at their sports bar. From start to finish, we, the fans, can watch replays (sometimes with multiple views) and make determinations within a minute--usually in less time than that.

In my opinion, instant replay evaluation should be taken completely out of the head referee and league officiating headquarters hands. One official per officiating crew should be upstairs, isolated and alone, with access to three camera angles (one angle per monitor) in a totally enclosed room. The video should be queued up for the replay official just as quickly as network studio trucks supply it for the broadcast team and viewers. The replay official should watch each angle ONE time--bam bam bam--make a decision and call it down to the head referee, who would announce whether the call on the field stands or should be overturned.

Get rid of that Microsoft Surface tablets for officials commercial gimmick. Stop waiting for the head referee to make his way to a certain location to watch replays that can already be evaluated in that time. And for the love of Pete, remove eyes in New York from the equation entirely. Put complete control over instant replay in each officiating crews' hands and simplify their evaluation process.

Of course, 'simple' is not in the league's vocabulary.

 

[MarcusRock]

Another thing these momentum to the ground people need to look at is what happens to Shields. As they jumped their bodies are parallel to the side line with Shield slightly in front. as they land Shields falls in a straight line while Dez goes from several feet outside the yard marks but lands inside the one yard line has mark. Both landed and turned, but only Dez moved closer to the side line. If he is falling based on just momentum why did his fall take a drastic turn?

Drastic? LOL.

If you look at the 7 changing stories catch theorists have told over the years you'll see the answer to your question in never-ending changing story number 2:

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?

 

[MarcusRock]

The football moved was removed from the rule book as the standard for becoming a runner and replaced by "upright long enough" in 2015.

No. Instead of "performing an act common to the game," part c of the 3-part process was re-worded as "clearly becoming a runner." Are there observable acts an official can see that someone has clearly become a runner?

4th time asking you, percy.

 

[TwentyOne]

Wut the...

I cant explain it much better. If you still have a hard time to understand it i wont be able to help you. Sorry

 

[DallasEast]

Less than 76 posts to reach 100 pages!!! Go team!!! err... Go CowboysZone!!!

 

[MarcusRock]

Get rid of instant replay entirely. Live with the occasional bad call and benefit from the occasional break. The game isn’t played in slow motion viewed from 6 different angles. Over analyizIng replays is ruining the game more than just dealing with a bad call would do, IMO.

But it wouldn't be an "occasional" bad call. Replay only gets this amount of publicity when it's controversial like with the convoluted catch rule. But how many of those "occasional" bad calls has replay gotten right instead of allowing a bad call to remain? Remember, there was demand FOR replay because of bad calls. They weren't occasional either from where I sit. So we'd be going back to that time.

In my opinion, instant replay evaluation should be taken completely out of the head referee and league officiating headquarters hands. One official per officiating crew should be upstairs, isolated and alone, with access to three camera angles (one angle per monitor) in a totally enclosed room. The video should be queued up for the replay official just as quickly as network studio trucks supply it for the broadcast team and viewers. The replay official should watch each angle ONE time--bam bam bam--make a decision and call it down to the head referee, who would announce whether the call on the field stands or should be overturned.

I agree and have always thought this. There's no way in Hades it should take 2 minutes (conveniently the length of a good commercial break to stuff more ad revenue in the pockets) to review a call. It is nothing for them to employ 16 guys to make quick replay calls from a booth and radio down.

 

[silvrNblue]

I'm pretty sure we all have heard the saying..."beating a dead horse"? As much as ALL of us who believe Dez, caught that pass, it really makes not one damn bit of difference now.
What we should be discussing, is how this team gets better, and reclaims their status after 20 plus years of mediocre BS....I'll be damned if I am going to congratulate the stinking Feagles on another SB win... lord forbid!

 

[G2]

I'm pretty sure we all have heard the saying..."beating a dead horse"? As much as ALL of us who believe Dez, caught that pass, it really makes not one damn bit of difference now.
What we should be discussing, is how this team gets better, and reclaims their status after 20 plus years of mediocre BS....I'll be damned if I am going to congratulate the stinking Feagles on another SB win... lord forbid!

Yeah but he didn't catch it.

 

[DallasEast]

I'm pretty sure we all have heard the saying..."beating a dead horse"? As much as ALL of us who believe Dez, caught that pass, it really makes not one damn bit of difference now.
What we should be discussing, is how this team gets better, and reclaims their status after 20 plus years of mediocre BS....I'll be damned if I am going to congratulate the stinking Feagles on another SB win... lord forbid!

It makes little difference either way. Saying the call was incorrect does not change what happened years ago. Repeatedly claiming the call was correct over the same time period does not alter opposing opinion.

Perhaps threads like these would quickly terminate if the latter would not engage the former so vehemently? Or at all for that matter. Frankly, this thread is an excellent example of TWO baseball bats beating this particular dead horse into paste. Thankfully, CowboysZone sells the resulting glue for the wholesale cost of $.75 a bottle.

 

[DogFace]

Because in the case play the player wasn't going to the ground regardless of contact. The point I was making is that the case play helps clarify Item 1 by showing there is a distinction between a player who is going to the ground regardless of whether there is contact (as in Item 1) and a player who only goes to the ground because of contact (and after one foot is down).

I know what you’re saying. It seems like you’re reading more into the caseplay than is there.

Like you said, we have different opinions on if he would’ve stayed up. I just can’t imagine they want an official to determine if he would've stayed up with no contact and the contact forced him to fall or he could’ve stayed up without the contact. In this caseplay that is.

Aren’t these actual plays that happened? I think they’re simply describing exactly what happened in the play and how the rule applies. ? They can’t possibly come up with a case for every screnerio.
This play is just describing the 3 part process. IMO.

Again, I feel this play is nearly identical to the Dez catch and I don’t think this was exclusively for ruling that the player was going down from contact and only contact. I feel it would stress that it’s not for when a player may be losing balance or any combination of the two if that’s what they meant.

 

[G2]

Question: What the hell else are we supposed to talk about? It's the off-season, it's typically how forums work. there are copious amounts of differing opinions and there IS a right and a wrong. I always found it interesting that some feel the need to illustrate the dead horse is being beaten and it's a lost cause but HAVE to post, lmao.

 

[G2]

I know what you’re saying. It seems like you’re reading more into the caseplay than is there.

Like you said, we have different opinions on if he would’ve stayed up. I just can’t imagine they want an official to determine if he would've stayed up with no contact and the contact forced him to fall or he could’ve stayed up without the contact. In this caseplay that is.

Aren’t these actual plays that happened? I think they’re simply describing exactly what happened in the play and how the rule applies. ? They can’t possibly come up with a case for every screnerio.
This play is just describing the 3 part process. IMO.

Again, I feel this play is nearly identical to the Dez catch and I don’t think this was exclusively for ruling that the player was going down from contact and only contact. I feel it would stress that it’s not for when a player may be losing balance or any combination of the two if that’s what they meant.

There was very little contact from what I can see, so it's reasonable to invite the idea that he was going to the ground given the speed of the route and him jumping so high. I mean, if he could have stayed up (which I SOOO wish he was able to do) he could have just run into the end zone. I dunno.

 

[OmerV]

I know what you’re saying. It seems like you’re reading more into the caseplay than is there.

Like you said, we have different opinions on if he would’ve stayed up. I just can’t imagine they want an official to determine if he would've stayed up with no contact and the contact forced him to fall or he could’ve stayed up without the contact. In this caseplay that is.

Aren’t these actual plays that happened? I think they’re simply describing exactly what happened in the play and how the rule applies. ? They can’t possibly come up with a case for every screnerio.
This play is just describing the 3 part process. IMO.

Again, I feel this play is nearly identical to the Dez catch and I don’t think this was exclusively for ruling that the player was going down from contact and only contact. I feel it would stress that it’s not for when a player may be losing balance or any combination of the two if that’s what they meant.

I understand why you say that, but the point of having a case play is to clarify something in the rule book, so without the case play specifically stating what portion of the rules it is directed at clarifying we have to look at what we think is logical and where it fits. In my mind the caseplay fits very nicely with Item 1 in the manner I have indicated. Ultimately I can't buy into the thoughts of some on here that even though the case play sets out the circumstance of a player coming down upright with one foot and then going to the ground specifically as a result of being hit by a defender, that was meant to be ignored and has no bearing on the rule or the case play. It makes no sense that they would add that kind of detail for no reason at all, and have the expectation that anyone reading that kind of detail in the case play would take it as unnecessary fluff and then ignore it as if it isn't there.

 

[Aviano90]

I partially agree. Over-analyzation bogs games down but I do not blame instant replay. Plays are continually replayed for spectators inside and around stadiums and for viewers sitting on their couch or at their sports bar. From start to finish, we, the fans, can watch replays (sometimes with multiple views) and make determinations within a minute--usually in less time than that.

In my opinion, instant replay evaluation should be taken completely out of the head referee and league officiating headquarters hands. One official per officiating crew should be upstairs, isolated and alone, with access to three camera angles (one angle per monitor) in a totally enclosed room. The video should be queued up for the replay official just as quickly as network studio trucks supply it for the broadcast team and viewers. The replay official should watch each angle ONE time--bam bam bam--make a decision and call it down to the head referee, who would announce whether the call on the field stands or should be overturned.

Get rid of that Microsoft Surface tablets for officials commercial gimmick. Stop waiting for the head referee to make his way to a certain location to watch replays that can already be evaluated in that time. And for the love of Pete, remove eyes in New York from the equation entirely. Put complete control over instant replay in each officiating crews' hands and simplify their evaluation process.

Of course, 'simple' is not in the league's vocabulary.

I could be in favor of this. Just quickly overturning blatantly wrong calls that are easily verifiable in a matter of seconds which couldn't cause any debate or controversy that the call should have been overturned. Sometimes these guys are trying to marry up different camera angles at the same time to see if a knee touched down 0.01 seconds before the ball popped out and they take 3 minutes to determine the replays were inconclusive. Then, regardless of the call, one fanbase is upset because they are convinced the call went against them and they have no doubt the replay official got it wrong.

 

[DallasEast]

I could be in favor of this. Just quickly overturning blatantly wrong calls that are easily verifiable in a matter of seconds which couldn't cause any debate or controversy that the call should have been overturned. Sometimes these guys are trying to marry up different camera angles at the same time to see if a knee touched down 0.01 seconds before the ball popped out and they take 3 minutes to determine the replays were inconclusive. Then, regardless of the call, one fanbase is upset because they are convinced the call went against them and they have no doubt the replay official got it wrong.

Definitely there are times when referees do not see exactly what fans see and each opinion differs. I love times when the ball is buried underneath a pile of bodies at the goal line and there are no definitive camera angles showing any part of the ball breaking the plane of the endzone. Fans say, "There is no way anyone can tell where to spot the ball." The referees follow up with either a touchdown signal or comfortably spot the ball at the two. There have been and will always be incredulous calls at times but that fact should not prevent the process from being expedited.

 

[aria]

Get rid of instant replay entirely. Live with the occasional bad call and benefit from the occasional break. The game isn’t played in slow motion viewed from 6 different angles. Over analyizIng replays is ruining the game more than just dealing with a bad call would do, IMO.

So you would rather have no replay and have several bad calls that could potentially have playoff/SB implications and effect players/coaches/GM’s jobs then have to watch an extra 20-30 minutes of tv?

I wonder how the Chargers fans feel about that after Hochuli cost them a playoff spot with a blown call. I don’t think it was reviewable (maybe it was, I’m sure the troll favt checker can chime in) which made it even worse. This website would blow up if that happened to the Cowboys.

 

[OmerV]

But it wouldn't be an "occasional" bad call. Replay only gets this amount of publicity when it's controversial like with the convoluted catch rule. But how many of those "occasional" bad calls has replay gotten right instead of allowing a bad call to remain? Remember, there was demand FOR replay because of bad calls. They weren't occasional either from where I sit. So we'd be going back to that time.
.

For many the rare mistake that is noticeable and visible becomes the norm in their minds, and the vast number of correct calls that actually is the norm goes unnoticed and is treated as insignificant.

 

[OmerV]

Another thing these momentum to the ground people need to look at is what happens to Shields. As they jumped their bodies are parallel to the side line with Shield slightly in front. as they land Shields falls in a straight line while Dez goes from several feet outside the yard marks but lands inside the one yard line has mark. Both landed and turned, but only Dez moved closer to the side line. If he is falling based on just momentum why did his fall take a drastic turn?

Drastic turn? I don't think drastic means what you think it means. Even so, people who stumble don't necessarily stumble in perfectly straight line. When a foot gives way a person tends to fall in the direction of that foot.

 

[KJJ]

Left foot hits ground at five yard line, right foot hits ground ahead of left foot at four yard line, left foot hits ground ahead of right foot at three yard line with divot to prove it. You want to try arguing that separate feet on the same person alternating in three foot intervals aren't steps again? Lmao

He took one stumbling step as he was falling. If some of you want to count steps or create steps go ahead but steps don’t matter when a receiver is going to the ground.