Yes, because it is unnecessary to interpret the words of the rule as written within the context of the play in question. It's irrelevant.
I didn't change the words of the rule you straw-man inducing obfuscator. I used the words of the rule to show how they did or didn't apply to the Dez catch/non-catch such that it was a catch. Learn the point of an argument.
And I never mentioned the word "conspiracy". The colloquial term "robbed" doesn't necessarily imply a conspiracy.
ORLY? Where does it say that in the rule? What does it mean by "entire aftermath"? Where does the act of catching the ball on the "process of contacting the ground" terminate?
"Followed the rule"? Who follows a rule? Everyone knows what the intent of the rule is: to determine what is a legitimate catch. The purpose of the item is to determine if the player has control without any type of move common to the game, like situations where a player is in the air and can't actually execute them as in a diving catch. In the process of the catch Calvin Johnson clearly pinned the ball against the ground with one hand and then lost it after doing so where the ball hit the ground again. Neither of those situations applies to Dez.
No. I said the only "disputable" part of the catch is the "part of the ball touching the ground" meaning that it is unclear that it even touched the ground because it also appeared to be secured in his forearm. And because it is disputable, then the criteria for overturn has not been met. It was only after that happened that it is indisputable that the ball was bobbled after the reach and his forward momentum caused him to roll over and lose the ball in the air which he subsequently secured before the ball touched the ground. The fact that the ball touches the ground does not make the pass incomplete as the item says. It is if the receiver does not maintain control through the process of the catch and the ball hits the ground that renders it incomplete: "If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete".
Yes, it is arguable that c) did happen and I gave the reasons for it. It's irrelevant if no one actually literally "switches" the ball from two hands to one like they do from one arm to the other. I never implied that he did and that is ignoring the point. The receiver has to have control of the ball to move the ball from two hands into the a single forearm to even make the attempt at a goal lunge which is what Dez was clearly doing. It doesn't matter whether the act doesn't match the extent of other goal line lunges because the rule says nothing about that. It says acts common to the game, and it is maintaining control long enough to enable him to do those things. It doesn't even say the receiver has to be in the act of doing them.
The former rules director of the NFL telling you how a rule works seeing as he had direct experience with it is irrelevant, huh? He address the very part of this argument you're disputing, that Item 1 takes precedence over the main catch rule when it's deemed to apply. Plus, he mentions Dez Bryant by name. Yup. I'd avoid that too, as I said.
"We wuz robbed," "interpretive dance around a rule" = CONSPIRACY! Own it.
Yes, Johnson clearly "pinned" the ball to the ground here and it hit the ground "again" as you said. Even YOU don't know what you're saying anymore.
The ball was both touching the ground and secured in Dez' forearm (clear as day in stills taken from video that was reviewed) until the force of the ground jarred the ball out of his grip until lost possession in rolling over into the endzone. That is his "process of contacting the ground" where the rule states the ball can't touch the ground and come out of his possession. It did both. Captured on video for review. Dead in the water. The rest of your explanation is you being intentionally obtuse which is especially interesting when you've argued about the overrule taking away from "the spirit of the rule." And you're doing what here? Lol.
Yes, Dez made a "attempt" at a goal line lunge. And didn't execute. That's the point of the overturn. If he executed the lunge then it would have proved "time enough". No one was holding him up preventing him from doing anything so if he had time enough, he would have executed. He didn't. The officials even said they looked for it and it wasn't there.
So again, to the question you avoid (besides the video you avoid). Are you saying Dez made the very same lunge and reach effort as the other player did that I posted? Yes or no?
