LOL. I've dealt with many word salad defenders of the CONSPIRACY! angle on this one so this is nothing new. Again, I ask, if Pereira was wrong, who fact checked him? Other than Cowboys fans, why doesn't the grand expose exist? You have good reason to not want to accept the mechanics of the rule so of course you won't accept that the actual keepers of the rules also can't explain them. They don't even have to because of the way they're written. I get it though. Willfully obtuse is a strategy.
If you "have time" to perform a football move, attempt one and don't complete it, you didn't have time. Lol. That's all there is on the main rule.
On Item 1, more word salad but you again conveniently leave out: "must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground" which is the first sentence and backdrop of the entire rule. You leave this out AGAIN because it dispels your isolated "sequence" charade meant to take away context. That sentence refers to losing control of the ball at any point ("throughout") in the process of contacting the ground including Dez losing control of the ball from hitting the ground and then rolling over "before he regains control" per the rule. Incomplete. Why'd you leave out that first sentence? The lawyers on here like your style though, lol.
3rd time asking. Is Dez' attempt at a lunge and reach of the ball as demonstrative and complete as Anquan Boldin's here? Yes or no?
The NFL is effectively a monopoly. It is judge, jury, and executioner of its own rules. There is no independent arbitrator that can contest or override its rules. It can say whatever it wants post facto whenever there is room for doubt to justify a call it made, even if it is obviously horrible. Unfortunately for them (and you), language submits to a definable set of rules where words refer to concepts that have objective meaning. If they don't write the rules explicitly enough to cover their basis that is their problem. Anyone with an understanding of language can dispute the content from what is written. That is why good lawyers make so much money.
If you "have time" to perform a football move, attempt one and don't complete it, you didn't have time.
Derp. Talk about word salad. The rule explicitly states it is
not necessary that he must commit the act provided that he has control long enough to do it. That one can determine whether someone
can complete a move or not is not dependent upon them actually completing it. If they complete it, that would confirm it beyond a doubt and there would be nothing to dispute. Duh! There would be no point in specifying Note 1 then. The point is, it is sufficient that he has control and has enough time to execute it, which makes it a judgement call that is entirely contestable. And it is clear from the video that Dez had the control and the time to be able to commit such an act. He simply didn't execute it to the extent of standard
that you want him to have. You want it to be comparable to 49er players, even though the context of the play and his motion is completely different from Dez's. The video isn't even a replay to show a similar precedent, but to (possibly) verify that the receiver still had control of the ball when he crossed the plane of the goal line in order for it to be a TD. And I already answered your question why it is irrelevant a number of times which you keep ignoring.
On Item 1, more word salad but you again conveniently leave out: "must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground"
It has nothing to do with "word salad". That's why I asked at what point does the process of contacting the ground end? Why does the process of contacting the ground not end when his right elbow hits the ground, after his two feet hit the ground, the ball is moved from two hands to one, and he lunges with his left foot (as you can see the dirt pop up due to his cleat) to reach over the goal line with the ball secure in his forearm? At that point he would be down by contact which he was marked as. If he wasn't down it should've been called a TD. Yet, somehow you ignore this and want the rule to say that the process of contacting the ground didn't end there and only did so when his left arm hit it and the ball was jarred loose to be popped up into into his helmet and over his forearm. Why? Why doesn't it end when he slides into the end zone rolls forward and over and still
secures the ball before it has a chance to hit the ground for him to indisputably lose control? Because that is another point that defeats the words of the rule. "Throughout" signifies nothing that disputes this. A player can hit the ground on his back lose control of the ball by bobbling it while sliding on his back, with the ball never touching the ground and still regain control and it be complete.
All of this is relevant of course because you have to show that it is
indisputable from the rule itself that he did not catch the ball, and all I have to show is that there is ample evidence that the catch should stand.
The rule as worded is gone. Why? Because everyone knows it was catch. The commentators, the ref who called it a catch while watching it explicitly, the players on the field, the fans of both teams, etc. All that remains is the remnants to say "well, it was ruled right according to the rules" or that it is a stupid rule. Because admitting that it was a catch means they were wrong and they know it.
