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.
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.
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.
Don't like every single sports league writing and interpreting their own rules they write for participating in the league then get your own league where no judgement calls exist ever. Otherwise, don't sign up for them and then whine about them. And again, don’t ignore the question that if the NFL interpreted their own rules wrongly, where is the expose showing they did? Where? Do you have anything in that regard besides this Word Salad, Esquire routine?
Every receiver has "time enough" in a slow motion replay. But if you're a player in real game speed who actually attempts something but doesn't complete it, you clearly didn't have time enough. Shifting hands is not a football move. Waving to your mama is not a football move. Lunging and reaching the ball out is and is in the rules noting a time element fulfilment in a going to the ground situation. Dez intended that but didn’t execute. Judgement call just like pass interference or holding. But if you want to claim inconsistency, show a “limited by the player’s velocity” reach, to use your own words, that was credited as a catch by a player. Even using the
excuse of velocity in not performing a full reach shows there was not “time enough.” Well it was judged exactly that way. The league’s standard, not mine. Can you show anything to the contrary besides legalese?
If you go to the ground and roll over at the end as you bobble a ball, that is your entire process of contacting the ground. You have to maintain control of the ball throughout and if not, the ball can’t touch the ground before regaining control. You can try to insert a failed lunge in here all you want (where Dez slips to kick dirt, not plants his foot to propel mind you) like all catch theorists but this is exactly what happened. The ground popped the ball out after hitting the ground (loss of control) before Dez repossessed it after rolling over. Dead in the water except to Word Salad, Esquire. Indisputable to boot. Ball on the ground, ball out of possession and then re-possessed.
And the rule is gone because it can’t contain the player athleticism out there. It’s also gone because average football fans just didn’t understand it. The other funny thing about the rule change is that it eliminated the requirement of maintaining possession of the football when going to the ground. When you remove this, then Dez’s play is a catch. Wouldn’t that mean that the going to the ground rule then took precedence over the main catch rule in that situation in 2014 like you claimed wasn’t true?
And you “misremembered” this I’m sure but Pereira said on game day during the broadcast that the call would be reversed even BEFORE it was announced as reversed. The official on the field was shielded from seeing the ball hit the ground. The reverse angle he couldn't see showed it clearly. That’s what replay is for and it worked. The only ones disagreeing are the ones who really, really, really wanted it to not be true and will go to great lengths to bend reality to get there, including the ol’ reliable, we-don’t-have-to-prove-anything CONSPIRACY! angle. Well done, Word Salad, Esquire. Well done. Except for me actually knowing the rules and all.
