McCarthy Says Dez Didn’t Catch It?

[khiladi]

I'm not disputing anything about a lunge. You brought it up and I'm telling you why you're wrong. But I'm using the rules, not some "feeling" which is what you're using. So now you want to exit the discussion by not answering my question so you don't have to admit that Dez' attempt looks nothing like a proper lunge, which confirms what Pereira said the day of the game, lol. Nice try, buddy.

Still trying to see how you're creating the idea that Pereira flip-flopped. He quoted the rule the day of the game and said they weren't going to consider Dez as an upright runner who made a football move and then subsequently explains the rule that applies instead: going to the ground. You can't go there because Dez is dead when you look at that. So, after you denied subset rules which I then showed you existed, what are you left with? Deny, deny, deny, that's what.

Of course you are.

You originally said “going to the ground” prioritizes everything.

And of course Mike flip-flopped. It’s right there for anybody to see. His own words says he didn’t think Dez stretched enough. Then on 2017, he says the reach doesn’t matter, it’s about him going to the ground, like you are arguing here.

So he flip-flopped like you are doing, now trying to dispute that what Dez did qualified as a lunge after I said Dez qualifier as a runner at that point. But even then, Mike himself was speaking about the reach, not the extra lunge that Dez did.

It’s a football move period.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Yeah, move on from it. Don't be a Vikings fan. It was a stupid rule back then.

 

[Doomsday101]

I felt that was one of the lighter moments in the press conference but in the end I am well past "was it a catch or not" I don't care anymore. It is over and done and has been for a good while now. My only real interest is this team here and now and what McCarthy can do to get this team playing to a championship level.

 

[blueblood70]

It was a question that needed to be asked.

McCarthy said:

"It was a great catch, I can say now. It wasn't then - technically."

That's all we needed to know!

this is obviously bene talked about for 5plus years by rule it was NOT a catch at the time but we all know it was catch in anyone's eyes..

so no matter what hes says one way or another..it happened and its over..

 

[aikemirv]

At the time, it was not a catch.

Well, that would depend on what you call a football move. I still say that taking the ball from 2 hands to one and diving for the goal line with one hand and the ball would be a football move. I don't really see how anyone can argue that!

 

[DallasEast]

After umpteen threads have been posted on the topic over the years, some members read this particular thread title, know what this thread discussion will be before opening it, locate certain posts within it they know will already be posted and reply with a ‘Let It Go’ comment they have replied with umpteen times in the past.

Members, who repeatedly discuss whether Bryant caught the pass, are obviously not the only members who should be automatically told to ‘Let It Go’.

Queen Elisa is certainly a busy young woman.

 

[blueblood70]

After umpteen threads have been posted on the topic over the years, some members read this particular thread title, know what this thread discussion will be before opening it, locate certain posts within it they know will already be posted and reply with a ‘Let It Go’ comment they have replied with umpteen times in the past.

Members, who repeatedly discuss whether Bryant caught the pass, are obviously not the only members who should be automatically told to ‘Let It Go’.

Queen Elisa is certainly a busy young woman.

let it go

 

[MarcusRock]

Of course you are.

You originally said “going to the ground” prioritizes everything.

And of course Mike flip-flopped. It’s right there for anybody to see. His own words says he didn’t think Dez stretched enough. Then on 2017, he says the reach doesn’t matter, it’s about him going to the ground, like you are arguing here.

So he flip-flopped like you are doing, now trying to dispute that what Dez did qualified as a lunge after I said Dez qualifier as a runner at that point. But even then, Mike himself was speaking about the reach, not the extra lunge that Dez did.

It’s a football move period.

Going to the ground DOES overrule everything if it's labeled that, unless a receiver can show he's NOT going to the ground. The only way the rules show you can get out of the GTTG tag is with a lunge. Again, you don't know the rules, which I've already proven, and I haven't even broken out the Approved Rulings which show the lunge qualifies as satisfying the time element, which you're already on record as saying didn't exist until they "changed" the rule (they didn't). But you're dead set on CONSPIRACY! so it won't matter.

The first person to mention a "dive" was YOU (because you want to get away from the rule mechanics and their requirements). So I merely showed you what a proper lunge looks like. You still haven't answered my question about how Dez' lunge compares to my posted example. Why is that?

So what Pereira was saying is that Dez' attempt won't be considered a football move that would have the UPRIGHT catch rules apply (as found in the ARs - but what do you know about those?). Therefore, GTTG applied instead. And what are those rules' requirements? Again you won't answer that and scream CONSPIRACY! to avoid having to.

How else may I carve up your argument today?

 

[OmerV]

Of course you are.

You originally said “going to the ground” prioritizes everything.

And of course Mike flip-flopped. It’s right there for anybody to see. His own words says he didn’t think Dez stretched enough. Then on 2017, he says the reach doesn’t matter, it’s about him going to the ground, like you are arguing here.

So he flip-flopped like you are doing, now trying to dispute that what Dez did qualified as a lunge after I said Dez qualifier as a runner at that point. But even then, Mike himself was speaking about the reach, not the extra lunge that Dez did.

It’s a football move period.

A player can lunge while going to the ground. If that's the case, the lunge does not change the fact the player was going to the ground, and if going to the ground, possession has to be maintained all the way through.

I hated it, but I feel like under the rules as they were at that time, the refs made the right call.

 

[gimmesix]

Of course you are.

You originally said “going to the ground” prioritizes everything.

And of course Mike flip-flopped. It’s right there for anybody to see. His own words says he didn’t think Dez stretched enough. Then on 2017, he says the reach doesn’t matter, it’s about him going to the ground, like you are arguing here.

So he flip-flopped like you are doing, now trying to dispute that what Dez did qualified as a lunge after I said Dez qualifier as a runner at that point. But even then, Mike himself was speaking about the reach, not the extra lunge that Dez did.

It’s a football move period.

This is MarcusRock's thing so there's really no use arguing with him.

I think the play could have gone either way. Like you I see a football move being made because Dez shifted hands with the ball and reached out after taking three steps.

My biggest issue is because it was a close call, the officials should not have oveturned it on replay. If it had been ruled incomplete on the field and challenged, it should have not been overturned either. If the standard for overturning a play is indisputable visual evidence, I don't think you have that either way.

That's all I'm going to say on this, though. It's not worth revisiting old arguments.

 

[DogFace]

By the rules at the time of the catch—

1. Control
2. Two feet inbounds
3. Time to make a football move

They were all met.

 

[DogFace]

A player can lunge while going to the ground. If that's the case, the lunge does not change the fact the player was going to the ground, and if going to the ground, possession has to be maintained all the way through.

I hated it, but I feel like under the rules as they were at that time, the refs made the right call.

Go back to the archive and look at Blandino’s example before the Dez catch. It showed, and he explained very clearly, the Dez catch should’ve stood.

He went to the ground as a runner. All three parts of the catch process were already met.

Dean Blandino:
“This is something we’ve worked really hard at to educate people, in terms of the catch process.”

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
“Let’s look at the play from week one, the Minn. Det. Game where Calvin is GOING TO THE GROUND in the PROCESS of MAKING THE CATCH.
The process of the catch is a 3 part process-control, 2 feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 parts, in that order, you HAVE a catch. If not AND you’re GOING TO THE GROUND you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH (R-E-A-C-H) for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.”

 

[Kevinicus]

Nope.. We still would have taken time off the clock and force GB to burn time outs. Plus AR that last drive to seal the deal actually got lucky on one catch that was I believed tipped and ended up in the hands of the WR. He didn’t look good at all that drive..

If Scandrick isn't running around with with no awareness, that could have been a pick 6.

 

[BoysForLife]

I mean it goes without saying. Randall Cobb basically said the same thing. Everyone knew they caught a break there. That should've been catch.

Even the guy covering him Sam Shields said a day or two after the game he thought it should’ve been a catch

Either way I don’t think it would’ve mattered. People forget that Green Bay kneeled out the clock around our 25 yard line to close out that game. If they needed to score again chances are they would have

 

[DCreppinBoysfan]

How is the catch still something people even think about? Move on already.

Leave us alone, raiders fan still swear it was a fumble, not a forward pass

 

[OmerV]

Go back to the archive and look at Blandino’s example before the Dez catch. It showed, and he explained very clearly, the Dez catch should’ve stood.

He went to the ground as a runner. All three parts of the catch process were already met.

Dean Blandino:
“This is something we’ve worked really hard at to educate people, in terms of the catch process.”

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
“Let’s look at the play from week one, the Minn. Det. Game where Calvin is GOING TO THE GROUND in the PROCESS of MAKING THE CATCH.
The process of the catch is a 3 part process-control, 2 feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 parts, in that order, you HAVE a catch. If not AND you’re GOING TO THE GROUND you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH (R-E-A-C-H) for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.”

The NFL said otherwise. I understand the arguments about the steps and the reach, but my personal belief is all that was taking place while in the process of going to the ground, and that the reach and lunge were not football moves, but rather just trying to do whatever he could since he was going to the ground anyway.

I think a football move was intended to mean something that a player does while in control of where his body was going, and that Dez did not have that kind of control.

 

[MarcusRock]

This is MarcusRock's thing so there's really no use arguing with him.

I think the play could have gone either way. Like you I see a football move being made because Dez shifted hands with the ball and reached out after taking three steps.

My biggest issue is because it was a close call, the officials should not have oveturned it on replay. If it had been ruled incomplete on the field and challenged, it should have not been overturned either. If the standard for overturning a play is indisputable visual evidence, I don't think you have that either way.

That's all I'm going to say on this, though. It's not worth revisiting old arguments.

No, the RULES are my thing, which is what I break out as soon as people lazily scream CONSPIRACY! without providing anything to back it up. At the point you can't reference a rule to back up your contention, you're just operating on feelings which have no place when black and white rules exist prior to the event. This is why almost no one who believes that was a catch ever cites a rule. They use "gotcha" and "ah-ha" moments to character assassinate those who agreed with the call to distract from their inability to disprove what they say about it.

And by the way, steps didn't matter when GTTG applied then, just like other things people think is a football move from an UPRIGHT player didn't apply when GTTG was in effect. Now they do. There was no "close call" either. The review showed the ball clearly hit the ground and then loss of possession which automatically made it no catch in the absence of anything that showed Dez was upright. He wasn't. People can't have it both ways. Either you want the correct call to be made via replay or get rid of replay altogether. But replay is good when it helps us and evil when it hurts us. Human nature.

 

[MarcusRock]

The NFL said otherwise. I understand the arguments about the steps and the reach, but my personal belief is all that was taking place while in the process of going to the ground, and that the reach and lunge were not football moves, but rather just trying to do whatever he could since he was going to the ground anyway.

I think a football move was intended to mean something that a player does while in control of where his body was going, and that Dez did not have that kind of control.

Damn skippy. "In control" is a great qualifier.

Compare this:

To this:

Which lunge is more definitive and "in control?" I don't deny Dez' intention but he just didn't execute. That's as clear as day and "hope" can't change that.

 

[Typhus]

This thread is a direct microcosm of what is wrong with society these days.

 

[George]

It was a question that needed to be asked.

McCarthy said:

"It was a great catch, I can say now. It wasn't then - technically."

That's all we needed to know!

Think of it this way. If Dez was ruled a catch, we’d have 20 more years of Garrett. That ought to scare just about anyone.