Tate's Catch v. Dez's Non-catch Catch

[blindzebra]

Yeah, me and the league are being schooled by a FAN who calls himself blindzebra.

Still waiting for that rule and case play there skippy. Without one you are what we all know that you are.

 

[SuspectCorner]

after the catch - the receiver crossed the goal line and got two feet down before the ball came out... and Tate never left his feet on the reception. i don't see how you can really compare this to dez's aerial acrobatics ending in a blandino-rule INC... and i vehemently dislike golden tate so consider myself a reasonable judge - as i would just love to rule against the tate catch.

it's a catch.

 

[KJJ]

We have a FAN who claims he was a referee for 20 years and thinks he knows more about NFL rules than the people who get paid to enforce them. I got news for you pale NFL rules are a lot different than the rules in flag football. LOL

 

[Kevinicus]

We have a FAN who claims he was a referee for 20 years and thinks he knows more about NFL rules than the people who get paid to enforce them. I got news for you pale NFL rules are a lot different than the rules in flag football. LOL

Explain the case. Every post you make until you do is pathetic.

 

[KJJ]

To explain further, Blandino was asked whether Dez's reach could have been considered a football move, and he responded that they "absolutely looked at that aspect of it."

You say that going to the ground trumps the football move. But we know that can't be true, otherwise there would have been no reason for Blandino to look for a football move.

We discussed that back in January. Blandino was asked in his first interview after the play if what Dez did could be considered a "football move" and said they looked at it but he steered away from it and said Dez "was going to the ground" and the ball came loose resulting in the call being reversed. He said when a receiver is "going to the ground" they must complete the process of hanging onto the ball through the contact of the ground regardless of anything else. Blandino maintained that through all the subsequent interviews he did that a receiver who's "going to the ground" must complete a process by hanging onto the ball through the contact of the ground.

Mike Pereira was asked about it and said a "football move" and elbow or knee on the ground is trumped if a receiver is "going to the ground" they MUST complete the process of hanging onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Bringing up a "football move" in all this is what upset FANS more than anything because Dez did every football move imaginable to make that catch except hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. I told you in January the league would do away with the term "football move" and a few months later they did. Had Blandino said from the outset a "football move" is trumped when a receiver is "going to the ground" I believe FANS would have accepted the ruling at least a "little" better.



“We really feel that the way the rule is written now, the way it’s being applied, allows us to be as consistent as possible,” Blandino said.

“The message to the coaches and players is if you’re falling to the ground to make the catch, then you have to maintain the control when you land. And if you reach or do anything with the football, that’s not going to trump that requirement to maintain control.”

Jones said he’s satisfied with what he heard from Blandino.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...yant-playoff-call--was-correct-160414819.html

 

[KJJ]

Explain the case. Every post you make until you do is pathetic.

It's been explained by Blandino and the league for months go argue with them they're the ones who created the rule. It's not the call that was bad it's the RULE that's bad. Every post you and others make who are disagreeing with the leagues ruling is pathetic when the call was confirmed by the NFL to be correct by RULE.

 

[blindzebra]

It's been explained by Blandino and the league for months go argue with them they're the ones who created the rule. It's not the call that was bad it's the RULE that's bad. Every post you and others make who are disagreeing with the leagues ruling is pathetic when the call was confirmed by the NFL to be correct by RULE.

Prove it or shut up, I did prove it was not correct by the NFL's casebook, so show it in the rule book and give a case play that says what you and, that blight on the NFL's integrity, Blandino claim.

 

[KJJ]

The proof is in the video and those who can't accept it need to shut up and let it go. You have FANS who can't even tell the difference between Dez's play and Tate's play. You have those who claim Dez wasn't going to the ground and those who claim Tate was going to the ground.

 

[Kevinicus]

Prove it or shut up, I did prove it was not correct by the NFL's casebook, so show it in the rule book and give a case play that says what you and, that blight on the NFL's integrity, Blandino claim.

He won't/can't. He's admitted defeat with his avoidance. Time to move on.

 

[KJJ]

He won't/can't. He's admitted defeat with his avoidance. Time to move on.

The ones who are defeated are the ones who are arguing with a call that was confirmed by the league to be the correct call. You and the others are fighting a losing battle. I haven't avoided anything on this topic been arguing it for 9 months and I'm not about to repeat what I've covered multiple times with the same stubborn FANS. You're not going to change anyone's mind here this is all just a waste of time. You and the other guy are just trying to turn this into an attack on me.

 

[blindzebra]

The ones who are defeated are the ones who are arguing with a call that was confirmed by the league to be the correct call. You and the others are fighting a losing battle. I haven't avoided anything on this topic been arguing it for 9 months and I'm not about to repeat what I've covered multiple times with the same stubborn FANS. You're not going to change anyone's mind here this is all just a waste of time. You and the other guy are just trying to turn this into an attack on me.

LOL, all you do is say it is right because the guy how made the improper ruling to cover his butt over the party bus fiasco says so. What a joke, you are like a freaking parrot squalk stupid fans, squalk NFL said so, squalk I am always right and have millions of followers.

 

[KJJ]

What a joke, you are like a freaking parrot squalk stupid fans, squalk NFL said so, squalk I am always right and have millions of followers.

It's spelled "squawk" and you're claiming I squawk like a parrot when you're repeating what you heard from someone else?

 

[Nightman]

after the catch - the receiver crossed the goal line and got two feet down before the ball came out... and Tate never left his feet on the reception. i don't see how you can really compare this to dez's aerial acrobatics ending in a blandino-rule INC... and i vehemently dislike golden tate so consider myself a reasonable judge - as i would just love to rule against the tate catch.

it's a catch.

He never had control of the ball. It was instantly stripped away.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

Come one man, until a few years ago a catch was two feet down PERIOD

 

[KJJ]

All these catch rules are complicated because there's a gray area and they confuse a lot of fans. There's a different process that each catch entails. Because Dez was going to the ground and Tate wasn't different rules apply. We've seen a few plays this season that are similar to the Dez play and they've all been ruled the same way no catch. The fans and players hate these catch rules because they're confusing and they rob a team of some great plays. The NFL will continue to tweak these rules that's really all they can do right now.

 

[percyhoward]

Mike Pereira was asked about it and said a "football move" and elbow or knee on the ground is trumped if a receiver is "going to the ground."

Nope. Pereira agreed with Blandino that a football move would have made it a catch, but that Dez didn't make a football move.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pereira-dez-bryant-reversal-2015-1
The issue comes with whether or not Bryant made "a football act" before losing control. If Bryant does make a football move, it is a catch. One example is stretching the ball towards the end zone, which it appears that Bryant did. However, according to Pereira, it was not enough of a stretch.

"If you're going to the ground, you have to prove that you have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game and do so," said Pereira. "And part of that is stretching all the way out and to me even though he moved the ball a little bit forward, they are not going to consider that a football act."

 

[KJJ]

Nope. Pereira agreed with Blandino that a football move would have made it a catch, but that Dez didn't make a football move.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pereira-dez-bryant-reversal-2015-1
The issue comes with whether or not Bryant made "a football act" before losing control. If Bryant does make a football move, it is a catch. One example is stretching the ball towards the end zone, which it appears that Bryant did. However, according to Pereira, it was not enough of a stretch.

"If you're going to the ground, you have to prove that you have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game and do so," said Pereira. "And part of that is stretching all the way out and to me even though he moved the ball a little bit forward, they are not going to consider that a football act."

Pereira's comments changed several weeks later when he discussed it on NFLN and said a "football move" an elbow and a knee touching the ground are trumped when a receiver is "going to the ground" which all led to the term "football move" being removed from the rulebook. Both Blandino and Pereira steered away from the term "football move" weeks after the play and focused on Dez "going to the ground" and the ball coming loose. What all of them are saying now is different than what they were saying immediately after the game. Once they had more time to analyze it and the term "football move" was removed from the rulebook they altered their comments.

 

[Kevinicus]

Pereira's comments changed several weeks later when he discussed it on NFLN and said a "football move" an elbow and a knee touching the ground are trumped when a receiver is "going to the ground" which all led to the term "football move" being removed from the rulebook. Both Blandino and Pereira steered away from the term "football move" weeks after the play and focused on Dez "going to the ground" and the ball coming loose. What all of them are saying now is different than what they were saying immediately after the game. Once they had more time to analyze it and the term "football move" was removed from the rulebook they altered their comments.

Even your own posts prove the league is/was confused.

 

[percyhoward]

Once they had more time to analyze it and the term "football move" was removed from the rulebook they altered their comments.

We're talking about their explanations for the reversal, not their comments about a rewritten rule months after the reversal. Back before they rewrote the rule, the football move was the requirement for completing the catch process. The football move absolutely was relevant, and they both said there wasn't one -- or "enough" of one. If there had been enough of one, the catch would have stood. That's clearly what they both said, and that's how we know the publicly stated reason for the reversal.

You still have not answered this question: If the football move was irrelevant, then why did they both make a point to say that they looked for a football move and didn't see one?

 

[KJJ]

Even your own posts prove the league is/was confused.

There is confusion they're not all on the same page when it comes to the rules. We saw that in the Cowboys/Lions playoff game on the interference call that was picked up. One of the refs said it was face guarding when face guarding is foul in college not the NFL.