The NFL's Official Change to What Is A Catch: Dez Bryant play rule rewritten *merge*

[percyhoward]

If there is no contact, it is not hard to tell when one has lost their balance.

Think about why this makes no sense. With or without contact, players lose and regain their balance all the time, even sometimes multiple times on the same play. The idea that a player can't make a football move while falling is how you justify the overturn. Your entire case for no catch rests on this, and yet you can't find one example of a catch that was overturned because the football move occurred while the player was falling.

If a player gets control with two feet down, loses his balance, then
1) laterals to a teammate, who drops
it, that is NOT an incomplete pass.
2) reaches for the line of gain, then loses the ball, that is NOT an incomplete pass.
3) takes another step, then loses the ball, that is NOT an incomplete pass.

Losing one's balance cannot negate the catch process, because losing one's balance is not the same as going to the ground. It's like the relationship between a square and a rectangle. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All players who ever went to the ground lost their balance, but not all players who ever lost their balance went to the ground.

 

[CCBoy]

Think about why this makes no sense. With or without contact, players lose and regain their balance all the time, even sometimes multiple times on the same play. The idea that a player can't make a football move while falling is how you justify the overturn. Your entire case for no catch rests on this, and yet you can't find one example of a catch that was overturned because the football move occurred while the player was falling.

If a player gets control with two feet down, loses his balance, then
1) laterals to a teammate, who drops
it, that is NOT an incomplete pass.
2) reaches for the line of gain, then loses the ball, that is NOT an incomplete pass.
3) takes another step, then loses the ball, that is NOT an incomplete pass.

Losing one's balance cannot negate the catch process, because losing one's balance is not the same as going to the ground. It's like the relationship between a square and a rectangle. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All players who ever went to the ground lost their balance, but not all players who ever lost their balance went to the ground.

Leave it to a lawyer to make undefineable as an element of defining...for legal purposes.

For example: validity of democracy, must reflect degree of agreeable effects after process.

Law of perpetuity....forever and a day.

I agree with your statements above, Percy...

 

[Joefrl]

Dez got 2 feet down before he lost his balance.

2 feet down, then lost his balance, then he lunged. Thomas lunged without ever losing balance.

 

[Joefrl]

Think about why this makes no sense. With or without contact, players lose and regain their balance all the time, even sometimes multiple times on the same play. The idea that a player can't make a football move while falling is how you justify the overturn. Your entire case for no catch rests on this, and yet you can't find one example of a catch that was overturned because the football move occurred while the player was falling.

If a player gets control with two feet down, loses his balance, then
1) laterals to a teammate, who drops
it, that is NOT an incomplete pass.
2) reaches for the line of gain, then loses the ball, that is NOT an incomplete pass.
3) takes another step, then loses the ball, that is NOT an incomplete pass.

Losing one's balance cannot negate the catch process, because losing one's balance is not the same as going to the ground. It's like the relationship between a square and a rectangle. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All players who ever went to the ground lost their balance, but not all players who ever lost their balance went to the ground.

What happens when one loses his balance? That's right, he starts going to the ground.

 

[Joefrl]

How does one lunge before losing one's balance, exactly? Once you lunge, there's nothing holding you up, so you have nothing to balance ON.

The same way one dives before losing balance.

 

[percyhoward]

2 feet down, then lost his balance, then he lunged. Thomas lunged without ever losing balance.

Even if true, what is your point? Neither the Thomas ruling nor the Bryant ruling was based on this aspect of the play.

 

[blindzebra]

Between Blandino's statements provided by percyhoward and the case book play I provided this topic is closed, we proved beyond any doubt that the rule was misapplied in GB. Anyone still refuting these facts is a complete moron or a troll.

 

[Joefrl]

If Dez had actually braced his fall (meaning his hand hits instead of his forearm), that's got to be a TD even under the new rule. But as a football move, bracing is no more valid than reaching, so that case book example is basically the Dez play -- control with two feet plus the football move. It's also further proof that you CAN make a football move while falling, obviously.

There is no different rule, just different wording. Like I said "Not upright long enough" is the same as "time to make a football move", and when one gets his two feet down after control, that's not long enough yet.

 

[percyhoward]

What happens when one loses his balance? That's right, he starts going to the ground.

And starting to go to the ground has two very obvious possible results--going down or regaining your balance.

 

[Joefrl]

Between Blandino's statements provided by percyhoward and the case book play I provided this topic is closed, we proved beyond any doubt that the rule was misapplied in GB. Anyone still refuting these facts is a complete moron or a troll.

Or the troll trying to stop the discussion can't face the truth.........

 

[Joefrl]

And starting to go to the ground has two very obvious possible results--going down or regaining your balance.

and if you regain your balance long enough, great! You've got a catch!

 

[Joefrl]

Even if true, what is your point? Neither the Thomas ruling nor the Bryant ruling was based on this aspect of the play.

They must have been. That is the only difference between the Thomas play and all the others.

 

[percyhoward]

There is no different rule, just different wording. Like I said "Not upright long enough" is the same as "time to make a football move", and when one gets his two feet down after control, that's not long enough yet.

Show one example of a rule or play indicating that a player has to be upright to make a football move.

 

[Joefrl]

If Dez had actually braced his fall (meaning his hand hits instead of his forearm), that's got to be a TD even under the new rule. But as a football move, bracing is no more valid than reaching, so that case book example is basically the Dez play -- control with two feet plus the football move. It's also further proof that you CAN make a football move while falling, obviously.

Slowing down the falling by bracing like that is not a football move. Now, if you brace and stop the falling and stand up again........

 

[percyhoward]

and if you regain your balance long enough, great! You've got a catch!

Post this rule.

 

[blindzebra]

Post this rule.

You could have a sworn under oath confession from Blandino and Seratore saying they misapplied the rule, and this troll will still say it wasn't a catch.

 

[percyhoward]

They must have been. That is the only difference between the Thomas play and all the others.

So basically the NFL showed us a catch and a non-catch, pointing out the differences that they based these calls on. And your take is that the NFL didn't really base the calls on the things they described, but in fact based them on other things that they didn't talk about.

 

[Joefrl]

I remember the Victor Cruz TD against us two years ago where he did not get his second foot down and lost the ball and they upheld it as a TD. I had a Twitter back and forth with Pereia who finally admitted that it should have been rules incomplete.

I remember that as well. Victor never even got one foot down before going down himself. Calvin got one foot down and that was it. Neither completed part B of a catch.

 

[Joefrl]

Show one example of a rule or play indicating that a player has to be upright to make a football move.

A.R. 8.9 While in midair, a receiver firmly takes hold of a pass, but loses possession of the ball when his shoulder lands on the ground with or without being contacted by an opponent.
Ruling: Pass is incomplete. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights with the ground in order to complete the reception.
Notice in the above, the receiver caught the ball in midair and fell straight to the ground. Also notice that it does not matter what happened between controling the ball and hitting the ground.

 

[Joefrl]

So basically the NFL showed us a catch and a non-catch, pointing out the differences that they based these calls on. And your take is that the NFL didn't really base the calls on the things they described, but in fact based them on other things that they didn't talk about.

My take is the same as there take, I just use better words.