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

[Joefrl]

25 pages later....and it still was clearly a catch

If it was clearly a catch, this would have only lasted 1 or 2 pages. If it was clearly incomplete, this would have lasted 1 or 2 pages. Get the point?

 

[DallasEast]

My description of the play is 100% accurate. I remember it well, because I am a Bear fan. What I told you is all you need.

11 days. 128 posts 100% within one thread concerning a play occurring in a Green Bay and Dallas game. Saying you were a Packers fan would have been more believable. Creating a Bear or Packer avatar would've been a logical effort as well.

 

[Joefrl]

We're all aware of the company line that there is "nothing to see here." That's the whole point. They goofed, and they're trying to fix it retroactively.

They got it right, ultimately, just not in the right way. Refs on the field were wrong, and replay was wrong to reverse. 2 wrongs make a right in this case.
Item 1 probably applies here and if not, Note 1 definitely does. Either way, your sunk.

 

[DFWJC]

If it was clearly a catch, this would have only lasted 1 or 2 pages. If it was clearly incomplete, this would have lasted 1 or 2 pages. Get the point?

I got the point on game day and still get it now.

There are people that'll run 25 pages around here on Rosie's buttcheeks...the length of the thread means nothing to me .
But hey, just my opinion.

 

[DogFace]

My description of the play is 100% accurate. I remember it well, because I am a Bear fan. What I told you is all you need.

Nope. I need more. Provide it asap.

 

[percyhoward]

They got it right, ultimately, just not in the right way. Refs on the field were wrong, and replay was wrong to reverse. 2 wrongs make a right in this case.

So there is a justification for the overturn, by golly. It just has nothing to do with why it happened.

You really only got as far as scrambling to look for support from the rule book, and never arrived at the realization that there is a record of previous similar plays along with official explanations that serve as precedents. You can't turn to these for support, so you have to claim that those who make and explain the rules don't understand them as well as you do.

 

[nathanlt]

I have always said "Maybe" with regards to the lunge, only if he was not tripped. I never changed fron that. "Maybe" is not goid enough. "Maybe" is not definite.

There is no written rule that supports your case. You keep trying to add in a brace that never happened.
Either item 1 applies, or "Maybe", Note 1 applies, because there is nothing definite here. Either way, it is incomplete.

This is a classic case of projecting your baseless arguments and paraphrasing onto me. You use speculation to justify why the catch was taken away, I use the written rules in the rule book to prove that throughout the contact with the ground meant nothing more than down by contact, and specific moves Dez made do qualify as precisely mentioned examples in the rule book and case book.

And then you have the audacity to state that I have no written rule supporting the CATCH. In fact, there is NOTHING WRITTEN THAT JUSTIFIES TAKING THE CATCH AWAY. Not item 1, not anything.

 

[Joefrl]

The ball touched the ground, but Dez was a runner down by contact. It was incorrectly ruled that Dez hadn't established himself as a runner, so he had to maintain possession of the ball through contacting the ground -- incomplete.

If Dez had been ruled to have established himself as a runner, then it's Dallas ball at the 1. The ground can't cause a fumble.

What anybody who supports the overturn has to prove (whether they realize it or not) is that Dez didn't establish himself as a runner. That involves proving he didn't reach for the goal line. The official explanation is that there was a reach, but that it wasn't obvious enough. Reasons being, Dez didn't use two hands, or didn't extend the ball for the goal line. Even though there's no rule about using two hands, and extending the arm wouldn't have put the ball any nearer the goal line.

You'll hear a lot of noise unrelated to the actual play, but that's what the guy who made the call says it came down to. If his opinion means anything.

Questionable at best if he ever became a runner. The ground can cause a fumble if there was not contact, and its questionable at best whether there ever was contact by Shields. When in doubt, the NFL will always rule he did not brcome a runner.

 

[Joefrl]

11 days. 128 posts 100% within one thread concerning a play occurring in a Green Bay and Dallas game. Saying you were a Packers fan would have been more believable. Creating a Bear or Packer avatar would've been a logical effort as well.

This is Cowboyszone. It seams wrong to me to put up any other avatar but cowboys.
Only a Bear fan would remember the Bernard Berrian play from 11 years ago. Bernard Berrian was never half the star Dez is.

 

[nathanlt]

Questionable at best if he ever became a runner. The ground can cause a fumble if there was not contact, and its questionable at best whether there ever was contact by Shields. When in doubt, the NFL will always rule he did not brcome a runner.

When in doubt, you don't overturn a CATCH. If it's questionable, you can't overturn a CATCH.

You just admitted twice that it was inconclusive, which means it shouldn't have been overruled at all. You're losing every time you post.

 

[DallasEast]

This is Cowboyszone. It seams wrong to me to put up any other avatar but cowboys.
Only a Bear fan would remember the Bernard Berrian play from 11 years ago. Bernard Berrian was never half the star Dez is.

CowboysZone has many members who are fans of non-Dallas teams. Quite a few have adopted avatars that are either connected in some way with their favorite teams or are neutral in origin. It's my belief that those who display their team's images do so to honor their favorite franchises or players. Of course I could be wrong thinking that's the reason.

So, why are you ashamed of the Bears? Curiosity demands an explanation.

 

[DogFace]

Questionable at best if he ever became a runner. The ground can cause a fumble if there was not contact, and its questionable at best whether there ever was contact by Shields. When in doubt, the NFL will always rule he did not brcome a runner.

No. It's not questionable if there was contact. Your judgement of what you see may be more of a hindrance to understanding this play than your interpretation of rules.

 

[Joefrl]

When in doubt, you don't overturn a CATCH. If it's questionable, you can't overturn a CATCH.

You just admitted twice that it was inconclusive, which means it shouldn't have been overruled at all. You're losing every time you post.

You forgot 8-4 Note, which says:
Note: If there is any question whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it is to be ruled incomplete.

 

[Joefrl]

No. It's not questionable if there was contact. Your judgement of what you see may be more of a hindrance to understanding this play than your interpretation of rules.

Be careful, if there was contact, 8-3-item 1 definitely kicks in and we have an incomplete pass. If there was no contact, then you have a case for a catch.....and a fumble. However, most refs would point to 8-4 Note:
Note: If there is any question whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it is to be ruled incomplete.

 

[blindzebra]

Joefrl is like the commercial, I am not an NFL official but I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night.

I bet he reads medical books and thinks he can do surgery too.

 

[nathanlt]

You forgot 8-4 Note, which says:
Note: If there is any question whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it is to be ruled incomplete.

That's just the thing. Those who have read the exact wording in the rule book know that Dez
1. Made multiple football moves, per case book examples.
2. Had enough time to make football moves, per the definition of a catch.
3. Controlled the ball throughout getting 2 elbows down.
4. The ball never wobbled throughout those events, ball is down when the first elbow hit, because that satisfies both "down by contact" and "maintain control throughout the process of contacting the ground"!

Only those who don't read the rules would question the catch. They might also question what a tackle, first down, or touchdown is, too. Incompetence does not justify TAMPERING.
What Blandino meant has always been irrelevant. What he took time to write is all that matters. And he wrote NOTHING that justifies taking that CATCH away.

 

[Joefrl]

That's just the thing. Those who have read the exact wording in the rule book know that Dez
1. Made multiple football moves, per case book examples.
2. Had enough time to make football moves, per the definition of a catch.
3. Controlled the ball throughout getting 2 elbows down.
4. The ball never wobbled throughout those events, ball is down when the first elbow hit, because that satisfies both "down by contact" and "maintain control throughout the process of contacting the ground"!

Only those who don't read the rules would question the catch. They might also question what a tackle, first down, or touchdown is, too. Incompetence does not justify TAMPERING.
What Blandino meant has always been irrelevant. What he took time to write is all that matters. And he wrote NOTHING that justifies taking that CATCH away.

In a court of law you are correct that what he meant does not matter. This is not a court a law, it is the NFL, and what they meant is all that matters.
Of your 4 points, we can throw out #3 and #4 right away as control would have to be maintained all the way down to the ground, until he is settled there, and he lost the ball before that point as per 8-4- AR 8.9
#1 and #2 depends on if there was contact or not, if no contact then maybe so. One possible football move, the lunge.
Since you mention the rule book, if you read 8-3-item 1 closely, you see that the entire process of completing a pass has to be done before one starts going to the ground or he must hold on to the ball until he has settled. 8-4-AR 8.9

 

[Joefrl]

Joefrl is like the commercial, I am not an NFL official but I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express last night.

I bet he reads medical books and thinks he can do surgery too.

One just needs a rule book to enforce rules properly, you don't need to DO anything. Bad comparison by you.

 

[Joefrl]

CowboysZone has many members who are fans of non-Dallas teams. Quite a few have adopted avatars that are either connected in some way with their favorite teams or are neutral in origin. It's my belief that those who display their team's images do so to honor their favorite franchises or players. Of course I could be wrong thinking that's the reason.

So, why are you ashamed of the Bears? Curiosity demands an explanation.

I'm a Diehard fan, we are never ashamed. I am looking forward to the season. There would be no better way to start the season then by beating the Packers on opening day!

 

[DallasEast]

I'm a Diehard fan, we are never ashamed. I am looking forward to the season. There would be no better way to start the season then by beating the Packers on opening day!

Congrats on the avatar change.