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

[nathanlt]

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

All that matters is what the NFL meant... hmm.. without the written word, what are they supposed to mean? You must claim to have both telepathy and a time machine to understand what they meant when they wrote it. Even in the NFL, what they wrote is all that matters. They must follow what they wrote, not what they meant.

You cannot throw out #3 and #4, because, all the way to the ground can be interpreted as the first step, the first elbow, the first knee. It does not mean anything more than what was written. You don't have a clue what point the process ends, you can't define it either. Because a new point was not defined, down by contact applies for both a receiver and runner.

8-4 AR8.9 is another example of a rule that you skimmed and did not read.
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.

When, means both events must occur simultaneously.

WHEN Dez's right elbow hit the ground, the ball does not move. The play is over at this point, PER 8-4 AR8.9
WHEN Dez's left elbow hit the ground, the ball does not move. The play is over AGAIN at this point, PER 8-4 AR8.9, in case you missed it the first time.

Even the rules you quote support Dez's catch.
By the time his wrist hit the ground, the ball came loose. Dez caught the ball on TEN separate counts.

Your explanations frequently contain "maybe" and "possibly". That is synonymous with inconclusive. By your own admission, by your rulebook references, you have admitted Dez caught the ball multiple times on nearly every post.

BY RULE, Dez caught the ball. Cowboys 1st and goal, with half a yard to the end zone. That is the ONLY interpretation of a responsible competent official. Blandino has TAMPERED with a playoff game. And you are his shill.

 

[Joefrl]

All that matters is what the NFL meant... hmm.. without the written word, what are they supposed to mean? You must claim to have both telepathy and a time machine to understand what they meant when they wrote it. Even in the NFL, what they wrote is all that matters. They must follow what they wrote, not what they meant.

You cannot throw out #3 and #4, because, all the way to the ground can be interpreted as the first step, the first elbow, the first knee. It does not mean anything more than what was written. You don't have a clue what point the process ends, you can't define it either. Because a new point was not defined, down by contact applies for both a receiver and runner.

8-4 AR8.9 is another example of a rule that you skimmed and did not read.
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.

When, means both events must occur simultaneously.

WHEN Dez's right elbow hit the ground, the ball does not move. The play is over at this point, PER 8-4 AR8.9
WHEN Dez's left elbow hit the ground, the ball does not move. The play is over AGAIN at this point, PER 8-4 AR8.9, in case you missed it the first time.

Even the rules you quote support Dez's catch.
By the time his wrist hit the ground, the ball came loose. Dez caught the ball on TEN separate counts.

Your explanations frequently contain "maybe" and "possibly". That is synonymous with inconclusive. By your own admission, by your rulebook references, you have admitted Dez caught the ball multiple times on nearly every post.

BY RULE, Dez caught the ball. Cowboys 1st and goal, with half a yard to the end zone. That is the ONLY interpretation of a responsible competent official. Blandino has TAMPERED with a playoff game. And you are his shill.

YOU didn't finish reading 8-4-AR 8.9. Let me help you:
Ruling: Incomplete pass. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights on the ground in order to complete the reception.
Alights means, when he has descended and settled.
What ever body part hits the ground first does not matter. The entire body has to hit the ground, and settle. If he is still holding the ball it's a catch.
Dez already lost the ball by then. So, the only way it is a catch is if 8-3-item 1 does not apply at all. And the only way that could be the case is if Dez managed to avoid Shields altogether and lunged, before he began to go to the ground per Item 1.
Unfortunately, the benefit of the doubt goes towards incomplete pass:
Note: If there is any question whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it is to be ruled incomplete.

 

[DogFace]

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

Interpreting the rules is important. Poor interpretation leads to unjust overturns of good calls by a ref 5 Yards from the play. It Can also lead to bad posts on the Internet.

 

[nathanlt]

YOU didn't finish reading 8-4-AR 8.9. Let me help you:
Ruling: Incomplete pass. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights on the ground in order to complete the reception.
Alights means, when he has descended and settled.
What ever body part hits the ground first does not matter. The entire body has to hit the ground, and settle. If he is still holding the ball it's a catch.
Dez already lost the ball by then. So, the only way it is a catch is if 8-3-item 1 does not apply at all. And the only way that could be the case is if Dez managed to avoid Shields altogether and lunged, before he began to go to the ground per Item 1.
Unfortunately, the benefit of the doubt goes towards incomplete pass:
Note: If there is any question whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it is to be ruled incomplete.

Wrong. Benefit of the doubt goes to ruling on the field. CATCH. You don't end a teams season with inconclusive evidence. Blandino is an incompetent clown.

 

[Joefrl]

Wrong. Benefit of the doubt goes to ruling on the field. CATCH. You don't end a teams season with inconclusive evidence. Blandino is an incompetent clown.

True, instant replay had no business being involved in this play, but ultimately the right call was had. It was one of those 2 wrongs make a right situations. The call on the field was wrong, replay was wrong.

 

[DogFace]

YOU didn't finish reading 8-4-AR 8.9. Let me help you:
Ruling: Incomplete pass. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights on the ground in order to complete the reception.
Alights means, when he has descended and settled.
What ever body part hits the ground first does not matter. The entire body has to hit the ground, and settle. If he is still holding the ball it's a catch.
Dez already lost the ball by then. So, the only way it is a catch is if 8-3-item 1 does not apply at all. And the only way that could be the case is if Dez managed to avoid Shields altogether and lunged, before he began to go to the ground per Item 1.
Unfortunately, the benefit of the doubt goes towards incomplete pass:
Note: If there is any question whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it is to be ruled incomplete.

Unless the 3 step process is completed before he hits the ground.

You're acting like you don't see this example is like the Dez example. It is not. Not really very close and others have illustrated why. You are choosing to ignore that.

The shoulder hitting the ground first is a little different than what happened on the Dez play. No?

Blindzebra gave you an example of a near identical play. You ignored that too.

 

[Joefrl]

Unless the 3 step process is completed before he hits the ground.

You're acting like you don't see this example is like the Dez example. It is not. Not really very close and others have illustrated why. You are choosing to ignore that.

The shoulder hitting the ground first is a little different than what happened on the Dez play. No?

Blindzebra gave you an example of a near identical play. You ignored that too.

The example I gave you is of a shoulder hitting first. But, it is only an example, not a rule. It does not matter what body part hits first, that is not the point of the example. The point of the example, is that item 1 applies in that type of play, and the ruling in the example says he must hold the ball until he is aligned with the ground.
Blindzebra' play included a brace which never happened in the Dez play. He tried to brace, but failed, never stopped falling. That's what bracing is, stopping your fall.
And no, 8-3 item 1 says all 3 parts of a catch must be complete before "GOING to the ground" (present tense), not "GONE to the ground" (past tense).
My simple point is that IF item 1 does apply, it is definitely an incomplete pass.

 

[Kevinicus]

Would you guys just stop feeding him already? You can't reason with someone who has none.

 

[Joefrl]

Would you guys just stop feeding him already? You can't reason with someone who has none.

You can't reason with someone who won't reason. Try making the call with your brain instead of your heart. Your brain works much better when it comes to reasoning.

 

[Kevinicus]

You can't reason with someone who won't reason. Try making the call with your brain instead of your heart. Your brain works much better when it comes to reasoning.

How would you know?

It's been proven, undeniably throughout this thread many times that the rules say it was a catch. You keep spouting the same illogical, unreasoned nonsense. You're obviously a troll. Unfortunately others have tried to reason with you when it's clear it is not possible. Hopefully nobody replies any further in this thread. I certainly won't.

 

[DogFace]

The example I gave you is of a shoulder hitting first. But, it is only an example, not a rule. It does not matter what body part hits first, that is not the point of the example. The point of the example, is that item 1 applies in that type of play, and the ruling in the example says he must hold the ball until he is aligned with the ground.
Blindzebra' play included a brace which never happened in the Dez play. He tried to brace, but failed, never stopped falling. That's what bracing is, stopping your fall.
And no, 8-3 item 1 says all 3 parts of a catch must be complete before "GOING to the ground" (present tense), not "GONE to the ground" (past tense).
My simple point is that IF item 1 does apply, it is definitely an incomplete pass.

First. Bracing was only one of the many moves he performed. Second an attempt at a brace, even though you're wrong he did brace and set to reach, is all that's required. Again, TIME TO MAKE A FOOTBALL MOVE. If one "attempted" a brace then he obviously had time to do that. He didn't cheat time. Unless you're saying he had time to attempt brace himself but not time to really brace himself. If so that's stupid.

Ironically the refs did cheat time by not putting the right time on the clock after they botched the replay.

 

[Joefrl]

First. Bracing was only one of the many moves he performed. Second an attempt at a brace, even though you're wrong he did brace and set to reach, is all that's required. Again, TIME TO MAKE A FOOTBALL MOVE. If one "attempted" a brace then he obviously had time to do that. He didn't cheat time. Unless you're saying he had time to attempt brace himself but not time to really brace himself. If so that's stupid.

Ironically the refs did cheat time by not putting the right time on the clock after they botched the replay.

Attempting to do something means absolutely nothing. You have to have time to do it , or actually do it, BEFORE you start "going to the ground".

Here is a little logic for you: Attemping to do something does not mean you actually had time to do it.

They did botch the replay and the time on the clock as well.

 

[Joefrl]

How would you know?

It's been proven, undeniably throughout this thread many times that the rules say it was a catch. You keep spouting the same illogical, unreasoned nonsense. You're obviously a troll. Unfortunately others have tried to reason with you when it's clear it is not possible. Hopefully nobody replies any further in this thread. I certainly won't.

It is impossible to prove it was a catch, sorry. That's why you have given up.

It is impossible to prove it was not a catch too, the best I can do is prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and I have done that.

 

[nathanlt]

True, instant replay had no business being involved in this play, but ultimately the right call was had. It was one of those 2 wrongs make a right situations. The call on the field was wrong, replay was wrong.

You're one of these, "replay distorts what happened" guys, huh? Why do we even have replay if it only distorts what happened? The call on the field nullifies the doubt if it was incomplete per item 1 you keep quoting. Nothing you paraphrased or referenced has held up to the rulebook's wording. Dez met every rule under the catch rules, and you still argue. I wish you could be banned, honestly.

 

[Joefrl]

You're one of these, "replay distorts what happened" guys, huh? Why do we even have replay if it only distorts what happened? The call on the field nullifies the doubt if it was incomplete per item 1 you keep quoting. Nothing you paraphrased or referenced has held up to the rulebook's wording. Dez met every rule under the catch rules, and you still argue. I wish you could be banned, honestly.

No, I am one of those "indisputable means indisputable" guys. 99% indisputable isn't good enough for me, it has to be 100% indisputable, before I reverse a call. Sometimes mistakes can't be fixed. The Dez play should not have been reversed regardless of the call on the field. It was one of those that should not have been fixed.
8-3-item 1 and item 2, 8-4-note and Example A.R. 8.9 all support my case 100% that he needed to satisfy the definition of a catch before he began to fall.
Whether he did that IS disputable if he was NOT tripped up by Shields. If Dez was tripped up, it is a incomplete pass without any doubt because of everything I mentioned above.
Whether he was tripped or not was inconclusive as well. That's where 8-4-note comes into play.

 

[blindzebra]

No, I am one of those "indisputable means indisputable" guys. 99% indisputable isn't good enough for me, it has to be 100% indisputable, before I reverse a call. Sometimes mistakes can't be fixed. The Dez play should not have been reversed regardless of the call on the field. It was one of those that should not have been fixed.
8-3-item 1 and item 2, 8-4-note and Example A.R. 8.9 all support my case 100% that he needed to satisfy the definition of a catch before he began to fall.
Whether he did that IS disputable if he was NOT tripped up by Shields. If Dez was tripped up, it is a incomplete pass without any doubt because of everything I mentioned above.
Whether he was tripped or not was inconclusive as well. That's where 8-4-note comes into play.

You have no idea what the **** you are talking about.

Nothing you have said above is true. There is no requirement that A-C be met before you start to fall. You keep quoting plays where 2 feet did not land and the player only had control before going to the ground, again has nothing to do with it. You bring up plays that are in the end zone, again nothing to do with it. You are quoting a when in doubt judgment that is meant to be applied on the field, not in replay. There was contact during the start of the catch, and Dez was clearly tripped after he turned and put his left foot down...and guess what, those are moves common to the game and make him a runner. So was moving the ball from both hands to one hand. As was bracing with his right hand while pushing off his left foot, kicking up turf. Then he extended his left arm toward the goal line.

You are so full of crap, that words can't describe you...well one can, TROLL.

 

[nathanlt]

You have no idea what the **** you are talking about.

Nothing you have said above is true. There is no requirement that A-C be met before you start to fall. You keep quoting plays where 2 feet did not land and the player only had control before going to the ground, again has nothing to do with it. You bring up plays that are in the end zone, again nothing to do with it. You are quoting a when in doubt judgment that is meant to be applied on the field, not in replay. There was contact during the start of the catch, and Dez was clearly tripped after he turned and put his left foot down...and guess what, those are moves common to the game and make him a runner. So was moving the ball from both hands to one hand. As was bracing with his right hand while pushing off his left foot, kicking up turf. Then he extended his left arm toward the goal line.

You are so full of crap, that words can't describe you...well one can, TROLL.

Well said. I wish you could block anyone from the thread you started. Now wouldn't that be nice?

 

[DogFace]

Attempting to do something means absolutely nothing. You have to have time to do it , or actually do it, BEFORE you start "going to the ground".

Here is a little logic for you: Attemping to do something does not mean you actually had time to do it.

They did botch the replay and the time on the clock as well.

I won't argue the semantics of time to brace. When talking about a football move a attempt at a brace does mean he had time to do a move. That doesn't matter either because he clearly braced himself. Now you are an authority on when a brace actually becomes a brace? That's laughable if it wasn't so dumb.

 

[DogFace]

No, I am one of those "indisputable means indisputable" guys. 99% indisputable isn't good enough for me, it has to be 100% indisputable, before I reverse a call. Sometimes mistakes can't be fixed. The Dez play should not have been reversed regardless of the call on the field. It was one of those that should not have been fixed.
8-3-item 1 and item 2, 8-4-note and Example A.R. 8.9 all support my case 100% that he needed to satisfy the definition of a catch before he began to fall.
Whether he did that IS disputable if he was NOT tripped up by Shields. If Dez was tripped up, it is a incomplete pass without any doubt because of everything I mentioned above.
Whether he was tripped or not was inconclusive as well. That's where 8-4-note comes into play.

The bottom line is in the Blind zebra post and has been in several posts. You keep changing the subject and not confronting this fact: Nohwere in the rules does it say the 3 parts of the catch process has to be completed before one stops falling. You've been given examples with video links and pictures showing you this. You've provided exactly **** in the form of evidence backing up your dumb assumptions. Besides some vague recollection of a play that happened 20 years ago or whenever.

You've lost this debate. Some on here that have proven your argument wrong have stopped because its pointless.

No where does it say you must complete the 3 step process before you start to fall. Blind zebra even gave you the rule where the example was nearly identical to the Dez catch. You ignored it and brought up your lame 8-3 rule crap you think, for some unknown reason, supercedes the 3 step process that completes a catch. It doesn't.

The officials made a mistake. The NFL, by rewriting the rule, confirmed the mistake.

 

[DogFace]

You have no idea what the **** you are talking about.

Nothing you have said above is true. There is no requirement that A-C be met before you start to fall. You keep quoting plays where 2 feet did not land and the player only had control before going to the ground, again has nothing to do with it. You bring up plays that are in the end zone, again nothing to do with it. You are quoting a when in doubt judgment that is meant to be applied on the field, not in replay. There was contact during the start of the catch, and Dez was clearly tripped after he turned and put his left foot down...and guess what, those are moves common to the game and make him a runner. So was moving the ball from both hands to one hand. As was bracing with his right hand while pushing off his left foot, kicking up turf. Then he extended his left arm toward the goal line.

You are so full of crap, that words can't describe you...well one can, TROLL.