They just blew the Dez rule in the JAX vs NYG game

[Joefrl]

You said, had it been ruled a fumble Dallas fans would have been screaming for it to be incomplete...fumble goes to GB..incomplete goes to GB.

Good point, but fumble into end zone would go to packers at the 20. And, what if it wasn't 4th down? You have to consider that two.
Two me the worst case scenario here would be the Cowboys losing possession to a fumble. A fumble that neither Dez nor the Cowboys would have deserved.

 

[BlindFaith]

Yes. That's exactly how grown ups respond to those they disagree with. Name calling is a sign of a mature adult.

I wouldn't consider calling someone a homer name calling. If that's what you are referring to. If you want to support everything that a team does or support fully whatever a player does or defend every call that goes in favor or against the team, then by all means, do so. As I said, many years ago I may have been that very homer. But I did grow up. Fact of nature. As I did, I personally realized that being a homer didn't work for me anymore.

 

[theogt]

What Blind faith said

Read that thread. If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty, you'll see his reasoning was completely dismantled.

 

[Kevinicus]

Good point, but fumble into end zone would go to packers at the 20. And, what if it wasn't 4th down? You have to consider that two.
Two me the worst case scenario here would be the Cowboys losing possession to a fumble. A fumble that neither Dez nor the Cowboys would have deserved.

If Dez isn't contacted, he walks into the end zone...I don't think anyone would have a problem with that outcome. If a player can make a football move, then they should be able to hold on...and without contact they have no reason to reach out and risk a fumble.

 

[Blackspider214]

It's the Dez rule. It only applies to Dez.

Aka "We are not going to give any calls in your favor after all the media hoopla and whining from the previous week of the Lions game"

Many people were on here, including me, knowing after the Lions game and what the media did that whole week, we were going to get stiffed on a big call. Never knew it would have been to that extent, though.

It was a catch in the playoff game as from reading the description in the OP, a catch there as well.

 

[Joefrl]

LOL, clearly you do not understand much.

A rule book is the written rules.

A case book is an illustration of the rules in a play form.

Rule book is the rules of the game.

Case book is how they are to be applied in game situations.

I was wrong. I found a 2012 case book, outdated now. I did not find anything more recent. If they come out with a 2015 version it would be a nice compliment to the actual rule book.
But the rule book is all we need.

 

[BlindFaith]

Read that thread. If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty, you'll see his reasoning was completely dismantled.

How so? I demonstrated how the rule book supported the call. As did the NFL Competition Committee. You're not just trying to belittle me, you are belittling the league and the professionals who write the rules. That's a bold stance. Why, just for the sake of argument, should anyone take your opinion over the opinions of the people who do this for a living?

Disagree all you want. But the reality is that you are disagreeing with a rule that has been reviewed and upheld by the rule makers themselves.

 

[DogFace]

I wouldn't consider calling someone a homer name calling. If that's what you are referring to. If you want to support everything that a team does or support fully whatever a player does or defend every call that goes in favor or against the team, then by all means, do so. As I said, many years ago I may have been that very homer. But I did grow up. Fact of nature. As I did, I personally realized that being a homer didn't work for me anymore.

Well that's fantastic! What would you consider calling someone a homer? Im pretty sure by definition that is name calling. And thank you for your blessing to me to support the team in the manner you described. I will consider it.

 

[BlindFaith]

Well that's fantastic! What would you consider calling someone a homer? Im pretty sure by definition that is name calling. And thank you for your blessing to me to support the team in the manner you described. I will consider it.

okie dokie

 

[Joefrl]

If Dez isn't contacted, he walks into the end zone...I don't think anyone would have a problem with that outcome. If a player can make a football move, then they should be able to hold on...and without contact they have no reason to reach out and risk a fumble.

He was going down, contact or not. He was either going down because of the contact, or because he avoided the contact. The possible contact was inconclusive. If there was no contact and you call that a catch, then you have a fumble.

 

[Joefrl]

Well that's fantastic! What would you consider calling someone a homer? Im pretty sure by definition that is name calling. And thank you for your blessing to me to support the team in the manner you described. I will consider it.

Being a homer just means you are a fan of the home team or teams and you want every call to go their way. What's wrong with that? Nothing negative there.

I never understood why some would criticize local broadcasters as being homers. Nothing wrong with that. You should be a homer for the team you work for!

I like to say, Make the call with your brain, not your heart.

 

[theogt]

How so? I demonstrated how the rule book supported the call. As did the NFL Competition Committee. You're not just trying to belittle me, you are belittling the league and the professionals who write the rules. That's a bold stance. Why, just for the sake of argument, should anyone take your opinion over the opinions of the people who do this for a living?

Disagree all you want. But the reality is that you are disagreeing with a rule that has been reviewed and upheld by the rule makers themselves.

Please, Blandino's explanation of the ruling defies your claims. Blandino said that if he'd made "enough of" a football move, it would have been complete -- he even said if he'd lunged with "both hands reaching," instead of just the one arm, it would have been complete. That's because that act completes the process of the catch, regardless of whether he's going to the ground or not. But Blandino didn't think Dez's lunge was apparent enough, therefore it didn't complete the catch. That wholly contradicts your claims of what the rule provides. I can understand Blandino's logic. I can understand reasonable people not believing Dez was lunging. But let's not misconstrue the rules here.

 

[JDSmith]

That's exactly it. Those fighting so hard for this to be a catch don't realize the over all impact it would have if it was made one.

Ummm, you do realize that although the ball was bobbled Dez actually maintained possession of it, right? So the overall impact would have been Cowboys ball. Everything else the guy wrote was purely hypothetical - IF Dez lost it etc... But Dez never lost it, it never rolled around and the other guy never had a chance to recover it.

 

[JDSmith]

Good point, but fumble into end zone would go to packers at the 20. And, what if it wasn't 4th down? You have to consider that two.
Two me the worst case scenario here would be the Cowboys losing possession to a fumble. A fumble that neither Dez nor the Cowboys would have deserved.

He never lost possession - have you even seen the play??

 

[texbumthelife]

I don't understand how two feet down before going out of bounds is a catch, but two feet down before coming down in the field of play, isn't. That makes absolutely no since to me.

Corners may as well just start tripping receivers when the ball gets there instead of tackling them.

 

[Dday22t]

They "blow" this rule all the time. That's what makes it so frustrating. It looks like a catch or not then gets reviewed and turns into 1 guy's best guess. I've seen it go both ways many times. Pretty much need to hold the ball until you're heading back to the huddle to be sure.

 

[blindzebra]

Ummm, you do realize that although the ball was bobbled Dez actually maintained possession of it, right? So the overall impact would have been Cowboys ball. Everything else the guy wrote was purely hypothetical - IF Dez lost it etc... But Dez never lost it, it never rolled around and the other guy never had a chance to recover it.

The other guy has 183 posts in 2 threads, both on this subject and all are factually incorrect.

 

[Kevinicus]

He was going down, contact or not. He was either going down because of the contact, or because he avoided the contact. The possible contact was inconclusive. If there was no contact and you call that a catch, then you have a fumble.

I don't believe he goes down without contact. If he did...he would have been in the back half of the end zone before he did.

 

[percyhoward]

It has always depended solely on the official's judgement. It would be great to take that the official's judgment out of all games, but it is just not possible.

While that's a true statement, you're still missing the huge difference between

a) having a standard and looking at the replay to see if the standard was met, and
b) having no standard

The old rule was an example of "a," with the football move being one of the standards. There was no grey area in the requirement to be met. Judgment only entered into the interpretation of that standard. We can disagree about whether Dez reached, but there's no disagreement that a reach was a football move under the old rule.

The new rule is "b" all the way. There is no standard for how long is long enough or for how upright is upright enough. It would be like leaving it up to officials' judgment whether an offense had gained the necessary yardage for a first down without having 10 yards as the standard. Imagine having to hold your breath waiting to find out if you made it on 4th down -- with no hash marks and no yard lines. Like gymnastics and figure skating.

Which of the following sentences is incomplete?
You know a team went far enough for the first down because they moved the ball 10 yards.
You know a player held onto the ball long enough for a catch because he got control with both feet down then made a football move.
You know a player was upright long enough for a catch because...

How do you complete it? With "because the replay official said so?" That's subjectivity, and it's a step backwards. Maybe several steps.

The goal of the new rule was to relieve the replay official of accountability on this kind of play.

 

[Joefrl]

While that's a true statement, you're still missing the huge difference between

a) having a standard and looking at the replay to see if the standard was met, and
b) having no standard

The old rule was an example of "a," with the football move being one of the standards. There was no grey area in the requirement to be met. Judgment only entered into the interpretation of that standard. We can disagree about whether Dez reached, but there's no disagreement that a reach was a football move under the old rule.

The new rule is "b" all the way. There is no standard for how long is long enough or for how upright is upright enough. It would be like leaving it up to officials' judgment whether an offense had gained the necessary yardage for a first down without having 10 yards as the standard. Imagine having to hold your breath waiting to find out if you made it on 4th down -- with no hash marks and no yard lines. Like gymnastics and figure skating.

Which of the following sentences is incomplete?
You know a team went far enough for the first down because they moved the ball 10 yards.
You know a player held onto the ball long enough for a catch because he got control with both feet down then made a football move.
You know a player was upright long enough for a catch because...

How do you complete it? With "because the replay official said so?" That's subjectivity, and it's a step backwards. Maybe several steps.

The goal of the new rule was to relieve the replay official of accountability on this kind of play.

Yes, it is subjective, and it WAS subjective.
We know it was a catch when the receiver got control with both feet down, and made a football move, but we don't know exactly what a football move was?

The thing is that there are a multitude of ways to finish the last sentence and only one way to finish the first.

Regarding 10 yards to get a first down, the officials still have to judge sometimes whether the runner was just short or just got enough for the first down.

We know it's a catch because he ran 80 yards for a TD.
..........Because he handed the ball to the official after stepping out of bounds.
..........Because he still had possession of the ball while he was lying on the ground.
...........Because he pitched the ball to a teammate.
...........Because he dove for the first down or TD before beginning to fall.