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

nathanlt

nathanlt

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,042
Reaction score
3,045
Fritsch_the_cat said:
I've always thought as soon as a knee touches the ground the play is over. I guess I've been wrong all these years.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong. The new rule didn't specify anything beyond a knee or elbow down as the completion of the process. It was their burden to put it in writing, and they didn't. So, it was a catch.
 
Hoofbite

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,871
Reaction score
11,570
theogt said:
I don't typicall buy appeals to authority when the answer is otherwise readily discernible.

He must hold on throughout the process, unless he completes a football move during the process, such as lunging. That's been clearly stated by NFL officials many times -- the example is right there in the case book. The NFL's explanation, however, was that it wasn't "enough of a" lunge, implying that some lunges aren't sufficient and some lunges are, which is clearly in conflict with the rule book.
Click to expand...

The player doesn't actually have to perform the move, just have been afforded the time necessary to do so if he chooses.

I thought the issue was basically that Dez was already going to the ground prior to the lunge, not that the lunge doesn't constitute enough of a football move. I dunno, I stopped paying attention to the story but it wouldn't make any sense to distinguish between football moves.
 
theogt

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
Hoofbite said:
The player doesn't actually have to perform the move, just have been afforded the time necessary to do so if he chooses.

I thought the issue was basically that Dez was already going to the ground prior to the lunge, not that the lunge doesn't constitute enough of a football move. I dunno, I stopped paying attention to the story but it wouldn't make any sense to distinguish between football moves.
Click to expand...
It's true that a player that has possession and two feet down long enough to perform a football move completes the pass. But it's not the only way to complete the pass. Actually performing the football move completes the pass, even if the player is going to the ground. This has been confirmed by Blandino and by Pereira. And it's been called that way in similar plays in the past.

Or at least it was under the old rules. Not sure really what they're intending under the new rules, but I strongly suspect it will be called the same way -- in other words if a player is going to the ground, obtains possession, gets two feet down, then reaches two arms for the goal line, that will be called a catch, even if he doesn't maintain possession through going to the ground.

Blandino said that, had Bryant reached out with both arms, obviously stretching for the goal line, it would have been a catch.
 
DogFace

DogFace

Carharris2
Messages
13,588
Reaction score
16,088
Joefrl said:
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.
Click to expand...

Finally we agree on something Joe. These fans like to call themselves realists and they think they have a better understanding of what goes on around their team because they aren't biased and beyond reproach. They are very special people and when I grow up I want to be like them.
 
Joefrl

Joefrl

Member
Messages
189
Reaction score
3
theogt said:
It's true that a player that has possession and two feet down long enough to perform a football move completes the pass. But it's not the only way to complete the pass. Actually performing the football move completes the pass, even if the player is going to the ground. This has been confirmed by Blandino and by Pereira. And it's been called that way in similar plays in the past.

Or at least it was under the old rules. Not sure really what they're intending under the new rules, but I strongly suspect it will be called the same way -- in other words if a player is going to the ground, obtains possession, gets two feet down, then reaches two arms for the goal line, that will be called a catch, even if he doesn't maintain possession through going to the ground.

Blandino said that, had Bryant reached out with both arms, obviously stretching for the goal line, it would have been a catch.
Click to expand...

I have also heard Blandino say that a reach does not constitute a football move.

Hoofbite, I think you are correct, but they were also looking at the possibility the lunge happened before he began to fall and decided in the end there wasn't enough of a lunge anyway.
 
LandryFan

LandryFan

Proud Native Texan, USMC-1972-79, USN-1983-2000
Messages
7,400
Reaction score
6,347
AbeBeta said:
They got the call right in GB. Hate the rule but it was called right. By all logic it should be a catch. But the rule is what it is. Grown ups realize this ain't no conspiracy. Good lord. If the NFL wanted to conspire, we'd be advancing as we get amazing ratings.
Click to expand...

I'm not on the conspiracy bandwagon, but I am on the bandwagon that says Blandino ****ed up by overturning the call on the field. The catch/noncatch was the very definition of disputable.
 
blindzebra

blindzebra

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,560
Reaction score
4,451
LandryFan said:
I'm not on the conspiracy bandwagon, but I am on the bandwagon that says Blandino ****ed up by overturning the call on the field. The catch/noncatch was the very definition of disputable.
Click to expand...

We were perceived to get favoritism in the Detroit playoff game last year, all week all Blandino did was defend himself against the party bus report from TMZ. It does not take much of a leap when you have the Cobb catch stand after replays showed it clearly bounce twice and then the Dez play that Blandino either purposely or subconsciously went against us on reviewed plays against GB.
 
LandryFan

LandryFan

Proud Native Texan, USMC-1972-79, USN-1983-2000
Messages
7,400
Reaction score
6,347
blindzebra said:
We were perceived to get favoritism in the Detroit playoff game last year, all week all Blandino did was defend himself against the party bus report from TMZ. It does not take much of a leap when you have the Cobb catch stand after replays showed it clearly bounce twice and then the Dez play that Blandino either purposely or subconsciously went against us on reviewed plays against GB.
Click to expand...

I agree with your logic. What I meant by there not being a conspiracy, is that I don't believe anybody is/was "out to screw the Cowboys" because of some premeditated plan. I agree that the bus publicity certainly could have/probably did sway Blandino on that play. In fact, that would be the only logical explanation for him overturning the call, IMO.
 
Joefrl

Joefrl

Member
Messages
189
Reaction score
3
LandryFan said:
I'm not on the conspiracy bandwagon, but I am on the bandwagon that says Blandino ****ed up by overturning the call on the field. The catch/noncatch was the very definition of disputable.
Click to expand...
Agreed, regardless of what the call was on the field, it could not be "Confirmed" either way by replay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top