The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:01 pm**

Found this in a Dallas newspaper:

You can't make a "football move" until you actually have possession.

Since he was falling down anyways, (regardless of him reaching for the end zone) he had to protect the ball from touching the ground and coming loose.
The only way him reaching would be a football move, is if he wasn't going to fall down anyways.

What people don't understand is that he was falling down NO MATTER WHAT. He was going to the ground regardless of reaching out. So no matter which way he goes to the ground, he needs to maintain control. He chose to go to the ground with his arm extended instead of tucking the ball in. He never completed that action, so a football move was not yet possible because he didn't yet catch the ball. The key to the whole play is weather he could have stayed upright after his 2 feet were down. He couldn't have. His momentum was too much and he was going to the ground. Therefore, when a receiver goes to the ground during a catch.... Well, you know.

Had he been upright when coming down, and not going to the ground, he could have dove, walked, skipped, etc into the end zone and that would've been legit.

Whattayaknow - someone else thinks objectively and gets it. :shock:

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:49 pm**

Got more waffles then a IHop

* took 2 steps before he fell

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

their argument? nope he was falling as he caught it

* maintained possession

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

again their argument failed to do so

* ball came free after he was down by contact

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

their argument - ball was coming free before he hit the ground

* yet none of what they actually said bares any actual fact
and everything I have pointed out? has...

go figure

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:21 pm**

TexasCowboy wrote:

* took 2 steps before he fell

Your lack of understanding has been isolated.

He is falling WHILE TAKING the steps. He does not take 2 steps THEN suddenly start to fall or get knocked down.

When the first foot strikes the ground, his shoulders are already ahead of his feet and passing them rapidly. When the 2nd foot hits the ground, his body is at about a 45 degree angle with the ground.

This is the ESSENCE of "goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass."

Sorry bro, but you just don't get it and if you don't now ... well, I suppose you never will.

-drinking

#SMMFH

#AMF

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2015 11:23 pm**

it was a catch ... until the ball moved - plus, control of the ball must be maintained through the contact with the ground - the 'down by contact' rule is not applicable, nor should it be

btw - the Seahawks would not have had to perform a minor miracle to get to the SB if they'd played the pukes

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:46 am**

SkinsJock wrote:it was a catch ... until the ball moved - plus, control of the ball must be maintained through the contact with the ground - the 'down by contact' rule is not applicable, nor should it be

The ball didn't move until after both knees were on the turf...
you can't claim he did not come down fully possessing it

that is like saying....a runner who after the fact began
losing control of the football, is guilty of fumbling it
after contact was made

It can't be both ways

SkinsJock wrote:btw - the Seahawks would not have had to perform a minor miracle to get to the SB if they'd played the pukes

As vulnerable as they were, Dallas wasn't going to be no pushover win if they had gotten there

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:29 am**

TexasCowboy wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:it was a catch ... until the ball moved - plus, control of the ball must be maintained through the contact with the ground - the 'down by contact' rule is not applicable, nor should it be

The ball didn't move until after both knees were on the turf...
you can't claim he did not come down fully possessing it

Completely irrelevant. You either did not read my last post or you did and still somehow do not understand what it means to say "goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass." Wow.

TexasCowboy wrote:that is like saying....a runner who after the fact began
losing control of the football, is guilty of fumbling it
after contact was made

Actually it's not like saying that at all since he never became a runner since, by rule, he had never completed the task of establishing possession.

TexasCowboy wrote:It can't be both ways

You finally said something right.

I'd say "YOU ARE AN IDIOT" but that's pretty much against the rules. I'll just say your posts are becoming increasingly idiotic in light of the fact that they show you can't see that Dez is falling down while he is trying to complete a catch. You're all hung up on 2 steps and knees being down and it's all irrelevant.

If you were trying to become an NFL ref you would fail for your inability (refusal??) to come to grips with the essence of this rule. Dez (or DJax) could have grabbed the ball at the 15 yard line with no one near him (or be contacted by a defender), landed off balance, had a gradually decreasing body angle as foot after foot after foot after foot struck the ground (i.e., be going to the ground), finally go all the way down to the ground - and if the ball popped out at the end of all that - it would be an incomplete.

I'd say I'm out but something tells me ....

I suppose you could have an epiphany.

-drinking

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2015 4:30 pm**

DarthMonk wrote:
TexasCowboy wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:it was a catch ... until the ball moved - plus, control of the ball must be maintained through the contact with the ground - the 'down by contact' rule is not applicable, nor should it be

The ball didn't move until after both knees were on the turf...
you can't claim he did not come down fully possessing it

Completely irrelevant. You either did not read my last post or you did and still somehow do not understand what it means to say "goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass." Wow.

TexasCowboy wrote:that is like saying....a runner who after the fact began
losing control of the football, is guilty of fumbling it
after contact was made

Actually it's not like saying that at all since he never became a runner since, by rule, he had never completed the task of establishing possession.

TexasCowboy wrote:It can't be both ways

You finally said something right.

I'd say "YOU ARE AN IDIOT" but that's pretty much against the rules. I'll just say your posts are becoming increasingly idiotic in light of the fact that they show you can't see that Dez is falling down while he is trying to complete a catch. You're all hung up on 2 steps and knees being down and it's all irrelevant.

If you were trying to become an NFL ref you would fail for your inability (refusal??) to come to grips with the essence of this rule. Dez (or DJax) could have grabbed the ball at the 15 yard line with no one near him (or be contacted by a defender), landed off balance, had a gradually decreasing body angle as foot after foot after foot after foot struck the ground (i.e., be going to the ground), finally go all the way down to the ground - and if the ball popped out at the end of all that - it would be an incomplete.

I'd say I'm out but something tells me ....

I suppose you could have an epiphany.

Notice

the facts are now irrelevant, he came down with it takes
2 steps and is down by contact,

But

I want to ignore that...OK let's end it this way

you can believe till you are blue in the face
he never came down, or maintained possession
as the so called "head" of the refs claims

Others out there who have reviewed this
all see and say the same thing

It was a catch

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:50 am**

TexasCowboy wrote:Others out there who have reviewed this
all see and say the same thing

It was a catch

They don't get a vote.

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:23 pm**

^^^^^ yawn

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:45 pm**

SkinsJock wrote:it was a catch ... until the ball moved - plus, control of the ball must be maintained through the contact with the ground - the 'down by contact' rule is not applicable, nor should it be

btw - the Seahawks would not have had to perform a minor miracle to get to the SB if they'd played the pukes

It's moot because Dallas wasn't getting out out of GB. He can argue all he wants about the catch but the fact is Rodgers took GB right back down the field and could have scored if they wanted too.

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:11 pm**

TexasCowboy wrote:the facts are now irrelevant

Only some of them - namely, the ones you cite treating Dez as a runner before you can. Are you honestly saying that, as he takes the 2 steps you are so gripped by, he is not in the process of falling to the ground?

It's kinda like this. A guy wants to take his driving test. He knows he can pass it. Trouble is, he's only 9 years old. The guy at the DMV turns him away. "Sorry son, you are not yet qualified to take this test."

Similarly, you want to treat Dez as a runner who is down by contact. If he were a runner, you would be right. Trouble is, he never qualified as a runner.

I'm sure even you will admit that when his first foot lands, he is in the process of attempting to make a catch. I'm sure you'd even agree that is the case as the 2nd foot strikes the ground. Now if you can only see that WHILE THIS IS HAPPENING HE IS ALSO "GOING TO THE GROUND" AKA "FALLING" then you have a chance, a chance, mind you, to understand why he has to control the ball when it slams into the ground, since that is what the rule says he must do if he "goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass."

Unless that happens, the ruling is incomplete.

IHop got nuthin' on your waffles.

Somehow, this comes to mind:

TexasCowboy: This is a top to a, you know, what we use on stage, but it's
very...very special because if you can see...

Marty: Yeah...

TexasCowboy: ...the numbers all go to eleven. Look...right across the board.

Marty: Ahh...oh, I see....

TexasCowboy: Eleven...eleven...eleven....

Marty: ...and most of these amps go up to ten....

TexasCowboy: Exactly.

Marty: Does that mean it's...louder? Is it any louder?

TexasCowboy: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see,
most...most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten
here...all the way up...all the way up....

Marty: Yeah....

TexasCowboy: ...all the way up. You're on ten on your guitar...where can you go
from there? Where?

Marty: I don't know....

TexasCowboy: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is if we need that extra...push over
the cliff...you know what we do?

Marty: Put it up to eleven.

TexasCowboy: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.

Marty: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top...
number...and make that a little louder?

TexasCowboy: ...these go to eleven.

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:29 pm**

Knees down via contact applies to all not just runners

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2015 7:01 pm**

I'm a teacher and I hate to give up when someone doesn't get it.

TexasCowboy wrote:Knees down via contact applies to all not just runners

I assume you are referring to someone being "down by contact."

Actually, it applies to any ball carrier who has established possession of the ball. Such a person is referred to as a runner. Our dispute centers around whether or not Dez Bryant had ever established possession of the ball, in other words, was he ever a runner?

That is our dispute.

Since the call was "incomplete pass" and since I agree with that, my position must be that he never established himself as a runner.

Since you disagree with the call, your position must be that he did establish himself as a runner.

Please answer this simple yes-or-no question:

Did Dez Bryant go to the ground?

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:48 am**

Did Dez Bryant go to the ground?

I asked the same question a page back...

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:46 am**

DEHog wrote:
Did Dez Bryant go to the ground?

I asked the same question a page back...

I think you asked why he fell, but yeah.

I'm hoping he can at least acknowledge he went to the ground. If he can't even do that then I will give up.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:00 am**

TexasCowboy wrote:anyone who has half a brain see's
he made the catch

TRUE THAT !! Well, only half a brain.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:05 am**

DarthMonk wrote:
TexasCowboy wrote:anyone who has half a brain see's
he made the catch

TRUE THAT !! Well, only half a brain.

He absolutely made the catch. Then he lost posession of it while going to the ground. Very easy call to make.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:24 am**

DarthMonk wrote:
DEHog wrote:
Did Dez Bryant go to the ground?

I asked the same question a page back...

I think you asked why he fell, but yeah.

I'm hoping he can at least acknowledge he went to the ground. If he can't even do that then I will give up.

Yes because that's the question...I don't think anyone would dispute that Dez fell...the question is why, how, what cause the fall??

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:33 pm**

DEHog wrote:
DarthMonk wrote:
I think you asked why he fell, but yeah.

I'm hoping he can at least acknowledge he went to the ground. If he can't even do that then I will give up.

Yes because that's the question...I don't think anyone would dispute that Dez fell...the question is why, how, what cause the fall??

... and either "cuz he couldn't help it" or "cuz he got knocked off balance before 2 steps AND a football move" are good enough.

Our friend seems to think 2 feet completely settles the issue ... or knees after contact, completely ignoring the importance of when the contact occurred.

Something tells me he's done.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:17 pm**

DarthMonk wrote:
DEHog wrote:
Did Dez Bryant go to the ground?

I asked the same question a page back...

I think you asked why he fell, but yeah.

I'm hoping he can at least acknowledge he went to the ground. If he can't even do that then I will give up.

The argument is not whether he fell? the argument is possession and
what constitutes down by contact. to which all I have gotten is a bunch
of runaround answers and denial over the facts

as soon as Dez's knees were on the ground the play
is immediately over..the ball did not completely come
free nor did it ever once hit the ground

The ref covering that play called it a completed pass
and another official comes over and says? wait we
need to review it

sorry but a bunch of BS and for the record!
all I have stated is backed by evidence that
proves other wise

So...if anyone is done with this discussion it
would be you

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:48 pm**

^^So are you admitting that he did indeed fall??

No another ref did not come over and say review it..Packers Coach Mike McCarthy threw a challenge flag....I'm beginning to wonder if you even watched the game??

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:01 pm**

It seems falling has been acknowledged.

Next question: Since falling takes a finite amount of time, when did Dez begin falling?

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:09 pm**

From the NFL Casebook:

A.R. 8.10 GOING TO THE GROUND—INCOMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. The
contact by B1 sends him across the goal line and to the ground in the end zone. The ball comes out as he hits the ground.
Ruling: Second-and-10 on B25. The pass is incomplete, as the receiver went to the ground in the process of making the
catch and did not maintain possession of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground.

Crystal clear.

Awaiting more denial and insistence that Dez was down by contact as if he had already established himself as a runner - you know - putting the cart before the horse.

And if anyone wants a real head scratcher:

TexasCowboy wrote:the ball did not completely come
free nor did it ever once hit the ground

When you are this blatantly loose with the facts you really shouldn't expect your posts to be taken seriously. I'm starting to regret the hour I've spent on this.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:21 pm**

The rule is 2 feet in bounds at the time of the catch - check

* is only incomplete if? A) at the time of the pass the ball
is non catchable. B) dropped upon catching it. C) knocked
down by the defender when the catch is made

none of that occur'd

Now we come to the interpretation his "advance"

regardless of how he may have had to twist to
acquire the pass..

He takes 2 steps before tripping over
the defenders legs..which is what had
caused his falling

* is he still securely holding the football
at that point?

yes he is,

When he hits the ground the only ? left
is was the ball coming out prior to his
knees hitting the ground thus ending
the play?

NO,

he had done everything to that point
to ensure the ball was safely secured

* The ground once his knees touch can
not constitute that he never maintained
possession through out

the play? is over, I'd even go as far as?
saying once (again) that the second he
tripped over the defender he is automatically
down by contact at that point
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Finally

all this run around arguing...is just their way of saying they
can't say the call was wrong, cause obsessed jealousy of
Dallas forbids them to watch the game with logic and
understanding

However, if this were Detroit and GB, like they
wanted it to be? the deafening out cry of injustice
would be all over this place like a bad rash

yes...

There will be attempted explanations AKA
excuses to try and refute this (see all posts above mine)
but it won't change the fact it was a catch and the worst
call ever made

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:06 pm**

Other than about 10 mistakes, you're right. The biggest mistake of all is failing to acknowledge that during any and all steps he is in the process of going to the ground. You make it sound as if he were well balanced, took two normal steps, then got knocked over. If that were the case, the play would be over as soon as anything other than a hand touched the ground. But that ain't what happened. He is clearly doomed to go down the second he high points the ball.

Not that it matters, but did you notice the DB knocks the ball loose before Dez pins it to his chest?? There goes one of your precious steps. We've gone from 4 :shock:

to 1. This makes the call even easier to make.

TexasCowboy wrote:

The rule is 2 feet in bounds at the time of the catch - check

* is only incomplete if? A) at the time of the pass the ball
is non catchable. B) dropped upon catching it. C) knocked
down by the defender when the catch is made

none of that occur'd

Now we come to the interpretation his "advance"

regardless of how he may have had to twist to
acquire the pass..

He takes 2 steps before tripping over
the defenders legs..which is what had
caused his falling

* is he still securely holding the football
at that point?

yes he is,

When he hits the ground the only ? left
is was the ball coming out prior to his
knees hitting the ground thus ending
the play?

NO,

he had done everything to that point
to ensure the ball was safely secured

* The ground once his knees touch can
not constitute that he never maintained
possession through out

the play? is over, I'd even go as far as?
saying once (again) that the second he
tripped over the defender he is automatically
down by contact at that point
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Finally

all this run around arguing...is just their way of saying they
can't say the call was wrong, cause obsessed jealousy of
Dallas forbids them to watch the game with logic and
understanding

However, if this were Detroit and GB, like they
wanted it to be? the deafening out cry of injustice
would be all over this place like a bad rash

yes...

There will be attempted explanations AKA
excuses to try and refute this (see all posts above mine)
but it won't change the fact it was a catch and the worst
call ever made

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone

Re: Posting in the Cowboyzone