Lurker > I Like Toast

CableZL posted...

I have addressed it

no, you didn't. you ignore it and go, "bu-but he was falling!!! i don't understand the rule and know that if the nfl decided he was a runner that means he completed the catch so i'm just going to keep saying he was falling and ignore that the rule is actually about becoming a runner"

CableZL posted...

And LOL @ you saying I'm ignoring 95% of what is shown to me when you've literally posted a video and ignored 95% of it because the full explanation doesn't help your argument.

I didn't ignore any part of the video, because your head is still so far up your ass that despite telling you repeatedly i've never once said the call was correct. But since you need to ignore 95% of what I post you repeatedly ignore this, like you repeatedly ignore what the NFL defines as becoming a runner and what the actual rule is.

I Like Toast posted...

The play could be called either way with how the rules are written, because contrary to CableZL's belief, going to the ground only matters until you are determined to be a runner. Which you can easily state that when his knee touches the ground and he changes his momentum he has survived the ground and become a runner. Or you can just as easily say that changing you'd momentum isn't enough as he's still falling so that the call is correct. There is no reason for going to the ground to be in the rule books after Dez and this shit would have never happened

CableZL posted...

you aren't classified as a runner until the pass is complete in any situation.

false. because you still don't get the rule. becoming a runner is completing the pass. you don't complete the pass and then become a runner. becoming a runner is the final step. But you will continue to ignore this because you don't understand the rule. And you're so ignorant you think the NFL would admit that they are wrong, yet for some reason you can't find them being wrong on the OBJ catch. Because you're a laughable hypocrite who constantly argues against themself.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

I'm not ignoring it.

Then you would address it. But you ignore that the NFL defines becoming a runner. You ignore that once you are a runner the process is complete it doesn't matter if you are on the ground or not.

Because you don't actually understand the rule and tried to ignorantly say that the call was right because the NFL upheld. While also seeing the NFL not admit they were wrong. While also seeing the NFL having no consistency on how they call the play and never once admitted they were wrong.

You have argued against yourself in every post and ignore 95% of what is shown to you. Because you know that you are wrong
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

Can't become a runner if you never completed the catch

CableZL posted...

And what does the NFL define as being a runner?
I Like Toast posted...
because the nfl decided he wasn't a runner despite.

I Like Toast posted...
here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner
after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

Keep ignoring it.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

That assumes he has successfully caught and gained possession of the ball. That didn't happen. Since he was falling down in the process of making the catch, the rules about going to the ground apply. He didn't complete the catch, so he never became a runner

I Like Toast posted...

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner

I Like Toast posted...
And what does the NFL define as being a runner?
I Like Toast posted...
because the nfl decided he wasn't a runner despite.

I Like Toast posted...
here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner
after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

I Like Toast posted...
BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I Like Toast posted...
so just skip ahead to running with your tail tucked between your legs because once again you proved yourself a hypocrite.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

UnfairRepresent posted...

serve plant on fire for the lylz

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

Since he was falling to the ground due to the dive for the catch, he didn't remain upright at a

I Like Toast posted...

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner

I Like Toast posted...
And what does the NFL define as being a runner?
I Like Toast posted...
because the nfl decided he wasn't a runner despite.

I Like Toast posted...
here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner
after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

I Like Toast posted...
BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I Like Toast posted...
so just skip ahead to running with your tail tucked between your legs because once again you proved yourself a hypocrite.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

He was falling down, so

CableZL posted...

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner

I Like Toast posted...

And what does the NFL define as being a runner?
I Like Toast posted...
because the nfl decided he wasn't a runner despite.

I Like Toast posted...
here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner
after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

I Like Toast posted...
BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I Like Toast posted...
so just skip ahead to running with your tail tucked between your legs because once again you proved yourself a hypocrite.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

didn't remain upright, so the rules about going to the ground apply.

I Like Toast posted...

And what does the NFL define as being a runner?
I Like Toast posted...
because the nfl decided he wasn't a runner despite.

I Like Toast posted...
here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner
after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

I Like Toast posted...
BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I Like Toast posted...
so just skip ahead to running with your tail tucked between your legs because once again you proved yourself a hypocrite.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner.

Literally what I told and you've kept arguing over. Going to the ground only matters until you become a runner

And what does the NFL define as being a runner?
I Like Toast posted...

because the nfl decided he wasn't a runner despite.

I Like Toast posted...
here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner
after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

I Like Toast posted...
BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I Like Toast posted...
so just skip ahead to running with your tail tucked between your legs because once again you proved yourself a hypocrite.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

Delete some of the ass porn. Problem solved
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

but he was still moving diagonally in the same direction as he dove

Not even remotely

CableZL posted...

No, it applies because he was literally going to the ground in the process of the catch.

I Like Toast posted...

It applies because the NFL arbitrary decide it should. Which you know and why you keep avoiding

CableZL posted...

You yourself said you found examples of the NFL admitting errors. You said the NFL confirms everything, and I simply said they've admitted errors a number of times in the past. You found examples of them admitting errors in the past.

I Like Toast posted...

And never in regards to the catch rule. Which you'd think Mr "these plays are irrelevant" would you know, be consistent. Not you know, a hypocrite like you are.

I Like Toast posted...

because the nfl decided he wasn't a runner despite.

I Like Toast posted...
here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner
after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

I Like Toast posted...
BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I Like Toast posted...
so just skip ahead to running with your tail tucked between your legs because once again you proved yourself a hypocrite.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

He was still moving in the same direction when hit the ground as when he dove.

Not even remotely since he would have landed on his back and slid towards the sideline, instead he pivoted his body to the shortest distance to the goalline.

CableZL posted...

the "going to the ground" rule applies.

It applies because the NFL arbitrary decide it should. Which you know and why you keep avoiding

I Like Toast posted...

because the nfl decided he wasn't a runner despite.

I Like Toast posted...
here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner
after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

I Like Toast posted...
BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I Like Toast posted...
so just skip ahead to running with your tail tucked between your legs because once again you proved yourself a hypocrite.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

He didn't become a runner,

I Like Toast posted...

The play could be called either way with how the rules are written, because contrary to CableZL's belief, going to the ground only matters until you are determined to be a runner. Which you can easily state that when his knee touches the ground and he changes his momentum he has survived the ground and become a runner. Or you can just as easily say that changing you'd momentum isn't enough as he's still falling so that the call is correct. There is no reason for going to the ground to be in the rule books after Dez and this shit would have never happened

CableZL posted...

He didn't become a runner, though, because he didn't complete the catch

Literally the memory of a fruit fly
CableZL posted...

Like Toast posted...
Except becoming a runner is completing the catch

I agree

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

His knee touching the ground didn't break his fall

I Like Toast posted...

oh, so he has force powers and changed his momentum with the power of his mind. That's a pretty awesome star wars tie in, you'd think they'd advertise that a little more.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

You can't become a runner if you don't complete the catch

Except becoming a runner is completing the catch . But you have no clue what the rule is. You have to either become a runner or survive the fall. I Like Toast posted...

The play could be called either way with how the rules are written, because contrary to CableZL's belief, going to the ground only matters until you are determined to be a runner. Which you can easily state that when his knee touches the ground and he changes his momentum he has survived the ground and become a runner. Or you can just as easily say that changing you'd momentum isn't enough as he's still falling so that the call is correct. There is no reason for going to the ground to be in the rule books after Dez and this shit would have never happened

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

And the Steelers receiver was not a runner because he never completed the catch

He did when his knee touched the ground. But you don't know the actual rule.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

Eve-L posted...

I feel like I'm reading the same post over and over again the past 100 or so posts.

It's what happens when a hypocrite (cable) argues a stubborn fuck (me). Cable keeps trying to change the subject because he doesn't want to admit he's wrong and doesn't understand the rule and I can keep quoting myself since he can't address any of it.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

That doesn't really matter in this case

Weird since you said the NFL would admit they were wrong so them defending this call is supposed to mean something. But yet, they never do say they got this wrong do they? Why is it so hard for you to admit every argument you have tried is flawed and that you do not understand the rule? CableZL posted...

There is a specific rule about players going to the ground in the process of the catch

And that specific rule only applies if you are not a runner. Which you refuse to understand.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

You have to keep control of the ball all the way to the ground according to the rules.

unless the NFL decides you don't, which i've already given you video proving. Meanwhile you keep arguing against yourself. And running from answering questions.

CableZL posted...

Or it's almost like you go out of your way to insult Tom Brady on a regular basis. Let it go, Toast.

And yet, you brought him out as a desperate way to try to change the subject

I Like Toast posted...

because the nfl decided he wasn't a runner despite.

I Like Toast posted...
here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner
after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

I Like Toast posted...
BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I Like Toast posted...
so just skip ahead to running with your tail tucked between your legs because once again you proved yourself a hypocrite.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

He was moving diagonally when he dove and he kept falling diagonally.

at a drastically different angle.

CableZL posted...

He didn't survive the ground.

because the nfl decided he wasn't a runner despite.

I Like Toast posted...

here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner
after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

I Like Toast posted...

BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I Like Toast posted...

so just skip ahead to running with your tail tucked between your legs because once again you proved yourself a hypocrite.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

you have to have possession of the ball.

Which he has when he has 2 hands firmly on the ball and his knee touches the ground. Again, why do you think they call it complete the process and surive the ground. In order to do either, you have to have already caught the ball.

CableZL posted...

You yourself said you found examples of the NFL admitting errors.

I Like Toast posted...

BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you?

I Like Toast posted...

And never in regards to the catch rule. Which you'd think Mr "these plays are irrelevant" would you know, be consistent. Not you know, a hypocrite like you are.

CableZL posted...

He didn't break his fall.

so how did he change his momentum from going towards the sideline to going towards the endzone?

here's how the NFL rulebook defines becoming a runner

after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps

Which he did both.

CableZL posted...

Again, let it go. You have an unhealthy hatred of Tom Brady and the Patriots.

TIL the calvin johnson, Dez Bryant, Randle, Eifert, Freeman, etc, etc, etc, etc play all happened against the patriots.

Wait, shit, no, I've been against the rule since it helped my very team win a game. It's almost like the pats benefiting from it is irrelevant and only you have brought it up. I know you don't actually understand what the word irrelevant means, so just skip ahead to running with your tail tucked between your legs because once again you proved yourself a hypocrite.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

Refs got it right.

Refs called it a touchdown. Refs don't review plays anymore, I thought you knew the rule book? oh wait no, we've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't.

BTW, where's that nfl admitting they were wrong on the OBJ catch? i mean, you said the NFL does that. So, i mean, you weren't wrong about yet another thing were you? Or you can just admit that there's nothing about being tackled to the ground or not and that the entire rule is about what defines a receiver as a runner, not about going to the ground. And that the steelers were screwed by this rule still being vague and arbitrary after it already happened in a playoff game and every fan agreed that the rule is broken and needs to be fixed. Yet week after week this conversation keeps happening.

CableZL posted...

His knee didn't break the fall at all.

oh, so he has force powers and changed his momentum with the power of his mind. That's a pretty awesome star wars tie in, you'd think they'd advertise that a little more.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

Obj never actually goes down there, should have been a touchdown

so, since the NFL admits they're wrong, i'm sure you can link the NFL admitting they were wrong on the call right? i mean, your argument is founded on, "the nfl said it's right and they must know the rule book better than you!"

CableZL posted...

You were literally saying he became a runner when never actually caught the ball according to the rules.

because he literally can be defined as becoming a runner because that is how the rules are written. Which was explictly stated to you

I Like Toast posted...

The play could be called either way with how the rules are written, because contrary to CableZL's belief, going to the ground only matters until you are determined to be a runner. Which you can easily state that when his knee touches the ground and he changes his momentum he has survived the ground and become a runner. Or you can just as easily say that changing you'd momentum isn't enough as he's still falling so that the call is correct. There is no reason for going to the ground to be in the rule books after Dez and this shit would have never happened

and has been repeatedly proven to you with the multiple videos posted.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

but there are still a number of situations where the NFL has admitted error after the fact.

So infrequently that googling NFL admits call was wrong it turns up a result from 2012 within the first 5 results. And never in regards to the catch rule. Which you'd think Mr "these plays are irrelevant" would you know, be consistent. Not you know, a hypocrite like you are.

CableZL posted...

s. I agree about the lack of consistency in calls

I know, unlike you i'm not illiterate. It doesn't take me 4 hours to realize when someone says that the rule should have been fixed years prior that they are arguing that it was called incorrectly and spend 4 hours defending the call with hypocritical logic and proving how little you understand the rule in place.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

Harry Douglas, upright, takes 2 steps, defender tackles him down. ruled incomplete instead of a catch and fumble despite it being the defender taking him down.

https://twitter.com/AdamStites_/status/667536323100577795

OBJ, caught, upright, defender tackles him down, ruled incopmplete



i can keep going and keep showing play after play after play after play after play of how you keep spewing bullshit because you don't get the rule.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

They literally said that if contact is what causes you to go to the ground, you don't have to survive the ground.

Dez went to the ground because Shields tripped him up. WHOOPS. Shit, look at you having to argue against yourself again. Randle stays on his feet, takes 3 steps in the end zone, then is contacted, but wasn't ruled to have finished the process so interception.

Here's crabtree upright, catches the ball inbounds, his pushed by the defender, overturned incomplete

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/22/9778984/michael-crabtree-caught-a-ball-started-running-took-three-more-steps

you still not figuring out the problem? you still not seeing that the nfl will use anything to defend whatever call they make in regards to this rule and that there is absolutely no consistency as it's entirely reliant upon when you define the receiver as a runner.

but please, keep trying to argue out of both ends. I love watching hypocrites in action.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

This isn't a hard concept.

If it wasn't, you wouldn't keep avoiding answering simple questions because you know that you're wrong and that you don't actually understand the rule.

I Like Toast posted...

BTW, how did Tate end up on his back if he wasn't going down?

I Like Toast posted...

but here, the nfl also upheld both of these calls, despite again, being called differently.

and here's good old dean upholding this catch
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000310656/article/dean-blandino-says-referees-made-correct-calls-in-playoff-game

where the player didn't survive going to the ground as well, because they decided that he was a runner and thus awarded forward progress so the play ended.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

Don't really care because neither has anything to do with the play this topic is about.

does matter since it's the exact rule, it's almost like you're trying to avoid admitting that.

BTW, how did Tate end up on his back if he wasn't going down?

The Steelers receiver was never a runner because he never completed the catch

Except he did, when his knee hit and he lunged for the endzone. Just like how the NFL decided that tate was a runner, and thus the play is over since it broke the plane, and the giants WR, who didn't go to the ground, wasn't a runner, so the ensuing int counts.

but here, the nfl also upheld both of these calls, despite again, being called differently.



and here's good old dean upholding this catch
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000310656/article/dean-blandino-says-referees-made-correct-calls-in-playoff-game

where the player didn't survive going to the ground as well, because they decided that he was a runner and thus awarded forward progress so the play ended.

are you getting it yet? are you understanding I Like Toast posted...

It's inexcusable this bullshit >>>>>>wasn't fixed <<<<<<<<<after DezCaughtIt. There exists no reason for going to the ground to factor at all. If the ground or defender jars it loose it's a fumble.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

No, which makes it irrelevant to this discussion

So what rule do you think that the NFL gave to call them with opposite results?
CableZL posted...

The two plays you keep posting over and over have nothing to do with the receiver going to the ground.

So what rule do you think that the NFL gave to call them with opposite results?

Or is it that cable doesn't know the rules? And is just realizing he agrees with what I first said in response to him but he was too illiterate to realize what was being posted.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

au_gold posted...

Do these questions have answers

Nope, or maybe in some book that no one will read.
Or they go with snope being plaguis
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

19/19/19
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

You can't say it isn't about falling when that's exactly the part that applies to this situation

It's only apart because they decided changing your momentum didn't constitute becoming a runner. Which has been explained to you repeatedly but you can't grasp it. Which is why those two plays had exact opposite calls and the NFL upheld both.

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

I also don't like the discrepancy that you can't be down by your knee if you're determined to be "falling" at the same time. Why even have a rule about your knee making you down if that only is the rule if you aren't falling in the process of making a catch?

He wasn't touched so this is actually irrelevant rather than cables I can't argue it so I'm going to pretend it's irrelevant. CableZL posted...

Dude, nobody even falls down in the Redskins/Giants gif. Irrelevant

So you think tate was going down in the other video?
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

They aren't the same rule being used

They are the same rule because it's not about falling it's about becoming a runner. Look at the actual rules.

CableZL posted...

And again, the NFL has come out a number of times after the fact to say that the call on the field was incorrect

Then why didn't the come out against one of those 2 plays? Oh right because it's an ambiguous rule that they can argue either way.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

They're irrelevant to this discussion.

They are literally the exact same rule being used and are literally showing how the NFL will defend whatever is called. Just like they would if New York decided changing your momentum allows you to become a runner. Which shows the fundamental flaw of the rule and why no matter if you think that the call was correct or not the Steelers were screwed by not fixing the rules after dezs play. There should be no ambiguity.

The rule either needs to remove going to the ground since they can not define what becomes a runner.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

No, because he's still falling after his knee touches the ground.

After he became a runner by changing his momentum

I Like Toast posted...

You want to keep running from

I Like Toast posted...
The nfl confirmed both of these as well

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap3000000559588/Instant-Replay-Interception-or-touchdown-Blandino-explains



One was a touchdown, one was an int. Both are the exact same shit.

Zodd3224 posted...

Im a big fan of the catch rule the way it is. Also the tuck rule

Don't forget the fumble out of the end zone rule.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

It's not judgement at all. The NFL rulebook is very clear in that if you're falling down in the process of making a catch, you must survive the ground.

I Like Toast posted...

You want to keep running from

I Like Toast posted...
The nfl confirmed both of these as well

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap3000000559588/Instant-Replay-Interception-or-touchdown-Blandino-explains



One was a touchdown, one was an int. Both are the exact same shit.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

DezCaughtIt posted...

Reading the argument threads it's like there's two different conversations happening at once

Yep. You're the only one who actually understood what I posted despite it being painfully clear by stating that the rule should have been fixed when it changed the result of a postseason game.

The play could be called either way with how the rules are written, because contrary to CableZL's belief, going to the ground only matters until you are determined to be a runner. Which you can easily state that when his knee touches the ground and he changes his momentum he has survived the ground and become a runner. Or you can just as easily say that changing you'd momentum isn't enough as he's still falling so that the call is correct. There is no reason for going to the ground to be in the rule books after Dez and this shit would have never happened
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

This call isn't relying on judgement at all.

It is 100% the judgement of if him stretching for the goalline, which wasn't the natural angle of his fall, constitutes him being a runner or not.

If he's determined to be a runner the ball touching the ground after it crossed the plane in his possession doesn't matter. Which is why

I Like Toast posted...

You want to keep running from

I Like Toast posted...
The nfl confirmed both of these as well

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap3000000559588/Instant-Replay-Interception-or-touchdown-Blandino-explains



One was a touchdown, one was an int. Both are the exact same shit.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

Al Riveron explains in the video why it was correctly ruled an incomplete catch.

I Like Toast posted...

Which results in two different results that either of which was called would have been confirmed by the NFL just like these two contradictory calls. You want to keep running from

I Like Toast posted...
The nfl confirmed both of these as well

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap3000000559588/Instant-Replay-Interception-or-touchdown-Blandino-explains



One was a touchdown, one was an int. Both are the exact same shit.

CableZL posted...

He was falling down in the process of making the catch a

Only matters if new York decides he wasn't a runner, which is why al tells you Ben completes a pass and then
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

:

Hello, everyone, this is Al Riveron. And just wanted to review a play that happened in very exciting New England and Pittsburgh game today. As we can see here, Roethlisberger completes a pass to James

So what you're saying is its the exact opposite of what you've spewing that it was never a catch and it's exactly what I already told you. The ball is caught, knee is down, then it's up to the review booth to decide if lunging for the end zone makes him a runner or if they consider it going to the ground. Which results in two different results that either of which was called would have been confirmed by the NFL just like these two contradictory calls. You want to keep running from

I Like Toast posted...

The nfl confirmed both of these as well

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap3000000559588/Instant-Replay-Interception-or-touchdown-Blandino-explains



One was a touchdown, one was an int. Both are the exact same shit.

It's almost like unlike you I actually understand the rule which is why I stated that the rule should have been fixed after dezs play. It's almost like I've never once said that the rule was called incorrectly because the rule relies on judgement and that has no role in what is a catch or not.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

Did you even watch that whole video? He literally explains why it wasn't a completed pass.

It's really astonishing how illiterate you are
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

If you're falling down in the process of making a catch and you lose possession of the ball, it isn't a catch

Only if you do not transition to a runner.

I Like Toast posted...

He lunged for the end zone making him a runner

It's inexcusable this bullshit wasn't fixed after DezCaughtIt. There exists no reason for going to the ground to factor at all. If the ground or defender jars it loose it's a fumble.

And keep ignoring how the NFL confirmed both these calls despite one being a td and one being an int.

I Like Toast posted...

The nfl confirmed both of these as well

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap3000000559588/Instant-Replay-Interception-or-touchdown-Blandino-explains

CableZL posted...

I Like Toast posted...

Nope

Again

If you're falling down in the process of making a catch and you lose possession of the ball, it isn't a catch.

He was falling down and lost possession of the ball when the ball hit the ground, so he never successfully caught the ball. So yes, the ball hit the ground before he caught it.

This isn't hard.

I Like Toast posted...

I Like Toast posted...
Literally even the NFL knows it
https://twitter.com/nflfootballops/status/942559627295764480

"as we see here Roethlisberger completes a pass to James"

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

RedWhiteBlue posted...

Seriously, this is pretty damn good and simple

And can still be true and has already been hinted at with snope
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

That's not my flow chart.

It is the post I responded to and that started your entire conversation with me. Which as I said, are you illiterate or just stupid?

CableZL posted...

Did the ball hit the ground before he caught the ball? -> Yes -> Incomplete

Nope

I Like Toast posted...

Literally even the NFL knows it
https://twitter.com/nflfootballops/status/942559627295764480

"as we see here Roethlisberger completes a pass to James"

So now cable knows the rules even better than the NFL? CableZL posted...

And no, the NFL doesn't confirm everything. There has been a number of occasions where the NFL comes out after the fact and said the call on the field was incorrect.

I Like Toast posted...

Lmao, the NFL confirms everything. If it wasn't overturned they would have confirmed it just the same and even you know it.

The nfl confirmed both of these as well

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap3000000559588/Instant-Replay-Interception-or-touchdown-Blandino-explains



One was a touchdown, one was an int. Both are the exact same shit.

---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

rule book states you must control the ball all the way to the ground if you are falling during the process of catching the ball.

If you don't become a runner. Go look at your flow chart.



Did the ball touch the ground? No
Was he inbounds? Yes
Did he become a runner? Yes
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

Also: The NFL confirmed the call was correct.

Lmao, the NFL confirms everything. If it wasn't overturned they would have confirmed it just the same and even you know it.

The nfl confirmed both of these as well

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap3000000559588/Instant-Replay-Interception-or-touchdown-Blandino-explains



One was a touchdown, one was an int. Both are the exact same shit.
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all

CableZL posted...

Stretching for the goal line isn't becoming a runner of you don't yet have possession

He had possession when his knee touched and the ball is firmly in his hands. He becomes a runner by changing his momentum. The NFL inability to define becoming a runner and removing the going to the ground bullshit

Seriously are you illiterate? Why do you think the call was he didn't survive the ground, not that he never had possession. He had possession, there is no question of it.

Literally even the NFL knows it
https://twitter.com/nflfootballops/status/942559627295764480

"as we see here Roethlisberger completes a pass to James"
---

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all