KenJennings

Fundamentally wrong argument. The ball is the only thing to advance. The arm moves with the ball, and the arm is part of the player. In football, the ball is the measure of advancement. No. In this case, the person advances the same amount regardless of whether he reaches out or not. That's why it's important to read the rules. The person is attached to the ball, and the ball is the official measure in football. A ball under control can not advance without a person with it. Words have meanings, Ken. I know you don't like the meanings, and I know you like to redefine words to make your opinions look like they are based in reality, but that doesn't change how the rest of the world reads things. The player needs to advance with the ball. If falling down forward, which will move the ball forward 1.5 yards, isn't a player advancing with the ball, falling down forward with your arms out, which will move the ball forward 2.3 yards, isn't advancing with the football. The difference being the presence of a 'move'. Falling down is not usually a deliberate act, it is not usually a 'move'. Reaching is a deliberate act. Reaching is a 'move' designed to intentionally advance with the football. Words have meanings, and I'm not going to ignore what they say. Stop with the appeals to authority and to popularity. Authority is the absolute worst excuse for incompetence. If you can't defend this ruling on is own merits, just stop. Words have meanings, and there is no valid, rational interpretation that would suggest a reach is not a move to advance with the ball. I see nothing to suggest I'm wrong. If Gene Steratore were here, I'd argue it to his face. But he's not, and you've offered little more than his authority as evidence that I'm wrong. Not good enough.

If the ball advanced without the player, but the ball was under control, what moved the ball forward?

Fundamentally wrong argument. The ball is the only thing to advance. The arm moves with the ball, and the arm is part of the player. In football, the ball is the measure of advancement. No. In this case, the person advances the same amount regardless of whether he reaches out or not. That's why it's important to read the rules. The person is attached to the ball, and the ball is the official measure in football. A ball under control can not advance without a person with it.

If a player moves the position of the ball forward on the field, without losing control of it, by any logical extension of football rules and measures, the player IS advancing with the ball.

Fundamentally wrong argument. The ball is the only thing to advance. The arm moves with the ball, and the arm is part of the player. In football, the ball is the measure of advancement.

If you're falling to the ground with control of the ball, you can make one of two decisions: 1-you can tuck the ball in to secure it from a potential fumble. 2-you can reach the ball ahead to advance is position. Either one of those decisions is a deliberate football move. If you're able to control the ball enough to do one or the other, it's a catch.

Not at all, actually. I just went back and looked for this, and I have no idea what you're talking about here. Really. No idea at all. From the very start of this video, I don't see Shields make contact with the ball or Bryant's arms at all. So what are you talking about here? Seriously? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n051cY3xbGo Wow, when you watch it in slow mo, its so damn obvious that was a catch. He took three with the ball tightly secured IKR? I really don't know why we even need to argue this. It's not a close call.

I don't think falling down counts as a move to "advance with [the ball]". If sure doesn't look like a football move to me. Furthermore, I don't know that he even satisfied part (b) of the rule as it doesn't look like he's secured the ball until he has only his left foot down and he is almost to the ground. Anyway, past interpretations of the rule make it clear that this was not a catch. It has been consistently called, so there's no real reason to cry about this ruling. He never went out of bounds. Not only did he get both feet down in bounds, he went to the ground with the ball while not just falling down, but reaching to advance the ball beyond his down by contact body position. He didn't just fall down like you claim. He extended his reach, with control (no rotation of the laces, ball firm in his hand) as he fell. That's a clear football move. That's a clear and distinct effort to advance the ball. The ruling was wrong, clearly. I don't think precedent is consistent at all. I think there are a few examples of similar erroneous rulings, like Calvin Johnson against the Bears in 2011; but errors should not be precedent to excuse more errors. The ball didn't stop moving in his hands until only his left foot was on the ground. No other part of his body (other than hands) subsequently touched the ground. So, as I said, I don't even think part (b) was met. Even if it were, reaching while falling isn't a football move. I know how you hate appeals to authority, but everyone I've seen who interprets these rules for a living has confirmed that the call was right under the rules. Everyone knows the Calvin Johnson rule, so there is no use in complaining about its proper enforcement. The ball was clutched in his left hand with control and a reaching football move WHILE his left knee and right forearm are on the ground. And for you to say "reaching while falling isn't a football move" blatantly ignores the text of the rule. Reaching is an action to advance the ball. To say otherwise is just wilfully ignorant.

I don't think falling down counts as a move to "advance with [the ball]". If sure doesn't look like a football move to me. Furthermore, I don't know that he even satisfied part (b) of the rule as it doesn't look like he's secured the ball until he has only his left foot down and he is almost to the ground. Anyway, past interpretations of the rule make it clear that this was not a catch. It has been consistently called, so there's no real reason to cry about this ruling. He never went out of bounds. Not only did he get both feet down in bounds, he went to the ground with the ball while not just falling down, but reaching to advance the ball beyond his down by contact body position. He didn't just fall down like you claim. He extended his reach, with control (no rotation of the laces, ball firm in his hand) as he fell. That's a clear football move. That's a clear and distinct effort to advance the ball. The ruling was wrong, clearly. I don't think precedent is consistent at all. I think there are a few examples of similar erroneous rulings, like Calvin Johnson against the Bears in 2011; but errors should not be precedent to excuse more errors.

I recently asked my brother: "Would you rather have to give up Diet Coke, or have to give up Busch Light?" His answer was perfect: "Would you rather have to give up water or air?" I can't say I feel much different.

Diet Dew tastes like pickle brine to me. Diet Coke. No substitutions. No knock offs. No Pepsi products. Give me Diet Coke or give me death.

http://www.sparqvault.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/dietcoke.jpg It pretty much keeps me alive.

Not at all, actually. I just went back and looked for this, and I have no idea what you're talking about here. Really. No idea at all. From the very start of this video, I don't see Shields make contact with the ball or Bryant's arms at all. So what are you talking about here? Seriously?

http://cdn.ksk.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/etc.png A move to advance with the ball. I saw that.

Do you honestly not see Shields hit the ball, which starts it moving in Bryant's hands, causing him to have to re-secure the ball? If he has to 're'-secure it, that means he already had it secure, and the catch was complete. Incorrect. Anyone can secure the ball and get one foot down. DOES NOT make the catch complete. NFL requires 2 feet down with the ball secured. So, he caught the ball, Shields knocked it free (obvious because the ball was rotating) and by the time he locks it in, the first foot was off the ground. Hell, even Cris Carter said the same effing thing, and I think he knows what he's talking about. He never went out of bounds. He came down in bounds, reaching for the endzone, with the ball firmly in control of his left hand. The laces never move as he reaches. That is both control and a football move. He was down by contact, inside the one, without ever going out. Two- no three- feet down, and the rest of his body. OK Reb... I mean Ken. You stick to your guns, and you are stone cold wrong. The rule is the rule, and it was not a catch by the rule. PERIOD. That's like saying desires are objective. The rule is subjective. And the subjective judgment was way off base. And the ball never moved as he grasped it in his left hand, and made a clear reaching motion for the endzone. You accuse me of having my mind made up (yes, I do... because I know what I saw) but you ignore that. Any jockeying for control of the ball happened prior to that. The bottom line, he went to the ground with control, and he made a football move. And no, I don't need to read Pinker, or watch Mike and Mike.

Do you honestly not see Shields hit the ball, which starts it moving in Bryant's hands, causing him to have to re-secure the ball? If he has to 're'-secure it, that means he already had it secure, and the catch was complete. Incorrect. Anyone can secure the ball and get one foot down. DOES NOT make the catch complete. NFL requires 2 feet down with the ball secured. So, he caught the ball, Shields knocked it free (obvious because the ball was rotating) and by the time he locks it in, the first foot was off the ground. Hell, even Cris Carter said the same effing thing, and I think he knows what he's talking about. He never went out of bounds. He came down in bounds, reaching for the endzone, with the ball firmly in control of his left hand. The laces never move as he reaches. That is both control and a football move. He was down by contact, inside the one, without ever going out. Two- no three- feet down, and the rest of his body.

Do you honestly not see Shields hit the ball, which starts it moving in Bryant's hands, causing him to have to re-secure the ball? If he has to 're'-secure it, that means he already had it secure, and the catch was complete.

I don't actually want you to answer this, so much as I want you to just consider it... but seriously: looking at that video... do you REALLY not see him move the ball to his left hand and make a controlled reaching motion?? Because I honestly, sincerely, completely without a shred of rhetoric or bullshit: do not know how you can't see it that way.

If I have any bias in the Detroit game, it was for Detroit. I'm actually a big fan of Stafford and Calvin; though I very much dislike their dirty play of late. I've disliked the Cowboys my whole life. I still hate them for Drew Pearson's uncalled Pass Int. I've always thought Tony Romo was overrated, and I think Dez Bryant's a jackass. I have absolutely no love for them. Admittedly, I do hate the Packers. I've hated them since they showed Favre the door, and I will always hate them for that. But that does not change the fact that Brandon Pettigrew pulled on Anthony Hitchens' shoulder/helmet and committed offensive pass int. That does not change the fact that Randall Cobb was allowed to catch a ball off the ground (even after a clear review) which led to a Packer's score. And that does not change the fact that Dez Bryant came down with the ball, made a football move toward the endzone, and had the play mysteriously called otherwise. The NFL did everything they could to play to the Packers' advantage. It was the profitable thing to do, even if they came up short of the spread in the end. Watch the super slo video, can find it on YouTube if you need to see it again. A football move cannot happen until he has possession. The ball was hit in his hands, he technically only got 1 foot down after securing the ball before going to the ground. Clearly lost the ball when it hit the ground. He had possession the entire time he went to the ground. He took the ball with two hands, moved it into one hand, and reached forward to the endzone. I count three steps and a reach with possession before the ground dislodged the ball. That is plenty of 'football movement'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n051cY3xbGo Pay special attention to the laces of the football as he goes down. They aren't moving erratically. He has control of the football immediately, and moves toward the endzone. He had control, the ground dislodged the ball, and then he maintained control. At worst, that's ball down inside the one. Yes, he lost possession, per the rules, when he hit the ground, so they may rule it isnt a catch. The catch was completed when he lunged toward the endzone. He caught the ball and made a clear football move. Hell, he had enough presence and control to shift the ball to his left hand in order to make a clear reach.

He gets control of the ball at 0:06 with one foot down in bounds. His second foot is down at 0:10, and he begins to make a football move (lunging/reaching with one arm) toward the endzone (he even has the control to transfer the ball to the reaching hand). At this point the process of the catch is complete. From 0:15 through to 0:20 you can see that the ball is firmly grasped in his hand, under control, as the laces don't move. At 0:23, the ground dislodges the ball- down inside the 1yd line. I think it's pretty clear cut. I really don't know how this is even questionable.

If I have any bias in the Detroit game, it was for Detroit. I'm actually a big fan of Stafford and Calvin; though I very much dislike their dirty play of late. I've disliked the Cowboys my whole life. I still hate them for Drew Pearson's uncalled Pass Int. I've always thought Tony Romo was overrated, and I think Dez Bryant's a jackass. I have absolutely no love for them. Admittedly, I do hate the Packers. I've hated them since they showed Favre the door, and I will always hate them for that. But that does not change the fact that Brandon Pettigrew pulled on Anthony Hitchens' shoulder/helmet and committed offensive pass int. That does not change the fact that Randall Cobb was allowed to catch a ball off the ground (even after a clear review) which led to a Packer's score. And that does not change the fact that Dez Bryant came down with the ball, made a football move toward the endzone, and had the play mysteriously called otherwise. The NFL did everything they could to play to the Packers' advantage. It was the profitable thing to do, even if they came up short of the spread in the end. Watch the super slo video, can find it on YouTube if you need to see it again. A football move cannot happen until he has possession. The ball was hit in his hands, he technically only got 1 foot down after securing the ball before going to the ground. Clearly lost the ball when it hit the ground. He had possession the entire time he went to the ground. He took the ball with two hands, moved it into one hand, and reached forward to the endzone. I count three steps and a reach with possession before the ground dislodged the ball. That is plenty of 'football movement'. Pay special attention to the laces of the football as he goes down. They aren't moving erratically. He has control of the football immediately, and moves toward the endzone. He had control, the ground dislodged the ball, and then he maintained control. At worst, that's ball down inside the one.

If I have any bias in the Detroit game, it was for Detroit. I'm actually a big fan of Stafford and Calvin; though I very much dislike their dirty play of late. I've disliked the Cowboys my whole life. I still hate them for Drew Pearson's uncalled Pass Int. I've always thought Tony Romo was overrated, and I think Dez Bryant's a jackass. I have absolutely no love for them. Admittedly, I do hate the Packers. I've hated them since they showed Favre the door, and I will always hate them for that. But that does not change the fact that Brandon Pettigrew pulled on Anthony Hitchens' shoulder/helmet and committed offensive pass int. That does not change the fact that Randall Cobb was allowed to catch a ball off the ground (even after a clear review) which led to a Packer's score. And that does not change the fact that Dez Bryant came down with the ball, made a football move toward the endzone, and had the play mysteriously called otherwise. The NFL did everything they could to play to the Packers' advantage. It was the profitable thing to do, even if they came up short of the spread in the end.

I think that the ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver doesn't use the ground to help him do so. The bobble happened after the ball had touched the ground and the runner was down. According to what I know (which isn't definitive by any means), he should have been ruled down inside the 1. This was the original ruling. Then you have the bias against overturning the call on the field, and I was surprised it was overturned. I have the feeling that over the next 24 hours we'll all become more knowledgable about the details of this situation. Read the actual rule. It was not a catch. Easy peasy. Oh yeah, but Randall Cobb can pick the ball up off the ground, and it stands as a catch. Give me a break. Dez's play was incomplete. Don't whine like an Eagles fan. It wasn't a catch period. The "football move" argument is just an excuse for the NFL to make it up as they go. There is no standard by which to make that call. It is just an excuse for the NFL to manipulate the game. This is just as bad a call as was the Calvin Johnson 'process' call a few years ago. It was complete bull shit then, it is complete bull shit now. It has nothing to do with the teams involved. On the other hand, when Randall Cobb picked a ball up off the ground, there WAS a standard that was simply ignored. So there, instead of manipulating the game based on a nonsense open ended rule that really doesn't mean anything, they just ignored the rules in favor of the Packers. I missed it... was that Cobb play challenged? I believe he's referring to the first half catch (near the end of the half), and it was within the last two minutes, after Garrett completely f-ed up that Dallas drive that could have put them up two scores. Either way, to think the NFL would rather have GB in there over Dallas is hysterical. Sounds like the ranting of a blind bias. If you listened to any NFL discussion... hell, even the Fox postgame, it was obvious who they wanted to win... could barely tell the Packers won the game with the amount of Dallas praise being dished out. To be fair probably the team they'd want in there second most is GB. The Cowboys draw the highest ratings but the Pack is a close second. I know Aikman has Cowboy ties but if you want to ruin the Cowboys you could make him their coach. His idea of kicking the FG on the Cowboys' last drive from 51 on a sloppy field with a kicker who had missed badly earlier was ludicrous. NFL is about making money, and would favor the highest revenue generating team (Dallas) over the #12. I would think NY teams should easily be ahead of the Packers too Revenue generation had nothing over gambling proceeds. Teams that outperform expectations always get rough calls. I dont believe any of the conspiracy tripe... but GB was giving 6 werent they? :) You still won if you bet Dallas.... Can't reason with blind hate Do you honestly believe you've been the voice of unbiased reason here? Not to mention you're completely ignoring futures bets.

I think that the ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver doesn't use the ground to help him do so. The bobble happened after the ball had touched the ground and the runner was down. According to what I know (which isn't definitive by any means), he should have been ruled down inside the 1. This was the original ruling. Then you have the bias against overturning the call on the field, and I was surprised it was overturned. I have the feeling that over the next 24 hours we'll all become more knowledgable about the details of this situation. Read the actual rule. It was not a catch. Easy peasy. Oh yeah, but Randall Cobb can pick the ball up off the ground, and it stands as a catch. Give me a break. Dez's play was incomplete. Don't whine like an Eagles fan. It wasn't a catch period. The "football move" argument is just an excuse for the NFL to make it up as they go. There is no standard by which to make that call. It is just an excuse for the NFL to manipulate the game. This is just as bad a call as was the Calvin Johnson 'process' call a few years ago. It was complete bull shit then, it is complete bull shit now. It has nothing to do with the teams involved. On the other hand, when Randall Cobb picked a ball up off the ground, there WAS a standard that was simply ignored. So there, instead of manipulating the game based on a nonsense open ended rule that really doesn't mean anything, they just ignored the rules in favor of the Packers. No, its the rule, and its clear, its not a catch. Its been cited all over the place so I dont need to walk you through it. Youre giving two examples, theres been others, and the reason no one likes the way its called is because the rule is stupid (IMO). If the ball doesnt hit the ground, I think it should be a catch, period. The rule is not clear at all, and that's exactly why it's so stupid. It subjugates every catch to an entirely subjective judgment about what is our what is not a complete process. To argue that Dez Bryant did not make 'a football move' is to ignore the fact that he lunged his arms toward the goal line. He absolutely made 'a football move' after reeling in possession- but the ref just decided he didn't. That's where the rule lies: not in what happened, but what in the ref decided happened.

I think that the ball can touch the ground as long as the receiver doesn't use the ground to help him do so. The bobble happened after the ball had touched the ground and the runner was down. According to what I know (which isn't definitive by any means), he should have been ruled down inside the 1. This was the original ruling. Then you have the bias against overturning the call on the field, and I was surprised it was overturned. I have the feeling that over the next 24 hours we'll all become more knowledgable about the details of this situation. Read the actual rule. It was not a catch. Easy peasy. Oh yeah, but Randall Cobb can pick the ball up off the ground, and it stands as a catch. Give me a break. Dez's play was incomplete. Don't whine like an Eagles fan. It wasn't a catch period. The "football move" argument is just an excuse for the NFL to make it up as they go. There is no standard by which to make that call. It is just an excuse for the NFL to manipulate the game. This is just as bad a call as was the Calvin Johnson 'process' call a few years ago. It was complete bull shit then, it is complete bull shit now. It has nothing to do with the teams involved. On the other hand, when Randall Cobb picked a ball up off the ground, there WAS a standard that was simply ignored. So there, instead of manipulating the game based on a nonsense open ended rule that really doesn't mean anything, they just ignored the rules in favor of the Packers. I missed it... was that Cobb play challenged? I believe he's referring to the first half catch (near the end of the half), and it was within the last two minutes, after Garrett completely f-ed up that Dallas drive that could have put them up two scores. Either way, to think the NFL would rather have GB in there over Dallas is hysterical. Sounds like the ranting of a blind bias. If you listened to any NFL discussion... hell, even the Fox postgame, it was obvious who they wanted to win... could barely tell the Packers won the game with the amount of Dallas praise being dished out. To be fair probably the team they'd want in there second most is GB. The Cowboys draw the highest ratings but the Pack is a close second. I know Aikman has Cowboy ties but if you want to ruin the Cowboys you could make him their coach. His idea of kicking the FG on the Cowboys' last drive from 51 on a sloppy field with a kicker who had missed badly earlier was ludicrous. NFL is about making money, and would favor the highest revenue generating team (Dallas) over the #12. I would think NY teams should easily be ahead of the Packers too Revenue generation had nothing over gambling proceeds. Teams that outperform expectations always get rough calls.