The NFL's Official Change to What Is A Catch: Dez Bryant play rule rewritten *merge*

[JoeKing]

People were not complaining about the CJ rule (generally), but rather the misapplication of it.

That's a distinction without a difference.

 

[TwoDeep3]

The full sequence was:
catch in the air with control
left foot down
right foot down
Falling toward the ground
left foot down again
right hand, wrist and elbow
left knee
left forearm
ball touched the ground.

I fixed it for you. And the part I included is why it was not a catch.

 

[TwoDeep3]

"...If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete"
Didn't this also happen after ball popped up and Dez "re-caught" it while in the endzone?

No, because the agent that caused it to pop up was the ground. And in the case of the rule, ball movement when in contact with the ground, held by a falling receiver, constitutes no catch.

 

[SultanOfSix]

The new rule means he's not a runner yet, because the official can simply say he hasn't been upright long enough. Control and both feet down won't matter anymore on this kind of play. The player could even wave the ball in the air as he's going down, but if it comes out when he lands, it's like the catch never happened.

Yes. It's total crap. When I said it doesn't solve anything, it means it doesn't make anything clearer and more explicit as to what is a catch. It makes it worse and make its more subjectively open for interpretation such that you could have two different people make two different calls based on identical or nearly identical plays: one ref could think he was upright "long enough", while the other wouldn't feel that way.

The whole point of the rule referring a "football move common to the game" was to give tangible reference to something that could be seen as distinct from a player leaping for a catch and just going to the ground and the ball coming out when it hits the ground and actually having possession. While being upright "long enough" does the same, it now makes it more open for interpretation as to what happens between leaping for a catch and being upright long enough, which is what Dez's catch falls under.

 

[BigStar]

No, because the agent that caused it to pop up was the ground. And in the case of the rule, ball movement when in contact with the ground, held by a falling receiver, constitutes no catch.

Gotcha, thanks for clarification.

 

[blindzebra]

How about control and 2 feet and you are done?

Falling OOB maintain control.

Two feet don't land in the field of play/endzone maintain control.

Man that was so hard no wonder the rules committee could not come up with it.

 

[lurkercowboy]

How about control and 2 feet and you are done?

Falling OOB maintain control.

Two feet don't land in the field of play/endzone maintain control.

Man that was so hard no wonder the rules committee could not come up with it.

Why did they ever change the rule anyway? For years it was two feet down and control and we liked it that way.

Also, I have yet to see any replay that conclusively shows the ball touching the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

No, because the agent that caused it to pop up was the ground. And in the case of the rule, ball movement when in contact with the ground, held by a falling receiver, constitutes no catch.

The trick is, you have to call him a receiver in order for that rule to apply. Call him a runner, and it's "the ground can't cause a fumble."

Under the old rule, you can't call him a receiver because he'd completed the three-part catch process of control, both feet, and at least one football move. Under the new rule, you could have called him a receiver for not being upright long enough.

Hence the rule change, that we were told wasn't going to happen because it wasn't necessary.

 

[TwoDeep3]

How about control and 2 feet and you are done?

Falling OOB maintain control.

Two feet don't land in the field of play/endzone maintain control.

Man that was so hard no wonder the rules committee could not come up with it.

Then you rewrite the rule to suggest a falling receiver - such as T Williams on that brilliant catch last year - can allow the ground in or out of the playing field to be knocked out of the receivers hands - not part of the T Williams play - and this is still a catch.

I do not like the outcome of the Dez play. But, I also believe a catch should be maintained to the ground and not disrupted by the ball being knocked out or the receiver's hands, or influenced with movement and the control lost because of the ground.

However, here is where the league talks out of both sides of their mouths.

How can the ground not cause a fumble for a running back?

 

[TwoDeep3]

The trick is, you have to call him a receiver in order for that rule to apply. Call him a runner, and it's "the ground can't cause a fumble."

Under the old rule, you can't call him a receiver because he'd completed the three-part catch process of control, both feet, and at least one football move. Under the new rule, you could have called him a receiver for not being upright long enough.

Hence the rule change, that we were told wasn't going to happen because it wasn't necessary.

Control must be maintained toi the ground. I did not read your post and essentially posted the same thing about the ground and the ball.

But in the case of Dez, when he starts leaning, by contact with the defender, it is construed as a motion consistent with falling. His attempt to dig in an foist himself toward the goal line is not a football move since it was precipitated by what the league and the rule considers "falling."

As I have said, I don't like the way it ended up.

But it followed the rules, and no matter what, there is still interpretation by the officials in almost every penalty, or review.

 

[TrailBlazer]

They need to completely rethink this rule. The offensive player should get the benefit of the doubt if it's that's close. The rules are already slanted in favor of offenses.

 

[blindzebra]

Control must be maintained toi the ground. I did not read your post and essentially posted the same thing about the ground and the ball.

But in the case of Dez, when he starts leaning, by contact with the defender, it is construed as a motion consistent with falling. His attempt to dig in an foist himself toward the goal line is not a football move since it was precipitated by what the league and the rule considers "falling."

As I have said, I don't like the way it ended up.

But it followed the rules, and no matter what, there is still interpretation by the officials in almost every penalty, or review.

He already had control, had 2 feet inbounds, and made a move common to the game by turning and begining a 3rd step before that contact that caused the fall. In other words the catch process was complete before any going to the ground occurs.

 

[KJJ]

Dez took a lot of steps on that play before falling. Not the same kind of play. If you're looking for control, three steps, reach, ball comes loose on contact with the ground, and it's ruled a catch, here it is...

Really tried not responding to this but I couldn't resist because that play to Thomas was brought up months ago along with the video which I tried to locate but couldn't. I'm not going to get into a lengthy argument over this play because it will end up a waste of time but it's completely different from the Calvin Johnson and Dez play because Thomas never left the ground to make the catch. He caught the ball with both feet on the ground then AFTER making the catch turned to dive into the endzone and lost the ball after it hit the ground. He ALREADY established the catch and control and was never going to the ground so that was a catch. That play is DIFFERENT from the Johnson and Dez play because they went up for the ball and were going to the ground as they were coming down so they had to complete a process.

 

[percyhoward]

The Calvin Johnson rule was around long before Dez got his chance to test it. I don't see the protest threads about this rule on CZ before then so why are we seeing it now? Cowboys fans are so inconsistent with their complaints. It wasn't a catch and will never be a catch and no amount of protest by you will ever change that fact. Crying about it at this point is just laughable to me. Being mad about the re-write of the rule however, is something I believe is justified. It is now truly the Dez rule.

This is an interesting take, because you realize that the rule should not have been changed, and yet don't seem to have thought about why it was changed. Look at it this way: If the rule hadn't been "broken" (in their eyes) they would not have "fixed" it (again, in their eyes.) Still, there's a common thread of misunderstanding among those who insist that it was not a catch, and most of it centers around the catch process and establishing oneself as a runner.

There existed in 2014 (and I assume there still exists) a way to determine what is or isn't a catch in the NFL. It's called the "catch process," and it has three parts:

1. control of the ball
2. both feet down
3. an act common to the game

Those first two parts may happen at the same time, but must come before #3. An "act common to the game" (also referred to as a "football move") is what the player does with the football after #1 and #2 have been completed. It's there because the league doesn't want a loose ball being ruled a fumble until it's certain that the ball really was caught, and you can be certain that if a player tucks the ball in one arm (for example), or reaches for the goal line with the ball, he must have caught it already. Basically, the football move is common sense, spelled out.

An important thing to know about #3 is that it doesn't always come into play. There are times when a football move isn't possible (like when a player is falling out of bounds or making a diving catch in bounds), or isn't necessary (when a player makes an end zone catch).

Two important definitions: "receiver" and "runner." A receiver is a player that has been targeted with a pass, but who does not yet have possession of the ball. IOW, he hasn't completed steps 1-3 yet (or in the exceptional cases above, hasn't completed 1-2 yet). If a receiver drops the ball, it's an incomplete pass. A runner is a player who has possession of the ball. If a runner drops the ball, it's a fumble (assuming the ground doesn't cause it to come loose).

For those times when #3 isn't possible or isn't necessary and the player goes to the ground, there exists a rule that he must maintain control of the ball through contact (now "after initial contact") with the ground. It's crucial to understand that this rule applies only in the exceptional cases described above, and is not needed when #3 is necessary and possible. People often respond to the overturn by saying, "what if he takes 10 stumbling steps, then falls and loses the ball when he hits the ground. That's not a catch?" Yes, of course it's a catch, because #3 (the football move) was obviously possible (unless he's still bobbling the ball for all 10 steps and hasn't completed #1 yet).

Most catches involve all 3 parts of the catch process, because on most catches, the player has something to do after he catches it -- usually he advances it. Dez's catch was such a play. He wasn't falling out of bounds, he wasn't in the end zone, and (even though this was Blandino's interpretation after the fact) he was not going to the ground to make the catch. IOW, it wasn't a diving catch where #3 wasn't possible. Dez proved this with several football moves (switching the ball to his left arm, taking a third step, lunging for the goal line, and reaching the ball toward the goal line). Remember, only one of these moves is needed to make it a catch.

It's at this point where some will react with, "It doesn't matter. If you're going to the ground you must maintain control through contact with the ground." This is where the terms "receiver" and "runner" come in. The rule about going to the ground is only meant to apply to the exceptional cases when #3 is unnecessary or impossible. It clearly states that it applies to a "receiver" going to the gorund. A player who as completed the 3-part catch process has possession of the ball and is therefore now a runner. That means Dez was a runner. That means Dez could not have been a "receiver" going to the ground, as Johnson was.

You see, Johnson was in the end zone. That's one of those exceptional cases, and that's when the rule about maintaining control through contact with the ground actually does apply. It has to. He's already scored, so what football move could he be expected to make?

 

[KJJ]

The Calvin Johnson rule was around long before Dez got his chance to test it. I don't see the protest threads about this rule on CZ before then so why are we seeing it now?

That's because it didn't involve the Cowboys. No one here cares if it happens to another player and team but when it happens to the Cowboys FANS make it appear it's a conspiracy against us.

 

[percyhoward]

Control must be maintained toi the ground. I did not read your post and essentially posted the same thing about the ground and the ball.

But in the case of Dez, when he starts leaning, by contact with the defender, it is construed as a motion consistent with falling. His attempt to dig in an foist himself toward the goal line is not a football move since it was precipitated by what the league and the rule considers "falling."

As I have said, I don't like the way it ended up.

But it followed the rules, and no matter what, there is still interpretation by the officials in almost every penalty, or review.

Well, nobody likes the way it ended up, but we're talking about the application of a rule that doesn't apply in Dez's case. Yes, control must be maintained to the ground. But only if the pass hasn't been caught yet. If the pass has been caught, Dez is no longer a "receiver" going to the ground, so a rule about receivers going to the ground becomes irrelevant.

There is such a thing as the catch process. Not all players who catch a pass and later fall down are "receivers going to the ground." If you think they are, then you need to look a similar plays and how they were ruled. Julius Thomas in week 2 of 2013 is an example of how the Dez play should have been ruled (or more accurately, how it was ruled prior to being overturned).

 

[TwoDeep3]

He already had control, had 2 feet inbounds, and made a move common to the game by turning and begining a 3rd step before that contact that caused the fall. In other words the catch process was complete before any going to the ground occurs.

Review the video.

 

[percyhoward]

Two questions for anyone who believes the overturn was correct. I'm not expecting any answers to either one of them, so surprise me.

What are the three requirements for a catch?

Why don't these requirements apply to this play?

 

[KJJ]

Review the video.

Like that's going to convince anyone. LOL There's those who deny the ball even touched the ground or came loose despite slo-mo frame by frame replay.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Well, nobody likes the way it ended up, but we're talking about the application of a rule that doesn't apply in Dez's case. Yes, control must be maintained to the ground. But only if the pass hasn't been caught yet. If the pass has been caught, Dez is no longer a "receiver" going to the ground, so a rule about receivers going to the ground becomes irrelevant.

There is such a thing as the catch process. Not all players who catch a pass and later fall down are "receivers going to the ground." If you think they are, then you need to look a similar plays and how they were ruled. Julius Thomas in week 2 of 2013 is an example of how the Dez play should have been ruled (or more accurately, how it was ruled prior to being overturned).

And your argument flies in the face of continuation. Which is how they ruled this play. Because the only scenario which defends the ruling is if they think he caught the ball in a continuation to the ground where the ground caused the ball to move.

And it doesn't matter what Cowboy fans think, nor if it hairlips the governor. Continuation is how they viewed it, and how they overruled the call on the field.