Sure you do. Right at the the 2:00 mark.
If you can perform all three parts in that order, you have a catch. If not, and you're going to the ground, you must control the ball when you hit the ground.
What do you think he means in saying, "when you hit the ground", in relation to his usage of "going to the ground"? What would you call "going to the ground" when used in such a manner? Certainly isn't when you "hit" the ground because that comes after. Falling is probably appropriate.
Or maybe just listen to his explanation of the Calvin play.
He did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line so this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.
Calvin actually completes all 3 parts but does not do so in the order outlined in the rulebook. He acknowledge the reach for the goal line, but it doesn't occur after having the 2nd foot down so he has not completed the process. Furthermore, the officials didn't make the call based on the timing of foot placement versus reach. The ball moved and he's going to the ground so that's all that's required to be incomplete, according to the rulebook. Here's how the referee from that game saw things:
After the game, referee John Parry said whether or not Johnson had already crossed into the end zone did not matter in this case and that he saw the ball move without Johnson having control.
“A player that is going to the ground on his own, which Calvin was on that play, must possess and maintain the possession of the football throughout the entire act of the catch,” Parry said. “The catch did not end in that scenario. When the ball hit the end zone, the ball moved. It rotated. So he didn’t maintain possession of the football.”
And an additional quote:
"The ball moved without control. If he would have maintained control of the football throughout the entire process, it’s a touchdown. But when the ball hit in the end zone, the ball moved. He did not have complete control of the football, which is why it's incomplete.”
From his perspective, Calvin fulfilled the 3 basic requirements of a completed pass. As it is being called on the field, calls that Blandino is defending by the way, fulfillment of the 3 basic requirements does not negate the requirement to maintain possession once a player has been deemed to be going to the ground. The only thing that mattered was whether or not Johnson held on to the ball after hitting the ground. Once a player is going to the ground the "process of the catch" is extended to include maintaining possession throughout.
Sticking with Calvin, how about comments from
Gene Steratore, the official who made the initial Calvin Johnson ruling:
Q: What is the rule used on the near Detroit touchdown at the end of the game?
Steratore: The ruling is that in order for the catch to be completed he has got to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch.
Q: He was on his behind before he rolled over. If he stayed on his behind would it have been a touchdown?
Steratore: No. We don’t play with the two feet or one knee or anything of that scenario. We’re talking now about the process of the catch. He’s catching the football, as he goes to the ground, he must maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process. So as he continues to fall if he fell with two feet and his elbow hit the ground and came out it would be incomplete.
As for what Blandino talks about, of course his discussion focuses on completing the process or not. That's what determines whether or not the rule can be applied and he's trying to explain to people when the rule is applicable. When you complete the process prior to going to the ground, it's not applicable. When you haven't then the rule is applicable. Ending up on the ground is not the same as going to the ground in process of the catch as evidenced by the Julius Thomas play.
Again, a football move can be made while going to the ground but the act of going to the ground adds the requirement that the ball be held on to. If you're going to hang your hat on the fact that Blandino didn't explicitly say that a football act couldn't be made to trump going to the ground then you're missing the actual letter of the rule. A football act was not required. I'm not sure how many times I've had to say this, but you need no football move. You just need the time afforded to have been able to make such a move. If we're going to pretend that the real reason Dez didn't get credit for the catch was because he didn't make
enough of a football move then we have to completely ignore that a partial football move itself is indicative of the time necessary to make a football move. The rule is written, and has been relayed to fans countless times, such that it requires the player to maintain possession through the "entire process of going to the ground". There is no exception. Never has been.
We can say Dez didn't make
enough of a move, but that only means that he had the time to make a move and according to the rule book that's all that's needed. Why wasn't this addressed? Who knows.
Here's the NFL's explanation of rule changes for the 2011 season. Skip ahead to around 8:10. Listen to the part where it describes how long a player must maintain control. You won't find any exceptions in the rule book, and you won't find any exceptions in this explanation either.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8216a10b/2011-NFL-rule-changes-and-points-of-emphasis
Why didn't Blandino just say that? Who knows. Maybe he wanted to address the specific aspect that was asked of him. Maybe he was trying a different approach seeing how the league has spent years saying just that only to find themselves in a situation where nobody actually understands the rule and they're still called to answer questions about it on television. Whatever the reason, it doesn't really matter. The rulebook doesn't allow it and, in fact, Jim Schwartz spoke on this very issue when questioned about Calvin's TD that was taken off the board in the video you posted.
Lions head coach Jim Schwartz seemed to understand what the refs were thinking.
“If he wasn’t going to the ground as a part of the catch, that would have been the case," Schwartz said, when asked if he thought that Johnson made a 'football move.' "If he would have been on his feet and reaching over and then it would have been a football move. But he was still going to the ground as a part of that catch. I mean, he’s a two-time loser on his own rule."
Lastly, if you're looking for confirmation that all 3 requirements must be completed before going to the ground (beginning your fall),
here ya go with another Dez video.
Dez does get control here, but he doesn't have possession yet until he gets two feet down and has the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. So, if he doesn't complete that before he goes to the ground, he has hold onto it when he lands. He doesn't, that's what makes it incomplete.
Again we have the same two aspects as before. A clear distinction between "going to the ground" and actually making contact with the ground, this time in the form of "when he lands".
Mike Periera has made the same distinction. Also, you may notice that Dez shields himself from the incoming defender. That, by written rule, constitutes and act common to the game. Didn't matter because as it has been demonstrated numerous times, you must retain possession after the process of going to the ground has started.
First off, you don't have to make any move so Perriera is wrong on that statement.
Again, the line between
not enough of a football move and
enough of a football requires the time afforded in the first place, and therefore the move is not even necessary. Dez had the time, and on two instances hasn't gotten call.
Sort of like this?
“Very similar to the Dez play, he’s not a runner before he went to the ground, and the requirement is he has to hold onto the ball. So regardless of any reach, he’s got to hold onto the ball when he lands, and there’s an element of time the receiver has to complete in order to complete a catch. He didn’t complete that element of time and, very similar to the Dez play, it was ruled incomplete,” Blandino said.
This is his response to Eifert's lost TD from this season. While the rule has changed in as much as what is considered to be "going to the ground", how a player who is going to the ground has not changed at all. In reality, this "new" aspect of time isn't even new so the only change to the rule is that they included like 7 words that explicitly state a player must maintain possession after his initial contact. If that statement applies now and they haven't changed anything in regards to how a player who is going to the ground should be treated, then how can it not apply to Dez? The only way would be if officials are given basic guidelines and are allowed to determine for themselves what is or isn't a catch.
As for Mike Perriera, he's agreed with and disagreed with the NFL on their rulings on this. In fact, the Victor Cruz TD that I posted earlier that can more or less be found in play-by-play form in the NFL casebook is one such play where Periera thinks they made the wrong ruling. Imagine that, Perriera disagrees with how the NFL has instructed officials to call such a play.
Bottom line, the rulebook doesn't allow it, coaches (Marvin Lewis echo'd Schwartz's statement more or less) don't believe a player in the process of going to the ground can complete the catch without maintaining possessions, and officials are not even considering that aspect when a player goes to the ground.
Honestly, what else is there?