I do not see any difference between that play and the Dez play in 2014 *merged*

[OmerV]

Because prior to 2015, a "runner" was simply a player in possession of a live ball. "Upright long enough" didn't enter the rules until 2015. Until that time you could complete the catch process even while falling. That's why Blandino had to say he looked for a football move even after Dez started to fall, and why he should have had to prove Dez did not perform any acts common to the game before he hit the ground -- that he simply fell.

If you missed it, here's the casebook example of a player establishing himself as a runner while he is falling:

A.R. 15.95 Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.

In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

That's from the 2014 casebook. When the football move was spelled out in 2016, the examples put in by the catch committee were "tucking the ball away, turning upfield, taking additional steps."

If you agree with the overturn, then either you're saying at least one of those things wasn't considered an act common to the game just two years earlier, or you're saying Dez didn't do even one of these things.

Which is it?

"Upright long enough" wasn't in the rule then, but the rule about going to the ground was.

 

[percyhoward]

"Upright long enough" wasn't in the rule then, but the rule about going to the ground was.

Of course. And the NFL Casebook example is about a player who completed the catch process while falling.

As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed. In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact. ​

 

[JustChip]

I actually don't have an issue with the rule. I tend to leave emotions out of the sport in general because more times than not we have zero control. And I understand your point about a WRs instinct to stretch a play. maybe you're right, in fact you probably are. However, just like everything in the game that changes there is an adjustment period. That sounds easy, but if coaches and players aren't educated on the rule then how are they going to apply that from the practice field to game day? You have to start somewhere and now is the time. Then I think you'll see less plays that are ruled incomplete. Take a look at the Dez videos. Dez, his coaches and even the Green Bay sideline were wondering "is it a catch?"

I agree that it needs to be discussed and "taught" by the coaches. However, in most, if not all cases, it won't change how receivers play. You see it with running backs or QBs jumping at the goal line and extending the ball to try to score - it's football instinct. The same will happen with a receiver at the goal-line (Jesse James) or elsewhere if it's near what's needed for a crucial first-down.

My problem with the rule is it's too complex, yet ambiguous at the same time, and invalidates what virtually every reasonable person that has watched or played football would deem legitimate catches. Throw the rule out, find a group of people who had never heard of the rule, and show them videos of 20 or so plays where the rule has invalidated a catch (including Jessie James, Dez and Megatron). Ask them to determine which were catches and which weren't. There is not doubt in my mind that an overwhelming number of people would be of like mind and say the vast majority of the invalidated catches were indeed catches (including the 3 I mentioned). That tells you the rule is counter to common sense and logic.

IMO, the solution is to throw it out and, if you have to have a rule, start fresh without any preconceived notions. And frankly, the more limited it is the better. It's like the old-forced out-of-bounds rule hinged on a subjective point of view - would the receiver have come down in bounds without being pushed by the defender. In some cases, it was clear, but in others is was iffy and could've gone either way. That's a bad rule so they changed it to black and white, 2 feet down with control or not, no ambiguity. In other words, apply Ocum's Razor.

 

[G2]

I agree that it needs to be discussed and "taught" by the coaches. However, in most, if not all cases, it won't change how receivers play. You see it with running backs or QBs jumping at the goal line and extending the ball to try to score - it's football instinct. The same will happen with a receiver at the goal-line (Jesse James) or elsewhere if it's near what's needed for a crucial first-down.

My problem with the rule is it's too complex, yet ambiguous at the same time, and invalidates what virtually every reasonable person that has watched or played football would deem legitimate catches. Throw the rule out, find a group of people who had never heard of the rule, and show them videos of 20 or so plays where the rule has invalidated a catch (including Jessie James, Dez and Megatron). Ask them to determine which were catches and which weren't. There is not doubt in my mind that an overwhelming number of people would be of like mind and say the vast majority of the invalidated catches were indeed catches (including the 3 I mentioned). That tells you the rule is counter to common sense and logic.

IMO, the solution is to throw it out and, if you have to have a rule, start fresh without any preconceived notions. And frankly, the more limited it is the better. It's like the old-forced out-of-bounds rule hinged on a subjective point of view - would the receiver have come down in bounds without being pushed by the defender. In some cases, it was clear, but in others is was iffy and could've gone either way. That's a bad rule so they changed it to black and white, 2 feet down with control or not, no ambiguity. In other words, apply Ocum's Razor.

The problem with simply saying 2 feet down is the duration. It would probably decrease in-completions but increase fumbles.

 

[OmerV]

Of course. And the NFL Casebook example is about a player who completed the catch process while falling.

As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed. In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact. ​

Look at the entirety - it talks about the player going to the ground because he got hit by a defender, and Dez was going to the ground all the way, whether the defender made contact or not. He was never going to remain upright.

Do you have a link for the 2014 casebook? In fairness, I'll take the time to look that over, but I can't seem to find it online.

 

[JustChip]

The problem with simply saying 2 feet down is the duration. It would probably decrease in-completions but increase fumbles.

Maybe, probably, but it had been that way for decades and there wasn't the great uproar. The Jessie James' catch wouldn't have been a fumble because he broke the plane, Dez might have been - I'd have to go back and see if the defender contacted him when his knee was on the ground. If so, he's down and no fumble, if not, it's a fumble that he recovered. But I'm not saying make 2 feet down the sole determination - I was just using the out-of-bounds rule as a example of a rule that is binary without subjectivity, the same can be done with the catch rule. Anybody that argues that the current rule has no subjectivity, which breeds inconsistency and controversy, is in denial or being disingenuous.

 

[khiladi]

Look at the entirety - it talks about the player going to the ground because he got hit by a defender, and Dez was going to the ground all the way, whether the defender made contact or not. He was never going to remain upright.

Do you have a link for the 2014 casebook? In fairness, I'll take the time to look that over, but I can't seem to find it online.

Defender has nothing to do with it and is just an incidental part of the example and it clearly spells out TIME element as the basis to rule it a catch..

 

[G2]

Maybe, probably, but it had been that way for decades and there wasn't the great uproar. The Jessie James' catch wouldn't have been a fumble because he broke the plane, Dez might have been - I'd have to go back and see if the defender contacted him when his knee was on the ground. If so, he's down and no fumble, if not, it's a fumble that he recovered. But I'm not saying make 2 feet down the sole determination - I was just using the out-of-bounds rule as a example of a rule that is binary without subjectivity, the same can be done with the catch rule. Anybody that argues that the current rule has no subjectivity, which breeds inconsistency and controversy, is in denial or being disingenuous.

I hear ya man, it's complicated.

 

[nathanlt]

Dez's catch absolutely survived initial contact with the ground. The frame that has Dez laying on the ground is not relevant, per the rule. "Initial contact with the ground" is the rule. Dez was standing upright when his first foot had initial contact with the ground, during his first step. By rule... CATCH.

 

[JustChip]

Because prior to 2015, a "runner" was simply a player in possession of a live ball. "Upright long enough" didn't enter the rules until 2015. Until that time you could complete the catch process even while falling. That's why Blandino had to say he looked for a football move even after Dez started to fall, and why he should have had to prove Dez did not perform any acts common to the game before he hit the ground -- that he simply fell.

If you missed it, here's the casebook example of a player establishing himself as a runner while he is falling:

A.R. 15.95 Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.

In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact. ​

That's from the 2014 casebook. When the football move was spelled out in 2016, the examples put in by the catch committee were "tucking the ball away, turning upfield, taking additional steps."

If you agree with the overturn, then either you're saying at least one of those things wasn't considered an act common to the game just two years earlier, or you're saying Dez didn't do even one of these things.

Which is it?

No ambiguity if the standard of AR 15.95 was applied to Dez's play - it was a catch! Obviously, the NFL made a mistake, which everyone does and I'm ok with that, but rather than admit that, they go into full-scale PR mode. It's why for decades they refused to every admit an official made any mistake - protection of the seeming integrity of officiating was paramount.

 

[MarcusRock]

Because prior to 2015, a "runner" was simply a player in possession of a live ball. "Upright long enough" didn't enter the rules until 2015. Until that time you could complete the catch process even while falling. That's why Blandino had to say he looked for a football move even after Dez started to fall, and why he should have had to prove Dez did not perform any acts common to the game before he hit the ground -- that he simply fell.

If you missed it, here's the casebook example of a player establishing himself as a runner while he is falling:

A.R. 15.95 Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.

In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact. ​

That's from the 2014 casebook. When the football move was spelled out in 2016, the examples put in by the catch committee were "tucking the ball away, turning upfield, taking additional steps."

If you agree with the overturn, then either you're saying at least one of those things wasn't considered an act common to the game just two years earlier, or you're saying Dez didn't do even one of these things.

Which is it?

This A.R. 15.95 is labeled "Act Common to the Game." What act do they mean here? A lunge, correct?

What question did Blandino, Steratore, and Pereira all get asked about concerning the Dez play? About his lunge.

What did they all answer about the attempted lunge which is "not part of the process of a catch" as spelled out above? That it was a failed lunge.

So when people finally admit that there was no lunge (including you), then the story changes and morphs to try to find something, anything else technical to try to say that Dez performed an act common to the game, including now using the language in the rule that wasn’t there in 2014. However, Pereira just set the record straight across the 2 sets of rules in stating that the going to the ground rule takes precedence over the 3-part rule. When you’re going to the ground, none of that stuff, concocted or otherwise that people can slow down video to find, matters. Again, this is why James, who executed a proper lunge is still considered trying to gain possession even though he completed the 3-part process. The rule has been called consistently across the 3 controversial catches we keep bringing up. Going to the ground is king. So now, people try to go nuts scouring the video to say that Dez’ ankle turn was a football move to try to say that he was an upright runner to get around the fact that he was going to the ground. Hell, even the ol’ “eye test” says he was going to the ground.

People have said it, but it gets avoided: Dez was going to the ground whether Shields was there or not. Maybe he has time to execute a lunge in that case and maybe not. What DID happen was that he didn’t.

 

[OmerV]

Defender has nothing to do with it and is just an incidental part of the example and it clearly spells out TIME element as the basis to rule it a catch..

The NFL Casebook example we were discussing talks about coming down with one foot before being hit by a defender and going to the ground - why would it have said that if contact with the defender wasn't part of the equation? As for the wording in the NFL rulebook in 2014, it discusses having to maintain control all the way through when a player is "going to the ground", so it's not only about time, it's also about whether a player is going to the ground as the catch is made, which Dez was from the time his first foot hit the ground.

 

[MarcusRock]

And where did this A.R. 15.95 even come from? I'm not finding it in my copy of the rules.

 

[OmerV]

This A.R. 15.95 is labeled "Act Common to the Game." What act do they mean here? A lunge, correct?

What question did Blandino, Steratore, and Pereira all get asked about concerning the Dez play? About his lunge.

What did they all answer about the attempted lunge which is "not part of the process of a catch" as spelled out above? That it was a failed lunge.

So when people finally admit that there was no lunge (including you), then the story changes and morphs to try to find something, anything else technical to try to say that Dez performed an act common to the game, including now using the language in the rule that wasn’t there in 2014. However, Pereira just set the record straight across the 2 sets of rules in stating that the going to the ground rule takes precedence over the 3-part rule. When you’re going to the ground, none of that stuff, concocted or otherwise that people can slow down video to find, matters. Again, this is why James, who executed a proper lunge is still considered trying to gain possession even though he completed the 3-part process. The rule has been called consistently across the 3 controversial catches we keep bringing up. Going to the ground is king. So now, people try to go nuts scouring the video to say that Dez’ ankle turn was a football move to try to say that he was an upright runner to get around the fact that he was going to the ground. Hell, even the ol’ “eye test” says he was going to the ground.

People have said it, but it gets avoided: Dez was going to the ground whether Shields was there or not. Maybe he has time to execute a lunge in that case and maybe not. What DID happen was that he didn’t.

I didn't see it as a lunge either. He "reached" with the ball, but the act of falling toward the goal line was merely based on the fact that's the direction his momentum was taking him. I think the idea of a "lunge" is based on the player coming down in control not just of the ball, but of his body such that he can control and direct what his body is going to do. Dez was never in control - he was going to the ground no matter what, regardless of what direction his momentum was carrying him. in this case it happened to be toward the endzone.

 

[OmerV]

And where did this A.R. 15.95 even come from? I'm not finding it in my copy of the rules.

There is an NFL "Casebook", which is supposed to give examples. I found a copy of the 2012 version online, but not the 2014 version. There isn't an A.R. 15.95 in the 2012 version, so I assume there is a 2014 version somewhere that I can't find.

 

[MarcusRock]

I didn't see it as a lunge either. He "reached" with the ball, but the act of falling toward the goal line was merely based on the fact that's the direction his momentum was taking him. I think the idea of a "lunge" is based on the player coming down in control not just of the ball, but of his body such that he can control and direct what his body is going to do. Dez was never in control - he was going to the ground no matter what, regardless of what direction his momentum was carrying him. in this case it happened to be toward the endzone.

That's exactly what I was saying to another poster in this thread when he mentioned that the slippery turf didn't allow Dez to get his footing on his 3rd step to execute a proper lunge. If he lunged, he would have been able to change the trajectory of his fall, kinda like Michael Irvin's TD catch against Buffalo the first time we played them in the Super Bowl. But Dez did pretty much a straight line fall motion from the first step to the last. This is why the story had to morph off the subject of a lunge to something else.

 

[robertfchew]

I didn't see it as a lunge either. He "reached" with the ball, but the act of falling toward the goal line was merely based on the fact that's the direction his momentum was taking him. I think the idea of a "lunge" is based on the player coming down in control not just of the ball, but of his body such that he can control and direct what his body is going to do. Dez was never in control - he was going to the ground no matter what, regardless of what direction his momentum was carrying him. in this case it happened to be toward the endzone.

purposely switching hands shows he is in absolute control. At that point dez was elite and could do things most players can't. He caught it, switched hands, and advanced the ball. People claiming it was not enough of a move are just inventing a theory in their head. I can call the clement play incomplete because it moved twice before the dude ever established himself and the ertz because he didn't do enough in my mind. You need to catch it do a cartwheel and then celebrate and then gronk spike it to count as a reception.

 

[robertfchew]

That's exactly what I was saying to another poster in this thread when he mentioned that the slippery turf didn't allow Dez to get his footing on his 3rd step to execute a proper lunge. If he lunged, he would have been able to change the trajectory of his fall, kinda like Michael Irvin's TD catch against Buffalo the first time we played them in the Super Bowl. But Dez did pretty much a straight line fall motion from the first step to the last. This is why the story had to morph off the subject of a lunge to something else.

you mean change his trajectory like coming down with the ball with his left shoulder facing upfield but landing and turning onto his right as his body hits the ground?

 

[KJJ]

purposely switching hands shows he is in absolute control. At that point dez was elite and could do things most players can't. He caught it, switched hands, and advanced the ball. People claiming it was not enough of a move are just inventing a theory in their head.

Dez did all the above but you keep ignoring the fact that he was “going to the ground” which trumps any football move he made. When a receiver is ruled “going to the ground” regardless if they make a football move they still have to maintain possession through the contact of the ground for it to be a legal catch. You keep ignoring that point. You clearly either don’t understand the rule or are in denial over it. Maybe ignoring key components of the play is a way for you to keep arguing this.

 

[percyhoward]

No ambiguity if the standard of AR 15.95 was applied to Dez's play - it was a catch!

All there in black and white.