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

[KJJ]

Since 2015, a player cannot complete the catch process while falling. So, by rule, that's an incomplete pass.

Which shows you how ridiculous that rule is.

That’s been going on at least since 2010 with the Calvin Johnson play. He was falling therefore he had to complete the process.

 

[KJJ]

You said, "The league has admitted numerous officiating mistakes over the years."

When I asked you what Pereira was doing now, I didn't mean "what's his job." What he's doing now is admitting some of the officiating mistakes that the league did not (or hasn't yet).

http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/article191713479.html

http://www.talkoffamenetwork.com/pereira-the-problem-with-the-catch-rule-and-how-id-refine-it/

For years NFL Network has had a segment called under review. Blandino came on and admitted many officiating mistakes. Pereira said to 50 drunk guys in a bar these plays look like a catch but not to the officials. Talking to some here it’s like talking to a bunch of drunk guys in a bar. They’ll tell you the league is fixed and that they know more than the people who get paid to officiate the game.

 

[percyhoward]

That’s been going on at least since 2010 with the Calvin Johnson play. He was falling therefore he had to complete the process.

The misinterpretation of Item 1 (intentional or otherwise) was "going on" inconsistently for a while, but wasn't made official until 2015 when they took out the football move.

And if you think about it for a minute or two, you'll realize that an end zone play like Johnson's involves the official's judgment regarding the time requirement, as there would be no football move to look for.

 

[percyhoward]

Pereira said to 50 drunk guys in a bar these plays look like a catch but not to the officials.

No. He said these are obvious catches, to everyone from 50 drunk guys in a bar to the officials on the field.

"To 50 drunk guys in a bar, it felt like a catch to them. To the official who was covering the play, it felt like a catch to him."

 

[KJJ]

Mike Pereira doesn’t like to going to the ground part which is the part of the rule that’s caused most of the controversy. I’ve stated many times that the league will eventually do away with that part of the rule. Once they eliminate that part of the rule and just go with 2 feet on the ground and control of the ball it’s going to end a lot of the controversy. It’s that part of the rule that’s overturning catches.

 

[KJJ]

No. He said these are obvious catches, to everyone from 50 drunk guys in a bar to the officials on the field.

"To 50 drunk guys in a bar, it felt like a catch to them. To the official who was covering the play, it felt like a catch to him."

I’ve said in the past that a receiver going to the ground trumps everything. Have you not disagreed with that? Perera said the same thing.

But we’re in this day now where the rule that has this going to the ground … that the ground trumps everything, and you have to hold on to the ball.

http://www.talkoffamenetwork.com/pereira-the-problem-with-the-catch-rule-and-how-id-refine-it/

 

[percyhoward]

Mike Pereira doesn’t like to going to the ground part which is the part of the rule that’s caused most of the controversy. I’ve stated many times that the league will eventually do away with that part of the rule. Once they eliminate that part of the rule and just go with 2 feet on the ground and control of the ball it’s going to end a lot of the controversy.

You've also said nobody understands what a football move is, so that's why they took it out. Then it was put back in the next year, with specific examples. Now Pereira is saying the football move should again be the standard for completing the catch process.

They will never eliminate the time requirement completely, and just go with control + two feet. They will go probably back to the football move as the time requirement, possibly calling it something else.

 

[percyhoward]

I’ve said in the past that a receiver going to the ground trumps everything.

Prior to 2015, it did not subordinate the catch process, and that's the reason Bryant's catch should have stood.

Since 2015, it does subordinate the catch process, and that's the problem with the current standard.

 

[KJJ]

You've also said nobody understands what a football move is, so that's why they took it out. Then it was put back in the next year, with specific examples. Now Pereira is saying the football move should again be the standard for completing the catch process.

They will never eliminate the time requirement completely, and just go with control + two feet. They will go probably back to the football move as the time requirement, possibly calling it something else.

No one has a clear grasp of what a football move is, we’ve seen comments from those who get paid to talk football saying they don’t understand it. I said a couple years ago they would remove that from the rulebook and they did and now it’s back. They’ve attempted to clarify the rule. If it wasn’t for the “going to the ground” part of the rule the Calvin Johnson, Dez play and many others would have stood as catches. Mark my words they will remove the going to the ground part of that rule eventually. Once the receiver has secured the football and has both feet on the ground it’s going to be a catch regardless if they’re going to the ground.

 

[KJJ]

Prior to 2015, it did not subordinate the catch process, and that's the reason Bryant's catch should have stood.

Since 2015, it does subordinate the catch process, and that's the problem with the current standard.

You have to go by how it’s been officiated and since at least 2010 and the Calvin Johnson play a receiver has to maintain the football through the contact of the ground if they’re ruled going to the ground. The rule all along has been the receiver has to complete the process and part of completing the process is maintaining control of the football through the contact of the ground if the receiver is ruled going to the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

Once the receiver has secured the football and has both feet on the ground it’s going to be a catch regardless if they’re going to the ground.

It's not just control + two feet. Never has been.

It's control + two feet + time.

Prior to 2015, the football move showed the player had met the time requirement.

Since 2015, the officials' judgment about the body position of the player has decided if the time requirement has been met.

 

[KJJ]

It's not just control + two feet. Never has been.

It's control + two feet + time.

Prior to 2015, the football move showed the player had met the time requirement.

Since 2015, the officials' judgment about the body position of the player decided if the time requirement had been met.

In 2010 during the Calvin Johnson play even the game announcers talked about a receiver having to complete the process. Part of the process is maintaining the ball through the contact of the ground if a receiver is going to the ground which Johnson clearly was. Since everyone was made aware of this rule completing the process has always been part of it. This article was from 2015 talking about the history of the catch rule.

https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/s/ww...ch-rule-controversies-calvin-johnson-referees

 

[percyhoward]

The rule all along has been the receiver has to complete the process and part of completing the process is maintaining control of the football through the contact of the ground if the receiver is ruled going to the ground.

That is not what the rule has been "all along," because the standard for completing the process was changed in 2015.

2014
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground.

2015
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. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground​

You have to go by how it’s been officiated....

The point is that it hasn't been officiated consistently, under either standard. Officials are obligated to go by the rules in place at the time.

 

[percyhoward]

In 2010 during the Calvin Johnson play even the game announcers talked about a receiver having to complete the process. Part of the process is maintaining the ball through the contact of the ground if a receiver is going to the ground which Johnson clearly was. Since everyone was made aware of this rule completing the process has always been part of it. This article was from 2015 talking about the history of the catch rule.

https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/s/ww...ch-rule-controversies-calvin-johnson-referees

Please read the following very carefully, and if necessary, repeatedly. Tell me what part you don't understand, and I'll try to explain it better.

In 2010, players completed the catch process with control + two feet + enough time for a football move

The Johnson play took place in the end zone.

There is no reason for a player to make a football move once he has already scored a touchdown.

That means, on this play, it was up to the official's judgment as to whether the time requirement had been met.

 

[KJJ]

That is not what the rule has been "all along," because the standard for completing the process was changed in 2015.

2014
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground.

2015
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. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground​

The point is that it hasn't been officiated consistently, under either standard. Officials are obligated to go by the rules in place at the time.

In 2014 a receiver ruled going to the ground in the act of catching the ball had to maintain possession through the contact of the ground. The rule was clarified in 2015 with a receiver still having to maintain possession through the contact of the ground if they’re ruled going to the ground. The officials have been going by the rule but judgment is still involved. Some of these plays are very close and require judgment. Not everyone’s judgment is the same. Judgment is never going to be consistent because it depends on the individual who’s making the call.

 

[KJJ]

Please read the following very carefully, and if necessary, repeatedly. Tell me what part you don't understand, and I'll try to explain it better.

In 2010, players completed the catch process with control + two feet + enough time for a football move

The Johnson play took place in the end zone.

There is no reason for a player to make a football move once he has already scored a touchdown.

That means, on this play, it was up to the official's judgment as to whether the time requirement had been met.

What can you not understand Johnson didn’t complete the process and the game announcers mentioned it. Steratore announced that Johnson didn’t complete the process through the contact of the ground. It’s been officiated the same way since that play. Listen to the game announcers. Johnson leaped over a defender to make that catch. That’s a football move in my book but he was going to the ground and didn’t complete the process.

 

[percyhoward]

In 2014 a receiver ruled going to the ground in the act of catching the ball had to maintain possession through the contact of the ground.

Absolutely. And a player who went to the ground after completing the catch process was a runner.

The rule was clarified in 2015 with a receiver still having to maintain possession through the contact of the ground if they’re ruled going to the ground. The officials have been going by the rule but judgment is still involved. Some of these plays are very close and require judgment. Not everyone’s judgment is the same. Judgment is never going to be consistent because it depends on the individual who’s making the call.

But the standard for what completed the catch process was changed. That's huge.

It meant that officials no longer had to determine if a catch had been made on this type of play until after the player hit the ground. Common sense says you don't have to be upright in order to gain possession. Prior to 2015, the rules also said this. So why make the change?

 

[KJJ]

Absolutely. And a player who went to the ground after completing the catch process was a runner.

Dez was going to the ground during the process of making the catch and by rule the ball has to survive the ground. Same with the Calvin Johnson play.

 

[percyhoward]

What can you not understand Johnson didn’t complete the process and the game announcers mentioned it. Steratore announced that Johnson didn’t complete the process through the contact of the ground. It’s been officiated the same way since that play. Listen to the game announcers. Johnson leaped over a defender to make that catch. That’s a football move in my book but he was going to the ground and didn’t complete the process.

I understand the official ruling that he had to maintain possession after he touched the ball to the ground. That's easy to comprehend. But we're past that.

We're beyond asking what the ruling was, and we're at a place where we're questioning the validity of the ruling.

You have to start earlier in the process. You have to go back to before he touched the ball to the ground, and ask yourself if he would have made a football move if he'd been in the field of play instead of the end zone. If the answer is "yes" then it's a catch. If "no" then incomplete.

End zone plays bring a large amount of subjectivity into the equation.

 

[percyhoward]

Dez was going to the ground during the process of making the catch and by rule the ball has to survive the ground.

That's nothing more than the official explanation. It's one thing to understand the official explanation, but another thing to consider whether it has any justifiable basis.

The league's own rule book, their own case book scenarios, and their own explanations of similar plays all show that you can make a football move while falling. Even the official explanation admitted that you could make a football move while falling, they just said one of those moves (the reach) wasn't obvious enough, and did not address any of the other moves.