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

[percyhoward]

The AR for some reason deviates from the actual rule and says that there was some time element that satisfied the catch process. The time element or becoming a runner can only occur if the player is not going to the ground. Again, per the rule. And I have no idea the relevance of even adding in the lunge part. They are trying to say the catch was already made even before the lunge.

So I have no idea why it's in there, but it clearly is not the rule, but rather "someone" adding something that is in direct conflict with the actual rule. Maybe Blandino added it. Sounds like something a complete idiot would add.

That's not a deviation.

Yes, the catch was made before the lunge. That's what we're trying to explain, that the football move could be made while falling.

 

[percyhoward]

False. Pereira stated that going to the ground trumps the catch process. " .... as with Dez Bryant a couple of years ago, you must hold on to the ball." Direct linkage to Dez.

When Pereira says they got off track, what do you think he was referring to?

 

[percyhoward]

See previous post for the application of time requirements. If you can't see someone clearly become a runner via acts or via time if they are held by a defender, then you don't want to see it. You're acting as if becoming a runner wasn't a thing in 2014 but then was all of a sudden in 2015.

Oh it was most definitely a thing in 2014. But it was based on an act that an official could see -- not a player's body position.

 

[percyhoward]

Percy is arguing that the Dez catch should have been a catch. The fact that it was called correctly per the rule isn't debatable, or shouldn't be.

We already know that in 2014, you could make a football move while falling.

Again I ask, do you really believe Bryant didn't perform any football moves?

 

[BlindFaith]

That's not a deviation.

Yes, the catch was made before the lunge. That's what we're trying to explain, that the football move could be made while falling.

Quote the actual rule that says that. Not some use case that completely contradicts the rule itself.

Because the officials certainly aren't calling it that way, no one is talking about what constitutes a football move while falling when these plays are reviewed.

Pereira says that Dez didn't catch it per the rule. Though he'd like to see it called a catch in the future, just doesn't know how best to do it without risking more fumbles. Which is exactly what I said.

 

[BlindFaith]

We already know that in 2014, you could make a football move while falling.

Again I ask, do you really believe Bryant didn't perform any football moves?

And you never addressed the blatant contradiction from rule to use case.

 

[CCBoy]

What ruling are you talking about? Sorry, you have me confused as to what you are even talking about.

Simple, your attempts merely explain a view back to your elaborated view of that...

On the contrary, two feet down or two steps does not have an evaluative weight before it happens. Take two steps with a ball and demonstrate a football move, whether timed or not, does not invalidate the running element. Sorry...no abstraction with that, and not subjective as well...football at it's basics.

What was presented by yourself above, doesn't change the element being again and again referenced. Time not relevance and a category of catching a football does not apply after conditions for running the ball have been met...period. Time is not an element for failure and point of time in camera can't remove the sequence that does established the required elements at the very moment that a running action is established.

Sorry, coulda'...woulda'...shoulda' doesn't apply pass the moment the required elements have occurred. Time watches then be damned...that's not football, but trick photography for effect.

 

[MarcusRock]

And I still haven’t seen one person change their opinion in the 3 years of debating. At this point responses could pretty much be cut and pasted from other posts to save key strokes.

Yeah, but you still have to click through the pages so might as well just type again unless you typed out a book chapter, lol.

">December 18, 2017</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

He wants changes to the rule, but he agrees with Dez not catching the ball.

Ha! Elbowing that sore spot won't win him any friends on here.

I’ve asked several posters, including your friend @MarcusRock, one simple question and not one person will attempt to answer. He even left the thread apparently and I don’t blame him. He fought hard, but too may facts got the better of him.

Explain the difference between the Dez catch and the case play that is in this thread. It’s nearly identical to the Dez catch and is in the official case book for officials to help them properly make rulings on plays.

And you’re wrong again. It is, in fact, less filling.

I replied. To you. You missed it.

 

[CCBoy]

And you never addressed the blatant contradiction from rule to use case.

Explain the action captured on film, and not a projected rule deployed description...then.

 

[percyhoward]

Quote the actual rule that says that. Not some use case that completely contradicts the rule itself.

Because the officials certainly aren't calling it that way, no one is talking about what constitutes a football move while falling when these plays are reviewed.

Pereira says that Dez didn't catch it per the rule. Though he'd like to see it called a catch in the future, just doesn't know how best to do it without risking more fumbles. Which is exactly what I said.

Pereira leaves no doubt that he and others made mistakes in changing the catch rule. It's really strange to see people still using Pereira's old statements to try to support their view that the overturn was correct.

Of course no one is talking about what constitutes a football move in 2017. The football move hasn't been the standard for becoming a runner since 2015. To me, this seems like a basic fact that anyone debating this should already know. Or at least should know by page 59 of the thread. I'm really trying to be patient here, but @blindzebra I can see your point.

You want me to "quote the actual rule" that says a football move could be made while falling, aside from all the casebook examples, Blandino's video explanations, and the fact that Blandino "absolutely" looked at Dez's reach, which obviously happened while Dez was falling?

How about you quote me the rule that says it couldn't? Or post one of Blandino's explanations that says it couldn't? Or explain why Blandino was looking for a football move that happened while Dez was falling, if it didn't matter?

 

[percyhoward]

And you never addressed the blatant contradiction from rule to use case.

What "blatant contradiction" are you referring to?

 

[BlindFaith]

Simple, your attempts merely explain a view back to your elaborated view of that...

On the contrary, two feet down or two steps does not have an evaluative weight before it happens. Take two steps with a ball and demonstrate a football move, whether timed or not, does not invalidate the running element. Sorry...no abstraction with that, and not subjective as well...football at it's basics.

Did you help write the rulebook? I have no idea what you are or aren't trying to argue.

 

[BlindFaith]

Explain the action captured on film, and not a projected rule deployed description...then.

TwoDeep already did.

 

[blindzebra]

PASSING PLAYS
Whether a pass is complete or incomplete is reviewable at all times. This includes in the field of play, at a sideline,
and in an end zone.
In order to complete a catch there are three primary requirements that must be met. First, the player must gain
firm grip and control of the ball. Second, he must get two feet or another part of the body, other than his hands, on
the ground inbounds. And, after these first two requirements have been met, he must maintain control of the ball
long enough to perform an act common to the game. Such act is defined as being able to pitch, pass, or advance
the ball. It is not necessary for the player to commit the act, provided he maintains control of the ball long enough
to do so. If the player does not complete all three of the requirements, then the pass is incomplete. These
guidelines apply to both the on-field officials and replay.

In all pass situations, if a player goes to the ground before completing the requirements for a catch, he must
maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. In the field of play or in the end zone
if the player loses control of the ball during the process and it hits the ground then the pass is incomplete. If the
receiver is contacting the sideline any loss of control during the process of the catch will make the pass
incomplete, regardless of whether the ball touches the ground.

A.R. 15.93 Going to the ground, does not complete process
Third-and-5 on A30. Pass over middle is ruled complete at the B45. Replays show that the receiver controlled the
ball while going to the ground, but when his upper body hit, the nose of the ball touched the ground and then he
lost control of it.
Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. A’s ball fourth-and-5 on A30. Reset game clock to when the ball hit the
ground. Receiver is going to the ground and must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting
the ground.

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.

I see where you could make a case based on this. But this is clearly either not written correctly or simply not correct based on the actual rules themselves. Why is it buried at the bottom and if so important, not called out and defined on the rule itself?

This AR says that the catch is completed, not as the rule itself says, but rather due to time as he's falling satisfies the rule. This goes directly against the actual rule itself.

The example even specifically says that the player only had 1 foot down and was going to the ground.

The rule says that the player has not completed the process unless all the following requirements are met:
1. Possession of the ball
2. Two feet down
3. Make act common to the game

If those acts aren't completed before the player goes to the ground they have to maintain possession through contacting the ground.

In the AR it clearly says the player only had one foot down and was going to the ground. That means the process wasn't completed and since he was going to the ground - we know the rest.

The AR for some reason deviates from the actual rule and says that there was some time element that satisfied the catch process. The time element or becoming a runner can only occur if the player is not going to the ground. Again, per the rule. And I have no idea the relevance of even adding in the lunge part. They are trying to say the catch was already made even before the lunge.

So I have no idea why it's in there, but it clearly is not the rule, but rather "someone" adding something that is in direct conflict with the actual rule. Maybe Blandino added it. Sounds like something a complete idiot would add.

As Percy and I have been trying to explain to you guys since the darn play happened, you are inferring something that is not explicit in the rules. In 2014 a catch was control, two feet, and a move or time to make a move that is the rule that turns a receiver into a runner. Item one is a subsection of the catch rule. That means that, prior to the Dez fiasco, that going to the ground required control to the ground if you were still a receiver. Do you see the difference? You complete the catch process you are a runner, and you don't become a runner under the going to the ground subsection which is why you need to control it through the ground.

To answer your question, and this is coming from 25 plus years officiating multiple sports, that rule books rarely explicitly spell out everything, and for those who don't officiate that leads to confusion. Officials have the rules, camps, clinics, points of emphasis, and evaluations that hone in those rules. The case book is a supplement to the rule book and it is used to fill in those holes, and guide officials to the correct interpretation of the rules. Even then the case book can't illustrate every possible scenario and in many cases for a play to make the case book means somewhere, sometime, an official blew the call under those conditions. Hoofbite correctly pointed out that the casebook play within this thread was the Victor Cruz catch against us in 2013.

In 2014 a football move turned a falling player into a runner, those case plays are clear, and Blandino and Steretore blew it. Ironically the article you shared in an earlier post agrees with almost everything said by Percy, Mr. C, and me throughout this thread and all previous ones. The rule in 2014 was not applied correctly and everything that the NFL has done since was to retroactively make it seem correct. In 2015 they eliminated a football move ending going to the ground, by requiring the receiver to remain upright and become a runner before they go to the ground, that did not exist before 2015 in any fashion. It was not a clarification like Blandino lied about, it was a brand new rule to cover up the mistake that was made in GB. Everything they have done from 2015 until Pereria spoke recently, has been to further propagate the illusion that going to the ground had always trumped the catch process.

Basically what we have is a two or three time a season play happened in a big game and the NFL freaked out and tried to fix a rule that did not need to be fixed, and instead of dealing with it correctly they set in motion a confusing, poorly written, hodge-podge of stupidity that got worse with each passing change. But make no mistake, the spirit and intent of that rule was not to trump the catch process, it was designed to officiate plays where a receiver could not become a runner. Blandino and Steretore misapplied it, Pereria having mentored Blandino, backed it publicly and in 2015 to today was a concerted effort to cover up that mistake in GB. All of the evidence is there to establish that as a fact.

 

[CCBoy]

Two-week already did.

No, what is being presented is a disqualifying failure in application...sorry.

 

[percyhoward]

It's also in the 2015 Casebook (top of page 120). So anyone trying to use the case example as a way to say that one couldn't perform a football move while falling in 2015, like blindzebra tried to do, has had that viewpoint properly debunked.

Kindly explain how any of that would "debunk" the fact that a player could make a football move while falling in 2014.

 

[BlindFaith]

Pereira leaves no doubt that he and others made mistakes in changing the catch rule. It's really strange to see people still using Pereira's old statements to try to support their view that the overturn was correct.

Of course no one is talking about what constitutes a football move in 2017. The football move hasn't been the standard for becoming a runner since 2015. To me, this seems like a basic fact that anyone debating this should already know. Or at least should know by page 59 of the thread. I'm really trying to be patient here, but @blindzebra I can see your point.

You want me to "quote the actual rule" that says a football move could be made while falling, aside from all the casebook examples, Blandino's video explanations, and the fact that Blandino "absolutely" looked at Dez's reach, which obviously happened while Dez was falling?

How about you quote me the rule that says it couldn't? Or post one of Blandino's explanations that says it couldn't? Or explain why Blandino was looking for a football move that happened while Dez was falling, if it didn't matter?

That's what I figured. Because it's not in the rules. That's kinda what rulebooks are for.

Saying you can't carry a gun onto the field as a player isn't in the rulebook either, so can you do that too?

If you can't see how the case directly contradicts the rule that's actually in the rule book then I can see why you can't see why Pereira is right in saying it wasn't a catch.

 

[blindzebra]

It's also in the 2015 Casebook (top of page 120). So anyone trying to use the case example as a way to say that one couldn't perform a football move while falling in 2015, like blindzebra tried to do, has had that viewpoint properly debunked.

Then explain why it hasn't been there since 2015? Pretty simple explanation. If it did not fit in 2014 like you claim, how does it work with the new rule in 2015? It doesn't, in their rush to make their mistake seem correct, they forgot to edit it from the 2015 case book.

 

[MarcusRock]

Becoming a runner is poor language.

But you don't have to actually advance the ball to become a runner. You could catch the ball and just stand there. So there is a time element added. That is to protect the receiver. They have to either actually secure the ball, ie become a runner, or have the time to do so.

Precisely. Time alone can be used to have someone become a runner. Particularly if a defender bear hugs a receiver and prevents him from advancing or doing some action you can see that makes him a runner.

 

[blindzebra]

Pereira leaves no doubt that he and others made mistakes in changing the catch rule. It's really strange to see people still using Pereira's old statements to try to support their view that the overturn was correct.

Of course no one is talking about what constitutes a football move in 2017. The football move hasn't been the standard for becoming a runner since 2015. To me, this seems like a basic fact that anyone debating this should already know. Or at least should know by page 59 of the thread. I'm really trying to be patient here, but @blindzebra I can see your point.

You want me to "quote the actual rule" that says a football move could be made while falling, aside from all the casebook examples, Blandino's video explanations, and the fact that Blandino "absolutely" looked at Dez's reach, which obviously happened while Dez was falling?

How about you quote me the rule that says it couldn't? Or post one of Blandino's explanations that says it couldn't? Or explain why Blandino was looking for a football move that happened while Dez was falling, if it didn't matter?

Broke my promise to drop out, couldn't leave you hanging, but it is seriously no use. In a court of law if we presented this evidence against theirs the jury would be out about 30 seconds before they came back saying it was a catch. They are never going to admit they are wrong.