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

[DogFace]

So, Dez never had to even touch the ground to establish the catch. If while in his leap he had moved the ball from 2 hands to one hand that's all he needed to do, and touching the ground at all didn't matter?

Come on - besides, you are still ignoring the fact that there is a separate standard for a player falling to the ground, which is why there was a separate section for that rather than just saying the process you are talking about applies whether a player is falling to the ground or not.

The 2nd part of the 3 step process is two feet in bounds.

There is no other standard. Percy and or blindzebra explained the rule doesn’t say you can’t complete the process while going to the ground.

 

[blindzebra]

I almost agree here except that Dez did not execute a proper lunge. This was Blandino's point on game day and on this explanation provided by KJJ before. The other thing is to pay close attention to how that case play is worded. It says that a lunge is "not part" of the process of the catch. If that case play is to be believed, Dez lunging would have been a get out of jail free card. But as Blandino points out in that link above, Dez did not execute and he actually compares it to a time earlier that season when Dez did execute a proper lunge.

Anyone that can understand rules knows why it says that. Because the lunge was an act of a runner. The player in the case play completed the catch process and became a runner. It isn't the super secret, not in the rule book, magical lunge.

 

[DogFace]

You don't think Hitchens contacted the receiver while the ball was in the air? With his back to the QB and no idea where the ball was?

Yes. He shoved his arm to get his hand off his mask.

 

[blindzebra]

The 2nd part of the 3 step process is two feet in bounds.

There is no other standard. Percy and or blindzebra explained the rule doesn’t say you can’t complete the process while going to the ground.

I actually think it would be easier to teach calculus to a rock than explain rules to these guys.

 

[DogFace]

Here's better video.

Yep. He clearly held early. That wasn’t called. He did push his arm and made contact with his shoulder. He did that to remove his hand from holding his mask.

 

[OmerV]

Once a receiver is ruled going to the ground that trumps everything. It doesn’t matter what magical things they’re able to do while going to the ground the ball still has to survive the ground. They’ve been emphasizing that ever since the Calvin Johnson play. Dez has repeatedly struggled with that aspect. Even Garrett said Dez has to learn to hang onto the ball through the ground.

Exactly. That's why it is added into the rules separate and after the 3 step process some of these folks are talking about - it sets out that a player going to the ground falls into a different category with a different requirement for completing the catch. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need to have a rule about it at all.

 

[nathanlt]

I actually think it would be easier to teach calculus to a rock than explain rules to these guys.

Funny. That's what I do now, teach calculus.

 

[blindzebra]

Exactly. That's why it is added into the rules separate and after the 3 step process some of these folks are talking about - it sets out that a player going to the ground falls into a different category with a different requirement for completing the catch. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need to have a rule about it at all.

Wrong.

Do you know the difference between a runner and a receiver?

Item 1 is there for situations where the receiver does not become a runner i.e going to the ground on the sideline, endzone, or in the field of play to turn potential fumbles into incomplete passes.

 

[OmerV]

You not seeing the relevance only shows you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to interpreting rules.

There are literally thousands of possible variables that could become a case play to illustrate the catch rules. For whatever reason, the NFL only really covered 3 aspects of the rule. They had a few plays that specifically dealt with a receiver not becoming a runner while going to the ground. Some with a loss of control and one with maintained control. They had one with an element of time completing the catch process ending going to the ground, and one where an act of bracing to lunge ended the catch process to trump going to the ground. That does not mean that those are the only ways that this rule can go, it is giving examples of how to properly rule a catch and receiver to runner.

There are a few absolutes in this case:
1. The rule never explicitly stated that Item 1 takes precedence over the catch process until 2015.
2. The case book plays clearly show that a receiver can become a runner during the going to the ground process.
3. That there is no mention of upright long enough anywhere in the rules until after the Dez play occurred.
4. Blandino was a former comedian and tech guy who never was an on field official in his life.
5. Blandino is no longer the head of officiating, and Goodell has publicly addressed officiating in general, and the catch rule specifically in consecutive years.

What do these absolutes mean?
Whether the party bus and the Detroit game had an affect on the GB game is up for debate, but based on the absolutes Blandino and Steretore mistakenly overturned the catch. It does not matter if it was deliberate, sub-conscience, or a honest mistake, it was incorrect based on the 2014 rules. In 2015 the NFL created a new rule. Blandino in his PC can say what he wants about it being just a clarification, the absolutes say otherwise. Nowhere has the catch rule ever had the concept of upright long enough, never. It became a brand new rule. That is why so many did not trust Blandino and it was just not Cowboys fans. Every call that came up had a new excuse to explain it, and just like the NFL's version of discipline, there was no rhyme or reason to it. But make no mistake that 2015 change was directly tied to the Dez play, and it had nothing to do with clarification, it was a change in rule to fit the call in GB.

LOL - it appears that you are again running from your own casebook argument, and running back to your cherry picked portion of the rule book. Here we go - one doesn't work, so you cherry pick points in the other, and then when that doesn't work, you switch back and cherry pick points from that.

The fact is, with the casebook you don't have to interpret - the case plays ARE the interpretation. That's why they exist. You love to quote them, but when you don't like what they say you back away from them and cherry pick from the rule book.

One case play clearly involves a situation where possession is maintained all the way through, and you can type all the long winded generalizations you want, but that single point makes it irrelevant to Dez's situation. Another clearly involves a situation when a player is not going to the ground after coming down with the ball and only starts going to the ground once he starts to lunge. The case specifically says that. Neither of those situations fit what happened with Dez, so you can spend a lot of energy typing general BS in an effort to avoid what the case play says - which was your argument by the way - but you are still just avoiding the actual scenario as set up in the case plays.

 

[BlindFaith]

I actually think it would be easier to teach calculus to a rock than explain rules to these guys.

You know, I was going to stay out of this, but the last couple condescending and pretentious comments are just not called for. Especially coming from the losing side.

How many times does it have to be said? Pereira said it wasn't a catch. The NFL said it wasn't a catch. But they are just wrong and we are idiots? And you and Percy have it all figured out? You know how ridiculous that is?

I'm willing to at least say there is ambiguity in the case plays where you could make a case. You have. But you have been measured, you have been weighed and you have been left wanting. The FINAL authority has ruled you are wrong. The NFL.

 

[OmerV]

Wrong.

Do you know the difference between a runner and a receiver?

Item 1 is there for situations where the receiver does not become a runner i.e going to the ground on the sideline, endzone, or in the field of play to turn potential fumbles into incomplete passes.

Dez was a going to the ground though. That's the key, It doesn't define "going to the ground" as someone in the midst of a dive, and it doesn't try to narrow down what going to the ground means. The only restriction on what going to the ground means is in the case book, and that specifically refers to a situation where one foot is down first and then contact is made, and it is the contact that causes the player to go to the ground, rather than him going to the ground regardless of contact.

 

[blindzebra]

LOL - it appears that you are again running from your own casebook argument, and running back to your cherry picked portion of the rule book. Here we go - one doesn't work, so you cherry pick points in the other, and then when that doesn't work, you switch back and cherry pick points from that.

The fact is, with the casebook you don't have to interpret - the case plays ARE the interpretation. That's why they exist. You love to quote them, but when you don't like what they say you back away from them and cherry pick from the rule book.

One case play clearly involves a situation where possession is maintained all the way through, and you can type all the long winded generalizations you want, but that single point makes it irrelevant to Dez's situation. Another clearly involves a situation when a player is not going to the ground after coming down with the ball and only starts going to the ground once he starts to lunge. The case specifically says that. Neither of those situations fit what happened with Dez, so you can spend a lot of energy typing general BS in an effort to avoid what the case play says - which was your argument by the way - but you are still just avoiding the actual scenario as set up in the case plays.

I am the only person in this thread that posted every rule and every case play involving going to the ground. But by all means whip out the good old cherry picking excuse to avoid addressing the facts. It is beyond laughable. You get stuck you scream cherry picking. Marcus gets stuck and it is conspiracy, KJJ get stuck and it is a personal attack victim card.

 

[blindzebra]

Dez was a going to the ground though. That's the key, It doesn't define "going to the ground" as someone in the midst of a dive, and it doesn't try to narrow down what going to the ground means. The only restriction on what going to the ground means is in the case book, and that specifically refers to a situation where one foot is down first and then contact is made, and it is the contact that causes the player to go to the ground, rather than him going to the ground regardless of contact.

Ah, yes let's repeat the same nonsense that the case play has to fit 100% exactly with a play to be used to interpret a rule. You think officiating is bad now I'd hate to see it with the 2,000 page rule book and the million page case book required for you to understand things correctly.

 

[blindzebra]

You know, I was going to stay out of this, but the last couple condescending and pretentious comments are just not called for. Especially coming from the losing side.

How many times does it have to be said? Pereira said it wasn't a catch. The NFL said it wasn't a catch. But they are just wrong and we are idiots? And you and Percy have it all figured out? You know how ridiculous that is?

I'm willing to at least say there is ambiguity in the case plays where you could make a case. You have. But you have been measured, you have been weighed and you have been left wanting. The FINAL authority has ruled you are wrong. The NFL.

Here is an idea, let's have a poll to see which side has won the debate. I know of at least two or three marginal participants in this thread that went from it wasn't a catch to maybe it should have been based on what Percy and I have presented.

I am so sick of hearing that all of the people who had a vested interest in the call, says it was correct is proof that it was...I mean it is like walking into a kitchen and you see a mangled chocolate cake on the counter and your five year old is covered head to toe with chocolate and then tells you I didn't do it. That is your entire argument. The guy who made the call, the guy who never reffed a game, says he got it right. The guy who blatantly lied when the rule completely changed and said it was just a clarification, says it is correct so you buy it. His mentor and friend supports the call right up until Blandino resigns and then immediately flips sides to the rule has gone seriously wrong, and yet he is still used as an everyone in the NFL says it was correct argument.

 

[MarcusRock]

Anyone that can understand rules knows why it says that. Because the lunge was an act of a runner. The player in the case play completed the catch process and became a runner. It isn't the super secret, not in the rule book, magical lunge.

You are not exactly correct. This is why I keep saying over and over again to actually read the ruling in the case play. It says the act of lunging is "not part" of the catch process but is called a catch because fulfills the "time" element of the catch process. That is why I call it a get out of jail free card. The only part that makes the player a runner is that the "time" checkbox is checked off. Otherwise the case play would have simply said that lunging completed the "act common to the game" part of the 3-part catch process. It doesn't say that. Lunging is considered a separate entity. This is why Pereira's statement can exist side by side this rule and why the Blandino explanation addresses Dez' attempted lunge, stating that it wasn't demonstrative enough while showing an example of what was demonstrative from Dez himself (which was a very nice touch in defending his point I might add because it was something I would do too).

 

[MarcusRock]

I am the only person in this thread that posted every rule and every case play involving going to the ground. But by all means whip out the good old cherry picking excuse to avoid addressing the facts. It is beyond laughable. You get stuck you scream cherry picking. Marcus gets stuck and it is conspiracy, KJJ get stuck and it is a personal attack victim card.

I got stuck? Where? All I've ever done is provide materials to rebut whines. You are the same person where when I showed that the case play was also in the 2015 rules, as you and percy claimed the NFL changed the rules, you replied with the NFL "forgot" to remove the rule to cover up their mistake. You're trying to claim some sort of victory or superiority with that weak sauce reply of yours in print in this thread? The first time you got slammed by me you were asking me to weigh in on the Cobb catch to take focus off your slamming. This is why I've mostly avoided your erroneous statements and simply consider you a percy wingman. I'd rather deal with him but don't know where he is. Just hope he returns to answer my question.

 

[percyhoward]

One of the best questions I’ve heard from Percy is why would Dez switch to one hand or take his hand off the ball if he was still trying to catch it.

Thank you. @Hostile said it first, I think. You'll still get people saying that's not a football move, though. Just a part of Dez's fall to the ground.

A person could be entirely airborne and switch the ball from two hands to one, but that doesn't establish a catch. As for Percy's quote, it ignores the fact that by rule a catch isn't simply having a grasp on the ball, it is also either establishing that a player is in control, if he is upright, or if he is going to the ground, that he never loses possession with the ball hitting the ground.

It doesn't "ignore" that fact, it recognizes that the first two parts of the catch process (control and two feet down) were not in question on the Dez play. If they had been in question, Blandino would not have had to say he looked for the football move.

There's such a thing as the 3-part catch process. It's how officials determine a catch has been made. In 2014, part 3 of the catch process required that the player hold onto the ball long enough "to perform any act common to the game." This is popularly known as the football move. In simple terms, the football move was the thing that the receiver did that showed he wasn't still trying to catch the ball. And it had to come after he had control of the ball and two feet on the ground. Informed discussion of the Dez play inevitably centers on the football move.

And the rule change in 2015 is also a huge part of this. But one step at a time...

 

[percyhoward]

I got stuck? Where? All I've ever done is provide materials to rebut whines. You are the same person where when I showed that the case play was also in the 2015 rules, as you and percy claimed the NFL changed the rules, you replied with the NFL "forgot" to remove the rule to cover up their mistake. You're trying to claim some sort of victory or superiority with that weak sauce reply of yours in print in this thread? The first time you got slammed by me you were asking me to weigh in on the Cobb catch to take focus off your slamming. This is why I've mostly avoided your erroneous statements and simply consider you a percy wingman. I'd rather deal with him but don't know where he is. Just hope he returns to answer my question.

What was your question?

 

[blindzebra]

You are not exactly correct. This is why I keep saying over and over again to actually read the ruling in the case play. It says the act of lunging is "not part" of the catch process but is called a catch because fulfills the "time" element of the catch process. That is why I call it a get out of jail free card. The only part that makes the player a runner is that the "time" checkbox is checked off. Otherwise the case play would have simply said that lunging completed the "act common to the game" part of the 3-part catch process. It doesn't say that. Lunging is considered a separate entity. This is why Pereira's statement can exist side by side this rule and why the Blandino explanation addresses Dez' attempted lunge, stating that it wasn't demonstrative enough while showing an example of what was demonstrative from Dez himself (which was a very nice touch in defending his point I might add because it was something I would do too).

So let's see the rule that says lunging is a special entity.

 

[percyhoward]

So let's see the rule that says lunging is a special entity.

Are we still talking about the casebook scenario that's under the heading, "Act common to the game", or is it some other one?