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

[MarcusRock]

Ah yes the discredit the facts by bad mouthing the messenger. That is troll 101. The funny thing is that they were actually arguing the we got the calls in the Detroit game as if it benefited their stance. It is a fact that Blandino got roasted before the season about the party bus, and got roasted again for it after the Detroit game. It is a fact that he used looking for a football move and the lunge and reach were not lungie and reachie enough in explaining the overturn. It is a ridiculous statement, that does nothing but increase the doubts about his competency and ethics.

Like you're doing here with Blandino? LOL.

 

[DogFace]

They didn't set up the scenario and circumstances in the case play as they did by accident, and you can't pretend the scenario and circumstances in the case play don't apply because it doesn't suit you. It makes a difference because they are distinguishing between a player who was upright after the first foot came down, and would have remained upright if not for a defender knocking him to the ground, from one who was going to the ground from the moment his first foot came down regardless of contact. The ruling is different in those cases.

Where does it say he would’ve remained upright?
I’m not seeing that.

 

[OmerV]

Where does it say he would’ve remained upright?
I’m not seeing that.

It says it was the contact that caused him to go to the ground.

 

[BlindFaith]

Where does it say he would’ve remained upright?
I’m not seeing that.

Lets break this down:

A.R. 15.95 Act common to game—COMPLETE PASS
1. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and ( We get what this means. )
2. then still in control of the ball ( This is the confusing part, a "time" element or what I think they are trying to refer to is some action that kind of stops them from falling or regaining their balance. )
3. he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed. ( According to the wording of the ruling, the lunge is NOT part of the process. So if they determined this to be a catch, it was either due to the "time" element, or that the lunge, while not technically part of the process, is something that can demonstrate point number 2 above. )
Ruling: 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

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
1. controls the ball and gets one foot down, he goes to the ground, gets his second foot down, ( We get what this means. )
2. with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself with his left hand ( This is less confusing, but still not really clear. This is the "time" element or more precisely, some action that kind of stops them from falling or regaining their balance.)
3. simultaneously lunges ( According to the wording of the ruling, the lunge is NOT part of the process. So if they determined this to be a catch, it was either due to the "time" element, or that the lunge, while not technically part of the process, is something that can demonstrate the act of trying to regain his balance. An act that could only be performed if one wasn't technically falling. )
Ruling: it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of the catch.

A.R. 8.13 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
1. before he completes the catch ( We get what this means. )
2. keeps his balance, gets both feet down, ( This is the clearest this part of the case play is written. The "time" element has been clearly been defined as "Keeps his balance. And remember, per the case play this is while going to the ground. But just as the other two case plays demonstrate, it is some act the interrupts or delays the act of falling. )
3. lunges over the goal line. The ball comes out as he hits the ground. ( And gain, the use of the lunging act is to try and confirm that the act of falling had been interrupted and they made an act that could only be performed if one wasn't technically falling. )
Ruling: The receiver went to the ground as the result of lunging for the goal line, not in the process of making the catch.


So lets break these down even further. I'm only going to be talking about the points 2 and 3 from each case play.

2. Clearly the case plays are trying to interject another component of going to the ground that is not in the actual rules themselves. Something of this magnitude should be clearly called out and defined. Because there is no rule language, we are left to assume the intent. Big no no and is exactly why we are still talking about this 3 years later.

My view is that the "time" element relates directly to cases where a player attempts to or actually interrupts the action of falling. That interruption, based on the case play language, in of itself completes the process of the catch, but only if they attempt to lunge. Even though the act of lunging is not part of the process. This is one of the most poorly written things I've ever seen. They don't clearly say what the time element requirement is and they don't clearly say that its some interruption of falling. They purposely keep it ambiguous. But its' clear that this is the intent because of the other language they use to setup the lunge. But it goes from:
then still in control of the ball TO
with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself with his left hand TO
keeps his balance, gets both feet down

3. I believe these are references to how one can interrupt the act of falling and complete the process of the catch, but only if there is an additional action confirming that they aren't really on the ground ( the lunge ). If that makes sense? And it is really, really hard to make sense of this rule if I haven't said it before.

Now the big question is, are there any other acts that can be performed besides a lunge? I think they chose a lunge because you can only lunge if you are already on the ground or if you have some sort of balance. Switching the ball in your hands - you can easily do that while falling. Reaching - easily do that while falling. Taking a step - still can be done while falling. Lunging - I still think you could, but it's much harder to do. But maybe not so much for these super athletes. And is yet another total judgement call.

Why the rule itself only talks about maintaining possession through contacting the ground, but yet buried away in the case play is some mysterious "time/interruption" factor is just wrong. Something that important needs to be clearly defined.

Now, I still stand by the Dez call as made. I don't see at any point while he is going to the ground that he ever regains his balance or braces or interrupts his fall and THEN performs a lunge. He performs the lunge while still falling. I think that's what Blandino was trying to explain. I emphasize trying. But that two part process which they try to say aren't part of the same process is a complete judgement call.

Even if they don't change the rule they absolutely need to clarify and rewrite it.

 

[DogFace]

It says it was the contact that caused him to go to the ground.

It says he was down by contact. Just as it was ruled the Dez catch.

Are you saying you think they want or an official should judge whether he was going to remain upright or not?

I see your point that you think that you know he was going to fall. I don’t see anywhere in the rule they ask the ref to determine if the fall during a play with contact, as was the case in the Dez catch, the contact was the reason the player went to the ground or if they should instead decide if they think his balance was already in jeopardy before the contact. Then decide, like you, that a gifted athlete could’ve possibly recovered or not from the temporary loss of balance.

You accuse me of pretending circumstances don’t exist. Yet, you’re adding circumstances that you think the ref should be looking for and the caseplay doesn’t mention. As you said these are worded purposely.

The caseplay is nearly identical to the Dez catch. Except you’re adding in that the official in the caseplay knew the player had his balance and only the contact brought him down.

Control
Two feet
Time for a football move—one example they used was the player had time to pitch the ball.

Do you think Dez could’ve pitched the ball?

 

[OmerV]

It says he was down by contact. Just as it was ruled the Dez catch.

Are you saying you think they want or an official should judge whether he was going to remain upright or not?

I see your point that you think that you know he was going to fall. I don’t see anywhere in the rule they ask the ref to determine if the fall during a play with contact, as was the case in the Dez catch, the contact was the reason the player went to the ground or if they should instead decide if they think his balance was already in jeopardy before the contact. Then decide, like you, that a gifted athlete could’ve possibly recovered or not from the temporary loss of balance.

You accuse me of pretending circumstances don’t exist. Yet, you’re adding circumstances that you think the ref should be looking for and the caseplay doesn’t mention. As you said these are worded purposely.

The caseplay is nearly identical to the Dez catch. Except you’re adding in that the official in the caseplay knew the player had his balance and only the contact brought him down.

Control
Two feet
Time for a football move—one example they used was the player had time to pitch the ball.

Do you think Dez could’ve pitched the ball?

Yes, he is down by contact if the reason he went to the ground was because the defender knocked him to the ground after one foot came down. You can't skip to the result as if the scenario that the stated result refers to isn't applicable. Hell, if we are going to do that he doesn't have to even catch it, we can just skip to the part that says "down by contact" and call it good.

As for the ref judging, yes, the ref does have to make judgments. That's part of the job. And it's not an accident the casebook example says it's the contact that causes him to go to the ground rather than the scenario being based on the receiver going to the ground at any point for any reason. If that's what they meant they would have said it that way because it would take out a lot of the element of judgment. The only reason to word it the way they did was to differentiate the rule as it relates to a player that is going down on his own as opposed to one that comes down in control and is then knocked to the ground.

 

[Kevinicus]

Sure, when you slow it down. At real speed, is it as "clear" or a straight line to the ground?

You realize this isn't real speed, right? This is fast speed. Come on man.

Edit: I see others have pointed out this absurdity already. I let it go the first time you posted it, but had to comment this time.

And slowing it down is a problem because it lets you see more detail about what happened? Come on man.

 

[Kevinicus]

Yes, he is down by contact if the reason he went to the ground was because the defender knocked him to the ground after one foot came down. You can't skip to the result as if the scenario that led to the result isn't applicable. Hell, if we are going to do that he doesn't have to even catch it, we can just skip to the part that says "down by contact" and call it good.

As for the ref judging, yes, the ref does have to make judgments. That's part of the job. And it's not an accident the casebook example says it's the contact that causes him to the ground rather than just saying the receiver goes to the ground at any point for any reason. If that's what they meant they would have said it that way because it would take out a lot of the element of judgment. The only reason to word it the way they did was to differentiate the rule as it relates to a player that is going down on his own as opposed to one that comes down in control and is then knocked to the ground.

You're really being obtuse with this contact part of the case play. It's not pertinent to the ruling.

 

[DogFace]

Lets break this down:

A.R. 15.95 Act common to game—COMPLETE PASS
1. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and ( We get what this means. )
2. then still in control of the ball ( This is the confusing part, a "time" element or what I think they are trying to refer to is some action that kind of stops them from falling or regaining their balance. )
3. he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed. ( According to the wording of the ruling, the lunge is NOT part of the process. So if they determined this to be a catch, it was either due to the "time" element, or that the lunge, while not technically part of the process, is something that can demonstrate point number 2 above. )
Ruling: 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

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
1. controls the ball and gets one foot down, he goes to the ground, gets his second foot down, ( We get what this means. )
2. with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself with his left hand ( This is less confusing, but still not really clear. This is the "time" element or more precisely, some action that kind of stops them from falling or regaining their balance.)
3. simultaneously lunges ( According to the wording of the ruling, the lunge is NOT part of the process. So if they determined this to be a catch, it was either due to the "time" element, or that the lunge, while not technically part of the process, is something that can demonstrate the act of trying to regain his balance. An act that could only be performed if one wasn't technically falling. )
Ruling: it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of the catch.

A.R. 8.13 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
1. before he completes the catch ( We get what this means. )
2. keeps his balance, gets both feet down, ( This is the clearest this part of the case play is written. The "time" element has been clearly been defined as "Keeps his balance. And remember, per the case play this is while going to the ground. But just as the other two case plays demonstrate, it is some act the interrupts or delays the act of falling. )
3. lunges over the goal line. The ball comes out as he hits the ground. ( And gain, the use of the lunging act is to try and confirm that the act of falling had been interrupted and they made an act that could only be performed if one wasn't technically falling. )
Ruling: The receiver went to the ground as the result of lunging for the goal line, not in the process of making the catch.


So lets break these down even further. I'm only going to be talking about the points 2 and 3 from each case play.

2. Clearly the case plays are trying to interject another component of going to the ground that is not in the actual rules themselves. Something of this magnitude should be clearly called out and defined. Because there is no rule language, we are left to assume the intent. Big no no and is exactly why we are still talking about this 3 years later.

My view is that the "time" element relates directly to cases where a player attempts to or actually interrupts the action of falling. That interruption, based on the case play language, in of itself completes the process of the catch, but only if they attempt to lunge. Even though the act of lunging is not part of the process. This is one of the most poorly written things I've ever seen. They don't clearly say what the time element requirement is and they don't clearly say that its some interruption of falling. They purposely keep it ambiguous. But its' clear that this is the intent because of the other language they use to setup the lunge. But it goes from:
then still in control of the ball TO
with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself with his left hand TO
keeps his balance, gets both feet down

3. I believe these are references to how one can interrupt the act of falling and complete the process of the catch, but only if there is an additional action confirming that they aren't really on the ground ( the lunge ). If that makes sense? And it is really, really hard to make sense of this rule if I haven't said it before.

Now the big question is, are there any other acts that can be performed besides a lunge? I think they chose a lunge because you can only lunge if you are already on the ground or if you have some sort of balance. Switching the ball in your hands - you can easily do that while falling. Reaching - easily do that while falling. Taking a step - still can be done while falling. Lunging - I still think you could, but it's much harder to do. But maybe not so much for these super athletes. And is yet another total judgement call.

Why the rule itself only talks about maintaining possession through contacting the ground, but yet buried away in the case play is some mysterious "time/interruption" factor is just wrong. Something that important needs to be clearly defined.

Now, I still stand by the Dez call as made. I don't see at any point while he is going to the ground that he ever regains his balance or braces or interrupts his fall and THEN performs a lunge. He performs the lunge while still falling. I think that's what Blandino was trying to explain. I emphasize trying. But that two part process which they try to say aren't part of the same process is a complete judgement call.

Even if they don't change the rule they absolutely need to clarify and rewrite it.

You’re the only one on that side of the argument that, I think and apologize if I’m wrong, says the caseplay is in direct contraction to the Dez play being over ruled as incomplete.

I still say he had control
Two feet
And not only time, but completed at least one football move.

Do you think when Dez pushes off with his last step that would be a lunge? The switching of one hand to two hands is demonstrated the time element being satisfied imo.

 

[BlindFaith]

You’re the only one on that side of the argument that, I think and apologize if I’m wrong, says the caseplay is in direct contraction to the Dez play being over ruled as incomplete.

I don't know what this means.

The case plays support the call being over turned. Supports that Dez didn't regain his balance or gather himself before making the lunge. And since he didn't gather himself he must maintain possession through contacting the ground. Which he didn't. Incomplete pass.

 

[MarcusRock]

You’re the only one on that side of the argument that, I think and apologize if I’m wrong, says the caseplay is in direct contraction to the Dez play being over ruled as incomplete.

I still say he had control
Two feet
And not only time, but completed at least one football move.

Do you think when Dez pushes off with his last step that would be a lunge? The switching of one hand to two hands is demonstrated the time element being satisfied imo.

He's not saying the Dez play and the case play are opposed to one another. He's basically saying the same thing I did when I responded to the other wingman who mucked up explaining them. Have a look. I made it as clear as I could.

 

[G2]

I don't know what this means.

The case plays support the call being over turned. Supports that Dez didn't regain his balance or gather himself before making the lunge. And since he didn't gather himself he must maintain possession through contacting the ground. Which he didn't. Incomplete pass.

Which is exactly what the refs said to explain the overturn. "WR didn't maintain possession."
Pretty clear.

 

[OmerV]

You're really being obtuse with this contact part of the case play. It's not pertinent to the ruling.

lol - then why did they include that in the scenario? Why not just set up the scenario so that the player goes to the ground regardless of whatever point in the play and whatever the reason? It would have simplified things to say it doesn't matter whether he was going to the ground on his own or not because there would be no judgment needed by the refs.

The only possible reason for including in the scenario that one foot was down, and then it was the contact that caused him to go to the ground would be if the intent was to differentiate it from a player going to the ground on his own. That's a very specific set of circumstances, and it's laughable to assume they would put those specifics into the casebook without there being a reason for it. Why would they even include those specifics if they intended for them to be ignored anyway?

Remember, this is the casebook, and the entire premise of a casebook is to give specific examples with specific circumstances, and provide the correct ruling for those specific examples and circumstances. Accordingly it's ridiculous to say the specifics of the examples set out in the casebook can be ignored. You don't get to pick which parts you like and which you don't - you don't get to alter the example to fit what you want.

 

[MarcusRock]

Good. You’ve found your ringleader

You don't want to be a ringleader. I eat ringleaders for breakfast.

 

[BlindFaith]

lol - then why did they include that in the scenario? Why not just set up the scenario so that the player goes to the ground regardless of whatever point in the play and whatever the reason? It would have simplified things to say it doesn't matter whether he was going to the ground on his own or not because there would be no judgment needed by the refs.

The only possible reason for including in the scenario that one foot was down, and then it was the contact that caused him to go to the ground would be if the intent was to differentiate it from a player going to the ground on his own. That's a very specific set of circumstances, and it's laughable to assume they would put those specifics into the casebook without there being a reason for it. Why would they even include those specifics if they intended for them to be ignored anyway?

Remember, this is the casebook, and the entire premise of a casebook is to give specific examples with specific circumstances, and provide the correct ruling for those specific examples and circumstances. Accordingly it's ridiculous to say the specifics of the examples set out in the casebook can be ignored. You don't get to pick which parts you like and which you don't - you don't get to alter the example to fit what you want.

Kev does bring up a good point about this part of the rule, as do you. I'm not certain what the significance is of being contacted while going to the ground.

The case plays all do say that. I did mention it in a post a while back. Seems like they are trying to maybe say what you are implying. If so, then it makes the Dez play even less of a catch, since this regaining balance could only occur if he was knocked to the ground by contact, meaning he otherwise would have not gone to the ground. He was not forced to the ground and he was clearly going to the ground the entire time. That would then even negate the case plays. But since it's not real clear, even though the language is clearly used, to if this is the actual intent, I'm going with they just ignore if there is contact or not. Which then puts the case plays into play.

I could be wrong. Very, very poorly written.

 

[Hostile]

On the sideline catches: If the ball hits the ground and the WR loses control is it a catch?

On any play under review is there a requirement for the evidence to be clear, or the directive is to let the play stand as called?

We are 3 years past that play, and it still is not clear that it was a non catch. The reason for that is very simple. It was a catch. The comment about 2 feet in is solely a reference to the 2 feet down in bounds with possession has always been understood to be a catch. Dez, not only got both feet down he got one foot down a 2nd time, meaning he was running or moving. The next thing that hit the ground was hit left knee, then his right elbow, then the hand (left with the ball) and we presume the ball. That is either catch and down by contact when his knee hit the ground, OR if he was not down by contact, the ground cannot cause a fumble for a runner, and he gained full control in the end zone for a TD.

Regardless of any other interpretation of the catch rule, and we all have them, the play was not clear evidence.

 

[MarcusRock]

Kev does bring up a good point about this part of the rule, as do you. I'm not certain what the significance is of being contacted while going to the ground.

The case plays all do say that. I did mention it in a post a while back. Seems like they are trying to maybe say what you are implying. If so, then it makes the Dez play even less of a catch, since this regaining balance could only occur if he was knocked to the ground by contact, meaning he otherwise would have not gone to the ground. He was not forced to the ground and he was clearly going to the ground the entire time. That would then even negate the case plays. But since it's not real clear, even though the language is clearly used, to if this is the actual intent, I'm going with they just ignore if there is contact or not. Which then puts the case plays into play.

I could be wrong. Very, very poorly written.

I believe it mentions contact because the going to the ground rule (Item 1) states, "with or without contact by an opponent" so if it's a hit that makes a runner go to the ground, that doesn't matter and the rule still applies the way it's written.

 

[KJJ]

On the sideline catches: If the ball hits the ground and the WR loses control is it a catch?

If the receiver is going to the ground and loses the ball when they contact the ground it’s a no catch regardless where they are. It makes no difference if they’re on the sidelines or in the endzone if they’re going to the ground they have to complete the process and hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. That part of the rule is very clear but it’s the part of the rule that frustrates and angers fans the most. They refuse to aknowledge or accept it but it’s the rule.

Everyone who’s arguing that it was a catch continue to ignore the fact that Dez was going to the ground. They keep talking about a football move and that he had 2 feet on the ground and the time element and that he took some steps but keep ignoring the fact that he was going to the ground during all of that.

 

[BlindFaith]

I believe it mentions contact because the going to the ground rule (Item 1) states, "with or without contact by an opponent" so if it's a hit that makes a runner go to the ground, that doesn't matter and the rule still applies the way it's written.

You could say that. But the other language in the case play talking about gathering themselves isn't in the rule either. So are the case plays exceptions? And if so, is the exception to include only if they are contacted/forced to the ground? It's all up to interpretation because it's not clearly spelled out in an actual rule.

 

[G2]

If the receiver is going to the ground and loses the ball when they contact the ground it’s a no catch regardless where they are. It makes no difference if they’re on the sidelines or in the endzone if they’re going to the ground they have to complete the process and hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. That part of the rule is very clear but it’s the part of the rule that frustrates and angers fans the most. They refuse to aknowledge or accept it but it’s the rule.

Everyone who’s arguing that it was a catch continue to ignore the fact that Dez was going to the ground. They keep talking about a football move and that he had 2 feet on the ground and the time element and that he took some steps but keep ignoring the fact that he was going to the ground during all of that.

I agree. I was in a way trying to make a point. Because in the end, if the WR doesn't maintain possession it's an incomplete pass. The going/falling to the ground is what has some confused and others not willing to except the rule. They consider his feet coming down after the catch a step and in the act of going to the ground a 3rd step. Which, as I understand it is all on the back burning when they are going to the ground. The lunge, steps, switching hands, adjusting jock, calling grandma etc....