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

[Chrispierce]

Had enough of this nonsense. Why can't they just call it like they use to? It's stupid over complicating things,like this is a serious science equation to Mars or something. You catch the ball,and if it doesn't fall out of hit the ground...TD. I swear,with the way the NFL handles everything now,it wouldn't surprise me if a Capital Hill hearing committee is dealing with this at some point.

 

[Cattle_Rancher]

So if you full-on dive to snag a ball and as you land on your torso, the ball comes out, that's a completed pass, a fumble, or incompletion?

Doesn’t sound like your player had possession if he did then it’s a fumble.

 

[KJJ]

So if you full-on dive to snag a ball and as you land on your torso, the ball comes out, that's a completed pass, a fumble, or incompletion?

Even without the current rule that would go as an incompletion. If it’s a full on dive to make a snag the receiver will hit the ground immmediately and if the ball comes out that would be a clear incompletion. It would be hard to dispute it because it would be a bang-bang play. Even before the current rule came in plays like those were almost always ruled incomplete if the receiver dove for the football and lost it as they hit the ground.

Even with the old rule a receiver had to show they had clear control of the football for it to be a catch. Very difficult to show clear control of the ball on a full on dive to snag the ball, then have it immediately come out as the receiver hits the ground.

 

[MarcusRock]

Doesn’t sound like your player had possession if he did then it’s a fumble.

Even without the current rule that would go as an incompletion. If it’s a full on dive to make a snag the receiver will hit the ground immmediately and if the ball comes out that would be a clear incompletion. It would be hard to dispute it because it would be a bang-bang play. Even before the current rule came in plays like those were almost always ruled incomplete if the receiver dove for the football and lost it as they hit the ground.

Even with the old rule a receiver had to show they had clear control of the football for it to be a catch. Very difficult to show clear control of the ball on a full on dive to snag the ball, then have it immediately come out as the receiver hits the ground.

Y'all disagree here, which is why I say leave the rule as is. I understand why it needs to be that way because of the athleticism that exists. To me, "too hard to understand" is not a reason to change it, probably because I understand it.

 

[KJJ]

Y'all disagree here, which is why I say leave the rule as is. I understand why it needs to be that way because of the athleticism that exists. To me, "too hard to understand" is not a reason to change it, probably because I understand it.

I understand the rule but I don’t like the “going to the ground” part. That part of the rule has to be changed. The rule will never satisfy anyone if they continue to force a receiver who’s ruled going to the ground to have to survive the ground with the football.

 

[diefree666]

if the NFL competition comittee had any brains or honesty they would revert back to the way things were before the Megatron change.

 

[OmerV]

Whenever they tinker with it, they only make it worse.

It is not possible to draft this rule in a manner that makes all the people happy all the time. No matter where you place the line between catch and non-catch, there will always be plays taking place right on the line which have the aggrieved parties screaming bloody murder.

This is a fair, and realistic statement.

 

[MarcusRock]

I understand the rule but I don’t like the “going to the ground” part. That part of the rule has to be changed. The rule will never satisfy anyone if they continue to force a receiver who’s ruled going to the ground to have to survive the ground with the football.

It would be better if receivers just concentrate on holding on to the ball. You can't have a catch be 2 feet and possession all the time where, as I showed in my example, 2 feet doesn't always happen. If they do anything, I just hope it's something where they can make a determination on a play quickly and succinctly so they can get on with the game. 3-minute reviews are insane.

 

[OmerV]

It should be, "did the ball fall out of his hands before he hit the ground? No? It's a catch, then."

So, if at the immediate instant ... the very split second ... his toes hit the ground are you okay with it being a fumble if he gets hit and the ball pops out, or even if the ball immediately jars loose upon hitting the ground, and the other team then recovers the fumble? Fans of the team on offense will have a problem with that too. Even if the offense were to recover the fumble, fans of the team on defense will have a problem because they will say it shouldn't have been a complete pass to begin with.

 

[KJJ]

It would be better if receivers just concentrate on holding on to the ball. You can't have a catch be 2 feet and possession all the time where, as I showed in my example, 2 feet doesn't always happen. If they do anything, I just hope it's something where they can make a determination on a play quickly and succinctly so they can get on with the game. 3-minute reviews are insane.

When a receiver goes up in the air and high points a football and clearly catches to it as in the case of Calvin Johnson and Dez that shouldn’t be wiped out because they were falling to the ground and the impact of the ground knocked the ball loose. Some of these plays are clearly a catch but because the receiver was going to the ground and didn’t survive the ground these plays to go as incompletions.

Diving to make a catch is very different. No one can dispute not even an idiot that a receiver is falling in that situation. Everything happens very quick when a receiver dives to make a snag and if they lose the ball upon contacting the turf you have to call it an incompletion.

 

[CPanther95]

Ruh-Roh. That other thread is going to get to 500 pages when they bring in a new rule and apply it to the Dez catch.

Shouldn't be a shock. The whole point of changing the rule should be so that when it is applied to the Calvin/Dez/James non-catches, they would be considered catches under the new guidelines. If not, then they failed.

 

[cowboyblue22]

the only reason they are going to change the rule is because it took the steelers out of the championship game if not for that they would still keep the rule the same

 

[Doomsay]

so when it messed up the steelers its time to change the rule again

Steelers won a Super Bowl because of incidental contact, why not?

 

[GenoT]

Might as well save some space and merge this with the other catch/no-catch thread.

 

[KJJ]

Might as well save some space and merge this with the other catch/no-catch thread.

If everyone concentrates on just talking about changing the rule and stop disputing the rule as it pertains to the Dez catch we can keep this thread on track.

 

[KJJ]

Steelers won a Super Bowl because of incidental contact, why not?

It did result in an immediate rule change the following season. Too little too late for the Cowboys.

 

[MarcusRock]

If everyone concentrates on just talking about changing the rule and stop disputing the rule as it pertains to the Dez catch we can keep this thread on track.

I don't want that. I owned that other thread. I sure likes a two-fer.

 

[KJJ]

I don't want that. I owned that other thread. I sure likes a two-fer.

That’s probably because this is your first go around in those Dez threads. At east the first time I’ve seen you take part in them. I’m tired of them. Percy never tires of them, he has a ton of notes put away from past Dez threads that he pastes onto posts so he can keep those threads going. Instead of always repeating himself he just copies and pastes previous posts he’s made.

 

[buybuydandavis]

This last season was the first time I really stopped watching other team's games. I would turn those games on but it would just turn into background noise as I found something to do. It's a shell of its former self and I am finding other things to occupy my time with.

I didn't watch a second of the playoffs or the SB.

Watching football is a pleasant pastime. Turns out it isn't that hard to turn people away from a "pleasant pastime". There are lots of them available these days, so why go with one that gives you reasons not to?

 

[blindzebra]

I don't want that. I got owned in that other thread. I sure likes a two-fer.

FIFY