Twitter: Competition Committee says Dez caught it **merged**

[MarcusRock]

Sure did get quiet.

Good weekend to all.

 

[KJJ]

I think it's pretty clear there that Dez was diving for the end zone at the end of the play based on how he pushes off with his left foot on his last step. His legs go up in the air because of the effort. He was falling, but he dove, put the ball in his left hand and reached out with it.

The divot he made in the field is another indication of this.

He did everything you mentioned but he was “going to the ground” therefore the ball had to survive the ground. Once the league removes the “going to the ground” part from the rule, plays like Dez’s and Calvin Johnson’s will all be catches. The league is not going to continue to allow the ground to overturn obvious catches. The fans have had enough of it and it looks as if the league has had enough of it.

 

[gimmesix]

He did everything you mentioned but he was “going to the ground” therefore the ball had to survive the ground. Once the league removes the “going to the ground” part from the rule, plays like Dez’s and Calvin Johnson’s will all be catches. The league is not going to continue to allow the ground to overturn obvious catches. The fans have had enough of it and it looks as if the league has had enough of it.

Well, I still contend that pushing off and diving for the goal line while putting the ball in his left hand and extending it toward the goal line constitutes and act common to the game or football move (again, why they changed the language after the no-catch call), but that's neither here nor there at this point.

The best we can hope is that they do move forward with keeping the ground from ruining catches like this.

 

[KJJ]

Well, I still contend that pushing off and diving for the goal line while putting the ball in his left hand and extending it toward the goal line constitutes and act common to the game or football move (again, why they changed the language after the no-catch call), but that's neither here nor there at this point.

The best we can hope is that they do move forward with keeping the ground from ruining catches like this.

I agree everything he did in my opinion was an act common to the game and a so-called football move BUT he was “going to the ground” and that trumps a football move because the rule states if a player is going to the ground during the act of making a catch they MUST maintain possession through the contact of the ground. Steps, reaches or any type of football move doesn’t matter if a receiver’s momentum is taking them to the ground they must complete the process.

Once the league removes the “going to the ground” part of the rule it’s going to eliminate most of the controversy because it won’t force the receiver who’s clearly caught the football and is falling to the ground to have to survive the ground with the ball. Once the rule is changed a play like the Dez play will now be ruled down by contact.

 

[blindzebra]

I agree everything he did in my opinion was an act common to the game and a so-called football move BUT he was “going to the ground” and that trumps a football move because the rule states if a player is going to the ground during the act of making a catch they MUST maintain possession through the contact of the ground. Steps, reaches or any type of football move doesn’t matter if a receiver’s momentum is taking them to the ground they must complete the process.

Once the league removes the “going to the ground” part of the rule it’s going to eliminate most of the controversy because it won’t force the receiver who’s clearly caught the football and is falling to the ground to have to survive the ground with the ball. Once the rule is changed a play like the Dez play will now be ruled down by contact.

Even Blandino said that is not true. Read the article Marcus posted on the last page from USAToday. Post 632

 

[DogFace]

And just for those saying that the rule did not change:
Here you go, take note of the red.
2014:

Rule 8 Section 1 Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is
complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

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, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

The rule to illustrate a football move to become a runner in 2014:
Rule 3 section 25.2
(i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.). Note that it says etc. meaning that this is not an all inclusive list.

2015 rules:
ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and (c) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner (see 3-2-7 Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

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, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Here is 3-2-7:
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.

So in 2015 we have some changes, we get upright long enough to clearly become a runner, yet the ways you can become a runner shrinks. But Dean, I thought this was to clarify the catch rule? That is what you said, it was not a change just making it clearer.

2016:
ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and (c) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

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, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

3-2-7:
A player has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact
of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.

In 2016 they add a few more items to 3-2-7, but we still have no clarification of what upright long enough means.

2017: Is identical to 2017

For fun here is 2012 and 2013:

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and (c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

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, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

3-2-7 just says act common to the game.

As you can see acts common to the game was removed in 2015, how is removing what makes a receiver a runner clarifying the rule? Upright long enough to become a runner is added to Item 1. How is that clearer? Where in the previous years is it stated that you must be a runner before going to the ground? 3.2.7 goes from a long list of acts plus an etc. to just avoid or ward off an opponent. Again, wasn't this supposed to be a clarification of the existing rule? Then why did so many sections change and the wording become more vague?

Then there is this from Percy:
2014
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.

2015
A.R. 15.95
Does not become runner prior to going to ground
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 reached out for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A20.
In this situation, the receiver had not clearly become a runner before going to the ground. In order to complete the catch, he must maintain control until after his
initial contact with the ground. The act of reaching out with the ball does not trump the requirement to maintain control of the ball when he lands.

This clearly shows that an act common to the game could end Item 1 after a player started going to the ground in 2014. In 2015 he had to be a runner BEFORE going to the ground.

Then we have the much repeated case play:

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted
by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right
arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the
goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out.
Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The pass is complete. When the receiver hits the ground in the end
zone, 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. Since the ball crossed the goal line, it is a touchdown. If the ball is short of the goal line, it is a catch,
and A2 is down by contact.

Based on the 2015 version of A.R. 15.95 the player in this play did not become a runner before going to the ground, he was not upright long enough before going to the ground.

Now the Blandino Boys will scoff at this and talk about that good all magical lunge, you know the lunge that does not exist under 8.1.3.c or 3.2.7, or anywhere else in the rules.

Also worth noting, is how they attempted to make the 2015 version of A.R. 15.95 read a lot like the Dez play, I wonder why? Because it is the very reason that so many people were saying that they changed the rules to retroactively make the overturn correct. All the evidence is right here. The rules and case plays are quoted directly as they appear in the rule and case books.

You’ve clearly explained the rule change. Percy did too. Others tried.

In 20 pages he’ll ask this question again. He may work for Russia.

 

[DogFace]

It's the only act shown to get one out of going to the ground via the case plays. You know, the ones YOU brought to the discussion without knowing how to explain them, hence my correction of you. You say those acts aren't necessary yet the case plays show them being performed and being the reason one escapes going to the ground. You attempt to apply rules for a receiver on their feet to a player going to the ground. Different rules, which is why going to the ground reigns unless you show you're not going to the ground. Same okie-doke y'all try to pull with saying the rules "changed." Again, where's your support?

You continually avoid this video for a reason. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

Blandino says very clearly REACH. He DOES NOT say lunge.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again


Not lunge. Reach.

Did I miss where you explain a lunge is a reach?

 

[DogFace]

There are 3 case plays that only mention a lunge allowing a player to escape going to the ground. If there were so many options they could have used from the list of "acts" why weren't they used? It's because you're trying to use the okie-doke to apply rules meant for a receiver on their feet to a receiver who is going to the ground. That has its own set of rules. Otherwise, why use a lunge in all 3 examples? They had 3 to choose from and used a lunge in all of them. Use logic.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
No lunge. Reach

 

[DogFace]

Blandino was explaining the rules, not establishing them. Do the rules back what he said? You can dislike his style of explaining all you want. Who fact checked him in the press? This was a huge controversy so if Blandino was lying, it'd be all over news outlets somewhere, right? Where is your support for that?

Was he lying here?
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

 

[Aviano90]

Was it a catch or not?

The Energizer Bunny and Timex can’t even compete with this topic.

I am just wondering didthe Competition Committee actually admit Dez caught it or that it needs to be a catch in the future.

 

[DogFace]

I agree everything he did in my opinion was an act common to the game and a so-called football move BUT he was “going to the ground” and that trumps a football move because the rule states if a player is going to the ground during the act of making a catch they MUST maintain possession through the contact of the ground. Steps, reaches or any type of football move doesn’t matter if a receiver’s momentum is taking them to the ground they must complete the process.

Once the league removes the “going to the ground” part of the rule it’s going to eliminate most of the controversy because it won’t force the receiver who’s clearly caught the football and is falling to the ground to have to survive the ground with the ball. Once the rule is changed a play like the Dez play will now be ruled down by contact.

No the rule doesn’t say that. The opposition in this argument has conceded that to be true.
Blandino says it in this video that they will no longer address because it makes it all very clear.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap2000000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-
strikes-again

Blandino on the Calvin Johnson play in the video:
“If you can perform all parts-in that order-you have a catch. If —NOT— and you’re going to the ground you have to maintain possession.”
“He did not have both feet down prior to the reach so this is all one process.”

Johnson is without a doubt going to the ground. Your argument is no longer a point of contention.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Sure did get quiet.

Good weekend to all.

We’re basking in the extent to which you were owned on this topic.

 

[Kevinicus]

All of these are press releases from the NFL? The official Cowboys site, ESPN, and CBS Sports?

Who backs your conspiracy theory? Who? I ask and you and percy avoid. This is where the last thread finished up. You have no support for a theory you made up in the face of support directly against it. Why are you all to be believed with no backup?

Logical fallacy is fallacious.

Remember what I said about using logic?

 

[DogFace]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

This posted by percy is the tap out link.

The lead debater in the other thread said he would no longer defend Blandino and his explanations. This one
must have stumped even him. It’s impossible to argue.
Yes @MarcusRock the one you lovingly refer to as “squadron leader” (yes, his actual words, that’s how he talks) has bowed out.

You’re done too I’m guessing.

@OmerV its up to you.

 

[BlindFaith]

This is what I am wondering it too. We're taking a tweet from a person and drawing conclusions. I read the tweet thinking they reviewed the plays again, determined they want to those types of plays to be catches instead of incomplete passes (so they SHOULD BE catches) and now have to modify to rules to ensure they are catches in the future. I don't read the tweet thinking the call was wrong at the time. Of course, I could be wrong but will hold out until further clarification comes along.

No, you got it right. We live in a read what parts of the facts fit your agenda world now. Gone are the days of using your mind, comparing logic and details and making an informed decision. It's much easier to believe as fact a tweet made clearly out of context.

No prizes are given out for who is right or wrong. And if Mara and the competition committee really did think think Dezs non catch should have been ruled a catch per the rules, which they don't, instead of it should have been ruled a catch because it looked like a catch, which they do, then Mara and the whole committee should be fired and replaced for not enforcing it correctly for the last 3 years.

And the folks who think the rule was changed in 2015 to make it even more clear that the player has to be upright should be outraged at Mara. Because, according to them, the rule we have now even clearly says that Dezs catch wouldn't have been a catch. #conspiracy!

Do they really think this is what Mara now thinks? Do they really think that Mara is now admitting he was wrong at the time and didn't know the rules? Or Stephen Jones was wrong? The officials were wrong. The entire NFL was wrong?

Or is it just a tweet by some no name, worded completely out of context to get some attention?

The sorry part of this is the lack of common sense and logic of people. Says a lot about where we are as a society.

 

[BlindFaith]

Some of these anti-Dez guys will never admit it........they are invested in Dez "dropping" that catch.

Yeah, Stehen Jones is an anti Dez guy. Maybe he is actually since Dez probably won't be back.

 

[BlindFaith]

Funny you claim to be winning yet you are afraid to test it.

Got it.

I'm your huckleberry. Find an impartial jury and Marcus, Streetwise, Omar and myself will bury this. And you do realize that proving conspiracy is much harder than defending previous ruled upon case verdict.

And our star witnesses are NFL officials, Stephen Jones, Mara, Pereira, etc etc.

Who will yours be?

 

[blindzebra]

Yeah, Stehen Jones is an anti Dez guy. Maybe he is actually since Dez probably won't be back.

So him saying based on what Blandino told the competition committee I guess it was correct is proof that it was? Oh brother that is funny.

 

[BlindFaith]

An excerpt from Blandino's video "Explaining the Calvin Johnson Rule." This is NOT someone describing how "going to the ground" subordinates the catch process. It's someone describing how the completion of the catch process determines whether a player who is going to the ground has to maintain possession when he hits the ground. It's all about the catch process.

"We've worked really hard to educate people in terms of the catch process. It seems like we're talking about a Calvin Johnson play every season but I guess when you catch as many passes as he does, it's bound to happen.

1:43 Let's look at the Week 1 play from the Minnesota-Detroit game where Calvin is going to the ground in the process of making the catch.

The process of the catch is a three-part process: control, two feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all three parts in that order, you have a catch. If not, and you're going to the ground, you must control the ball when you hit the ground.

2:09 Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground. The ball comes loose. He did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line, so this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass."

Why would it matter that he did not have both feet down prior to the reach, if the reach wouldn't have mattered anyway?

Obviously, the reach mattered.


Blandino says you gotta have control, two feet down, and an act common to the game. It's a three-part process, and it has to be in that order. Then he explains that Johnson was going to the ground while still in that process, because he didn't perform the steps in the correct order. He hasn't completed it. He needed to get two feet down before the act common to the game, which was the reach.

He doesn't say Johnson needed to be upright.
He doesn't say Johnson needed to gather himself.
He never uses the word "lunge," even once.

He never mentions the catch process as being "trumped" or subordinated by Johnson's fall. In fact, just the opposite. He's analyzing Johnson's actions all through the fall, to see whether he completes the three-part process.

This is cut and dried.

No, it's cut and paste.

 

[blindzebra]

I'm your huckleberry. Find an impartial jury and Marcus, Streetwise, Omar and myself will bury this. And you do realize that proving conspiracy is much harder than defending previous ruled upon case verdict.

And our star witnesses are NFL officials, Stephen Jones, Mara, Pereira, etc etc.

Who will yours be?

You would get destroyed. And we would not be proving conspiracy we'd be showing how the rule was misapplied.