News: ESPN: NFL owners OK new catch rule by 32-0 vote

[blindzebra]

I understand how these plays were being officiated. Bringing the ball in and a third step weren’t considered football moves because receivers who performed both like Dez did and we’re going to the ground were still having catches overturned if they didn’t maintain possession through the contact of the ground.

Repeating it does not make it true. You were wrong, just admit it.

 

[OmerV]

Fine let's throw out everything he said.

I still have the play in the SB in 2010, the Julius Thomas Play in 2013, and the case book plays to support me, what do you have?

Can you guide me to the case book play you are referring to? I don't remember seeing a case book play that proves Dez made a catch. I also don't have a video of the 2013 Julius Thomas play, so I don't know that it is identical to the Dez play. Some were saying the Ertz play was the same as the Dez play, and that is ridiculous.

As for what I have, again, there is Item 1 in the rulebook

 

[blindzebra]

Again, if you only go by the rules, Item 1 dictates that Dez did not make a catch.

Give rule support. Give examples of plays before Dez.

I have a play in 2010 that says you are wrong. I have a play in 2013 that says you are wrong. I have case plays that say you are wrong.

You have one thing, Blandino's words after the fact.

 

[KJJ]

Repeating it does not make it true. You were wrong, just admit it.

You’re wrong and have been wrong for the past three years. You’ve been dead wrong but enjoy arguing this topic with a passion. At least 80% of your post count the past three years has been arguing this topic. You claim everyone is wrong from the league to Blandino. Lol

 

[blindzebra]

Can you guide me to the case book play you are referring to? I don't remember seeing a case book play that proves Dez made a catch. I also don't have a video of the 2013 Julius Thomas play, so I don't know that it is identical to the Dez play. Some were saying the Ertz play was the same as the Dez play, and that is ridiculous.

As for what I have, again, there is Item 1 in the rulebook

Where in Item 1 does it say it trumps 8.1.3?
You have argued with Mr.C about the video so don't play dumb.
You have argued about the case plays too, so again stop playing dumb.

It is your MO, get stuck and go to the well I never saw it, show it to me bit.

 

[blindzebra]

You’re wrong and have been wrong for the past three years. You’ve been dead wrong but enjoy arguing this topic with a passion. At least 80% of your post count the past three years has been arguing this topic. You claim everyone is wrong from the league to Blandino. Lol

Funny how they changed the rule back to what it was before the Dez play, but yeah I am wrong.

 

[OmerV]

Or you have those who like to take a large brush and paint everyone as an emotional fan to discredit the facts they bring to the table.

I've looked at facts, and based on a video Mr. C provided I determined there were inconsistencies in what he says about a player being able to complete a catch while going to the ground. And, as a result, I quit arguing the point. What have you done? You've taken the position the inconsistencies mean what he says that supports you is valid, and what he says that doesn't support you isn't. If you were interested in a fair discussion you would either accept Blandino's words that he believes Dez didn't make a football move, or you would consider everything he says on the topic tainted.

 

[OmerV]

Funny how they changed the rule back to what it was before the Dez play, but yeah I am wrong.

The new rule isn't going to say that a player going to the ground has to maintain possession through the play, and my understanding of the rule as it was proposed, the definition of a "football move'' will include a reach and a 3rd step, which was not in the rule in 2014. Accordingly, it is not the same rule.

 

[KJJ]

Funny how they changed the rule back to what it was before the Dez play, but yeah I am wrong.

You were wrong about the old rule and the Julius Thomas play proves it. You didn’t understand the rule. I asked for a play where a receiver who was going the ground in the process of making a catch, lost the ball when contacting the ground but it was ruled a catch. You said the Julius Thomas play from 2013 and you were wrong! Blandino clearly said that Thomas wasn’t going to the ground during the process of making the catch. That exchange we had proved you don’t understand the rule. The new rule they have now is not the exact same rule they had prior to the old rule.

 

[blindzebra]

I've looked at facts, and based on a video Mr. C provided I determined there were inconsistencies in what he says about a player being able to complete a catch while going to the ground. And, as a result, I quit arguing the point. What have you done? You've taken the position the inconsistencies mean what he says that supports you is valid, and what he says that doesn't support you isn't. If you were interested in a fair discussion you would either accept Blandino's words that he believes Dez didn't make a football move, or you would consider everything he says on the topic tainted.

We aren't using Blandino's words anymore remember? Support your argument with rule support and plays before the Dez play.

 

[blindzebra]

The new rule isn't going to say that a player going to the ground has to maintain possession through the play, and my understanding of the rule as it was proposed, the definition of a "football move'' will include a reach and a 3rd step, which was not in the rule in 2014. Accordingly, it is not the same rule.

Do I need to explain what etc. means? Anyone with an active brain cell understands what acts a runner performs and does not need them spelled out specifically.

The catch rule was control, 2 feet, and time/act, the new rule is control, 2 feet, and act/time yeah they are completely different.

 

[OmerV]

Give rule support. Give examples of plays before Dez.

I have a play in 2010 that says you are wrong. I have a play in 2013 that says you are wrong. I have case plays that say you are wrong.

You have one thing, Blandino's words after the fact.

If you plays, provide them and I'll be happy to take a look. I changed my thoughts based on a play Mr. C provided, so I've proven I'm willing to do that. But I'm not going to wade through 26 pages trying to find something you may have posted somewhere. Until then, even if you do have a couple of plays in mind, I have no idea if it is really identical or not. Again, a lot of people thought the Ertz play was the same as the Dez play, and that's nonsense.

And lets not act like you are anyone else has waded through the entire history of challenged calls and has proof of all the historical calls. If you are only talking about 1 or 2 plays as an example out of history, that's not much of a sample base.

 

[DogFace]

Everyone of these disputed plays that weren’t ruled catches involved a receiver going up in the air to make the catch. Under the old rule every receiver that’s jumped in the air to make a catch has never able to perform the three-step process necessary because they were falling to the ground during the catch process. For them to have a catch under the rule they had to have control, both feet down and have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. No receiver that’s ever jumped in the air and was going to the ground during the process of making a catch has ever been able to perform all three steps.

No video exists of any receiver jumping in the air to make a catch that was able to perform the three-step process while going to the ground. The rule they had made it impossible for a receiver jumping in the air for a pass to perform all three steps while falling to the ground. There’s not one video that Blandino ever reviewed where a receiver jumped in the air to make a catch and lost the ball when contacting the ground that was ruled a catch. These going to the ground rulings were all in one piece by a receiver whose feet left the ground to make the catch.

The receiver jumped up in the air to make the catch and was in the process of falling to the ground during the catch. All these other plays like the Julius Thomas play, the receiver had both feet on the ground when they made the catch enabling them to perform the three-step process PRIOR to going to the ground. NONE of these receivers were going to the ground DURING the catch process.

Everyone of these disputed plays that weren’t ruled catches involved a receiver going up in the air to make the catch. Under the old rule every receiver that’s jumped in the air to make a catch has never able to perform the three-step process necessary because they were falling to the ground during the catch process. For them to have a catch under the rule they had to have control, both feet down and have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. No receiver that’s ever jumped in the air and was going to the ground during the process of making a catch has ever been able to perform all three steps.

No video exists of any receiver jumping in the air to make a catch that was able to perform the three-step process while going to the ground. The rule they had made it impossible for a receiver jumping in the air for a pass to perform all three steps while falling to the ground. There’s not one video that Blandino ever reviewed where a receiver jumped in the air to make a catch and lost the ball when contacting the ground that was ruled a catch. These going to the ground rulings were all in one piece by a receiver whose feet left the ground to make the catch.

The receiver jumped up in the air to make the catch and was in the process of falling to the ground during the catch. All these other plays like the Julius Thomas play, the receiver had both feet on the ground when they made the catch enabling them to perform the three-step process PRIOR to going to the ground. NONE of these receivers were going to the ground DURING the catch process.

The Calvin Johnson catch we are a talking about he jumped in the air to make the catch. The only reason it wasn’t ruled a catch was because he didn’t get two feet down prior to the reach. The incompletion had absolutely nothing to do with him jumping or not.

I think you’re missing what I’m trying to show you. Note the capitalized words from Blandino—


“Let’s look at the play from week one, the Minn. Det. Game where Calvin is GOING TO THE GROUND in the PROCESS of MAKING THE CATCH.

The process of the catch is a 3 part process-control, 2 feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 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. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.

We ageee Dez controlled the ball
We agree he got two feet down
The Calvin play further proves that in 2014 a player could complete the three part process on the way to the ground. Even though it’s not significant he happened to be jumping and landing in the example.

The fact it was ruled incomplete was because he didn’t complete part two. NOT that it was impossible.

Calvin loses the ball when he hits the ground. Had he gotten two feet down that wouldn’t have mattered.


What about the rule made it impossible for Calvin to complete the 3 part process on his way to the ground?
He simply didn’t get his other foot down prior to the reach. The rule had no impact on his feet.

 

[OmerV]

Do I need to explain what etc. means? Anyone with an active brain cell understands what acts a runner performs and does not need them spelled out specifically.

The catch rule was control, 2 feet, and time/act, the new rule is control, 2 feet, and act/time yeah they are completely different.

First, I notice you ignored that there is obviously a change with regard to a player going to the ground having to maintain possession - nice smokescreen. You are pretend the rule is exactly the same as 2014 by pretending the things that changed didn't. The element of maintaining possession all the way through is one of the most significant parts of the old rule, and it's laughable that you think that taking that element out doesn't constitute a change.

As for what etc means ... it simply means there are other undefined things that may fall into the category, but it doesn't somehow mean everything falls into the category.

The "etc" leaves a whole world of things to consider, from a player adjusting the grip on a ball or looking at the defender, all the way to making a firm, upright cut and redirecting at a 90 degree angle. There are a lot of things in between.

Some feel, as do I, that the intent was that a "football move" was something done while in control of the body - the ability to make a cut or avoid a tackle or make a full out dive to the end zone, for examples.

 

[KJJ]

The Calvin Johnson catch we are a talking about he jumped in the air to make the catch. The only reason it wasn’t ruled a catch was because he didn’t get two feet down prior to the reach. The incompletion had absolutely nothing to do with him jumping or not.

I think you’re missing what I’m trying to show you. Note the capitalized words from Blandino—


“Let’s look at the play from week one, the Minn. Det. Game where Calvin is GOING TO THE GROUND in the PROCESS of MAKING THE CATCH.

The process of the catch is a 3 part process-control, 2 feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 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. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.

We ageee Dez controlled the ball
We agree he got two feet down
The Calvin play further proves that in 2014 a player could complete the three part process on the way to the ground. Even though it’s not significant he happened to be jumping and landing in the example.

The fact it was ruled incomplete was because he didn’t complete part two. NOT that it was impossible.

Calvin loses the ball when he hits the ground. Had he gotten two feet down that wouldn’t have mattered.


What about the rule made it impossible for Calvin to complete the 3 part process on his way to the ground?
He simply didn’t get his other foot down prior to the reach. The rule had no impact on his feet.

I’ve got too many things better to do than to continue wasting my time with this. You’re never going to see it and not going to continue trying to explain it. This is why these threads go on as long as they do.

 

[OmerV]

We aren't using Blandino's words anymore remember? Support your argument with rule support and plays before the Dez play.

You need to think and pay attention to context - I didn't use Blandino's words to make an argument about the way the play was called, and in fact, the words I referred to supported your side. I merely mentioned that video to show I am willing to look at what information people on your side of the argument provide.

But, ignoring Blandino's words, I've cited the rule many times - over and over. Item 1 says a player going to the ground has to maintain possession, and it doesn't indicate that it is subservient to the 3 step process, nor does it say the 3 step process can override it. If we ignore Blandino's words, what is there to dispute that?

 

[Them]

'bout freakin' time!...

 

[blindzebra]

If you plays, provide them and I'll be happy to take a look. I changed my thoughts based on a play Mr. C provided, so I've proven I'm willing to do that. But I'm not going to wade through 26 pages trying to find something you may have posted somewhere. Until then, even if you do have a couple of plays in mind, I have no idea if it is really identical or not. Again, a lot of people thought the Ertz play was the same as the Dez play, and that's nonsense.

And lets not act like you are anyone else has waded through the entire history of challenged calls and has proof of all the historical calls. If you are only talking about 1 or 2 plays as an example out of history, that's not much of a sample base.

That is the trouble, nothing is going to be 100% identical. Just like how every possible football move is never going to be in the rule book. Just like how every possible situation will not have its own case book play. There will never be any absolutes.
That is why having officiated several sports and spending years reading rule and case books give me an advantage understanding how all this stuff works. Very little is ever spelled out completely, and to understand how to officiate a play often requires combining different rules. It takes years to get a good handle on the rules of a sport, and to have someone who had never even read a rule book before this think they have a greater understanding of rules, case plays, and how they all work together is laughable...this is not directed at you specifically.

Officiating is about more than the rule, it is about the spirit and intent behind the rule. You have to understand why the rule is there and what it is intended to do to be able to enforce it in a game.

What is the intent behind Item 1?
Is the spirit of it to take away catches?
The NFL just answered that, that is why Mike Pereira has said they took the rule too far and all plays should be officiated the same whether upright or going to the ground. Because they were micro-managing the catch rule and using it as it was never intended to be used.

That is why I believe they made an error in GB. The rules did not support it. The spirit and intent of the rule did not support it. Previous catches and explanations did not support it. The case plays from 2014 and before did not support it. And what we are seeing now with the changes , also says the rules at the time were not applied correctly.

 

[blindzebra]

You need to think and pay attention to context - I didn't use Blandino's words to make an argument about the way the play was called, and in fact, the words I referred to supported your side. I merely mentioned that video to show I am willing to look at what information people on your side of the argument provide.

But, ignoring Blandino's words, I've cited the rule many times - over and over. Item 1 says a player going to the ground has to maintain possession, and it doesn't indicate that it is subservient to the 3 step process, nor does it say the 3 step process can override it. If we ignore Blandino's words, what is there to dispute that?

How it was called before, the case book plays that say Item 1 ends when the catch process is complete. You know the stuff we have been presenting for 3 years only to be ignored by those using Blandino's words as their only proof. That is until Blindfaith made up his fantasy brace and lunge, and lied about rule changes before the 2014 season to explain away Blandino'd comments from 2013. Too bad for him his magical lunge was in the 2012 case book too.

 

[OmerV]

That is the trouble, nothing is going to be 100% identical. Just like how every possible football move is never going to be in the rule book. Just like how every possible situation will not have its own case book play. There will never be any absolutes.
That is why having officiated several sports and spending years reading rule and case books give me an advantage understanding how all this stuff works. Very little is ever spelled out completely, and to understand how to officiate a play often requires combining different rules. It takes years to get a good handle on the rules of a sport, and to have someone who had never even read a rule book before this think they have a greater understanding of rules, case plays, and how they all work together is laughable...this is not directed at you specifically.

Officiating is about more than the rule, it is about the spirit and intent behind the rule. You have to understand why the rule is there and what it is intended to do to be able to enforce it in a game.

What is the intent behind Item 1?
Is the spirit of it to take away catches?
The NFL just answered that, that is why Mike Pereira has said they took the rule too far and all plays should be officiated the same whether upright or going to the ground. Because they were micro-managing the catch rule and using it as it was never intended to be used.

That is why I believe they made an error in GB. The rules did not support it. The spirit and intent of the rule did not support it. Previous catches and explanations did not support it. The case plays from 2014 and before did not support it. And what we are seeing now with the changes , also says the rules at the time were not applied correctly.

What I believe Item 1 was intended to do is say either a receiver has to be in solid control of his body or if he isn't he has to at least control the football all the way through the play. I believe it was a caveat to the 3 step process to say that a player going to the ground falls into a different category than one who is upright and in control. A video Blandino discussed the rule in somewhat altered my thoughts, but as we are now throwing out everything Blandino has said, then I'm back to where I began.

The NFL didn't "answer" anything about Item 1 as it existed in 2014, it is merely changing the rule to what they want going forward. Rules change all the time, and every time there is a rule change it doesn't mean the NFL is condemning the way the rule was officiated in it's previous form