Changes to catch rule make harder to overturn on field of rulings

[DogFace]

If he was capable ,he would have, he took steps as he fell, so he was falling not running.
The ball moved when he hit the ground, and then came loose and in the air as he rolled over, which showed he didnt have control or
possesion all the way thru, that is why they overturned it.

It was 4th down play, he had the first down , there was no good reason for him to extend the ball.
you just catch it clean and make sure it is a catch in that situation.

If you reverse the situation, and GB is 4th and 2 and dallas is leading, and cobb does the same thing dez did, and they dont
overturn it , cowboy fans would still be saying it wasnt a catch.

To me that play was more dez's fault than the refs.

The call on the field was a catch, and I dont think there was indisputable evidence to overturn it, except that the ball did come loose
and was in the air, but he recaught it, so that made it possible to overturn it.

Bottom line is on a 4th down play and your over the yard to gain for first down you just catch the ball, no extending for goal line, that is just too
risky, and kinda dumb.
unless it is 4th and goal, and then you extend if you have to.

I think they should have ran the ball , from a 2 or 3 wr set, and more than likely murray gets the 1st down.

And Romo said he thought he would get another shot with a minute or so left and had some plays that he knew could get 25 yards or so,
that they hadnt used. (my thought was gee why hadnt they used these plays lol !) and then he said the packers just kept getting
1st downs.

So Dallas did not play good enough or like a championship team needs to play in that game,to win.
They made too many mistakes thru out the game.
You can blame the refs , blandino, murray, dez, garrett, etc, but it was a team loss, they all made critical mistakes, and just too many
mistakes to win against a good team.

And as many have said, if it was ruled a catch, and cowboys score a td ( they might not have, int, fumble) then GB had plenty of time to
drive for a go ahead score, and dallas had not been able to stop them, and couldnt at end, to help give our offense one more shot.

GB was the better team, and they were also better than seattle, but screwed up in that game, thinking they had it won.

Runners stretch for the goal line routinely. He was a runner according to the rules of he had "enough time" to make a move and he actually made two moves--switching the ball from his shoulder and two hands to his left hand and reaching are both moves. It's a smart play.

How many steps would he need to take before you would consider him going to the ground as a receiver?

 

[LandryFan]

Excellent summary.

I wonder how long the owners are going to tolerate having morons run things in the league offices.

The owners are the morons hiring the morons...

 

[LandryFan]

Blandino was wrong and he knows it now and he knew it then. He was trying to show the world how "impartial" he was after the party bus/Detroit game fiasco. Why JJ ever invited him onto the bus (and the idiot, in response, accepts!) in the first place is beyond me. It's like none of them had any clue as to the power of perception. Those in positions of power/authority should be keenly aware of the damage that can be caused simply by giving the perception of favoritism, partiality, etc. Idiotic owners, idiotic commissioner, idiotic head of officials...why am I surprised at the incompetence?

 

[LandryFan]

There's nothing I love more than when people just make stuff up, figuring nobody will actually bother pointing out the truth.

Dallas took a 14-7 lead in the 2nd quarter. The next time they got the ball, they ran 11 plays and missed a FG (it was a 50-yarder after a false start). On the last play of that drive before the FS, they had a 3rd-and-1 and threw deep ("scared play calling", indeed).
The next time they got the ball, they were ahead 14-10. That was the drive where Murray fumbled with an open lane to the end zone.
The next time they got the ball, they were ahead 14-13. They drove 80 yards for a TD.
The next time they got the ball, they were ahead 21-20. Tony took back-to-back sacks, killing the drive after they got a first down. Not a 3-and-out, and not playing "scared."
The next time they got the ball, they were behind. That was the Dez catch.

Zero 3-and-outs. One punt (after a 3rd-and-23). Not even a hint of "scared play calling."

 

[percyhoward]

Blandino still would say Dez was going to the ground and did not accomplish the following: avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.

The above statement makes sense if you replace "and" with "because." The fact that he went to the ground only mattered because they said he didn't make a football move.

His contention was that no football move was made on the play, so I don't see why this would be any type of concession that Dez made one.

Putting the football move back into the rule after one year is a concession that it was a mistake to remove it in the first place. It would be naive to think the controversy over the football move in January 2014 had nothing to do with its removal from the rulebook in July 2014.

 

[percyhoward]

If he was capable, he would have, he took steps as he fell, so he was falling not running.

It's important to understand that the rule makes no distinction between "running" and "falling." If you think about it, it would be impossible to determine the exact point a player started to fall. So it makes sense that it isn't part of the rule. All they're supposed to be looking for in part c is a football move. And more to the point, if the ruling on the field was that a football move was made, they're supposed to look for indisputable evidence that it was not made.

Remember, the rule as written (and as previously interpreted by Blandino) is all that matters here. In none of Blandino's previous explanations of similar plays does he distinguish "running" from "falling." It's always about the 3-part catch process. (See the Julius Thomas play at the Giants, and Calvin Johnson at home vs. the Bears, both from 2013). The distinction between running and falling is one that you're making.

The ball moved when he hit the ground, and then came loose and in the air as he rolled over, which showed he didn't have control or possession all the way thru, that is why they overturned it.

The reason it was ruled a catch on the field is that it was perfectly okay for the ball to come loose when Dez went to the ground, as Dez had already completed part c, establishing him as a runner. He'd only have had to maintain control throughout the process if he'd gone to the ground as a receiver -- if he hadn't already completed part c.

 

[percyhoward]

Thanks.

But to be clear, were they saying/claiming the ball touched the ground and caused him to lose control?

What Blandino was claiming was that Dez didn't complete part c of the catch process -- that he didn't make enough of a football move. And because he didn't complete the process, he then had to maintain control when he went to the ground. "Going to the ground" completely depends on "no football move."

I think field judge Terry Brown had to see the ball hit the ground and pop up, since it happened right in front of him. But it's important to remember that an incomplete pass doesn't automatically result whenever a player goes to the ground and loses the ball. The key is what happened before Dez went to the ground. I think you have to assume Brown saw Dez complete the catch process, watched him go down by contact, and saw the ball come out, so he marked him down at the 1-yard line.

It's then up to replay to show indisputable evidence that Dez did not complete the catch process before he went to the ground. If they can't, then it's a catch, and Dez is now no longer a receiver -- he's a runner. If he goes down on his own and the ball comes loose, it's a live ball (which he recovered anyway). But Dez was contacted, so he was marked down where the ball came out -- the ground couldn't cause a fumble. We know Brown saw the contact, otherwise he would have signaled touchdown instead of ruling his forward progress stopped.

The problem started when the play was reviewed and the replay officials didn't even look for a football move. Of course, after the rule was changed in 2015, they didn't have to look for a football move. But in 2014, they were supposed to.

 

[PhillyCowboysFan]

Yes, I don't believe the author of this article's conclusion would be correct.

Blandino still would say Dez was going to the ground and did not accomplish the following: avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.

His contention was that no football move was made on the play, so I don't see why this would be any type of concession that Dez made one.

Ed Werder twitted the other day exactly that. He stated that Blanino said it still would not have been a catch.

 

[percyhoward]

Ed Werder twitted the other day exactly that. He stated that Blandino said it still would not have been a catch.

That's consistent for him, because the "new" rule is basically the same as the old rule at the time of the Dez play in 2014: A football move completes the process. Blandino said Dez didn't make enough of a football move because he didn't either extend his arm or reach with two hands.

There is obviously a powerful faction that opposed the football move being removed in 2015, that was successful not only in getting the football move reinstated, but in adding specific language like "additional steps" to replace pre-2015's "advancing with the ball." Since Blandino re-tweeted last year's rule without that new language, it's safe to say he isn't a part of this faction.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

What Blandino was claiming was that Dez didn't complete part c of the catch process -- that he didn't make enough of a football move. And because he didn't complete the process, he then had to maintain control when he went to the ground. "Going to the ground" completely depends on "no football move."

I think field judge Terry Brown had to see the ball hit the ground and pop up, since it happened right in front of him. But it's important to remember that an incomplete pass doesn't automatically result whenever a player goes to the ground and loses the ball. The key is what happened before Dez went to the ground. I think you have to assume Brown saw Dez complete the catch process, watched him go down by contact, and saw the ball come out, so he marked him down at the 1-yard line.

It's then up to replay to show indisputable evidence that Dez did not complete the catch process before he went to the ground. If they can't, then it's a catch, and Dez is now no longer a receiver -- he's a runner. If he goes down on his own and the ball comes loose, it's a live ball (which he recovered anyway). But Dez was contacted, so he was marked down where the ball came out -- the ground couldn't cause a fumble. We know Brown saw the contact, otherwise he would have signaled touchdown instead of ruling his forward progress stopped.

The problem started when the play was reviewed and the replay officials didn't even look for a football move. Of course, after the rule was changed in 2015, they didn't have to look for a football move. But in 2014, they were supposed to.

If they are claiming the ball touched the ground and caused him to lose control (before regaining possession) then it's a judgement call and I can live with that interpretation of the ruling.

However, if the issue is just him going to the ground (regardless of him making a "football move" or not) possessing the ball, losing control as he rolls over and regaining control as he rolls onto his back, then it's a horrible rule that needs to be amended. IMO, as long as a player regains control at any point on the field of play without the ball touching the ground, it should be a catch. There's simply no reason for it not to be.

 

[percyhoward]

If they are claiming the ball touched the ground and caused him to lose control (before regaining possession) then it's a judgement call and I can live with that interpretation of the ruling.

So could I, if the official on the field hadn't ruled that Dez had already completed the catch process. The replay officials had to go backward, to the point right after the 2nd foot hit, but before the ball came out. In that time frame, they had to show that Dez didn't perform part c.

However, if the issue is just him going to the ground (regardless of him making a "football move" or not) possessing the ball, losing control as he rolls over and regaining control as he rolls onto his back, then it's a horrible rule that needs to be amended.

That's not the issue. Control + 2 feet + football move = catch. Any one of those 3 parts missing = no catch.

 

[cowboyblue22]

that is a vague rule that can be looked at differently by every official they can pretty much change the results of a game and get by with it.

 

[percyhoward]

I can't believe, yet I do, that it really is that simple. They did change the rule to suit the Dez catch. Then changed it back.

It's...

It's PR. News cycles, short memories, and damage control.

The league's head of officials is a guy with a degree in public relations who has never officiated a game on the field.

 

[DandyDon52]

It's important to understand that the rule makes no distinction between "running" and "falling." If you think about it, it would be impossible to determine the exact point a player started to fall. So it makes sense that it isn't part of the rule. All they're supposed to be looking for in part c is a football move. And more to the point, if the ruling on the field was that a football move was made, they're supposed to look for indisputable evidence that it was not made.

Remember, the rule as written (and as previously interpreted by Blandino) is all that matters here. In none of Blandino's previous explanations of similar plays does he distinguish "running" from "falling." It's always about the 3-part catch process. (See the Julius Thomas play at the Giants, and Calvin Johnson at home vs. the Bears, both from 2013). The distinction between running and falling is one that you're making.


The reason it was ruled a catch on the field is that it was perfectly okay for the ball to come loose when Dez went to the ground, as Dez had already completed part c, establishing him as a runner. He'd only have had to maintain control throughout the process if he'd gone to the ground as a receiver -- if he hadn't already completed part c.

Ok Percy, you make some good points, the main thing I had not thought of is the Ref who ruled a td had to see the ball come loose
and be re-caught.
That being the case, there wasnt enough indisputable evidence to overturn it.
The refs at the game should be the ones to decide, not someone in a office somewhere.

 

[DandyDon52]

Runners stretch for the goal line routinely. He was a runner according to the rules of he had "enough time" to make a move and he actually made two moves--switching the ball from his shoulder and two hands to his left hand and reaching are both moves. It's a smart play.

How many steps would he need to take before you would consider him going to the ground as a receiver?

going to the ground as a receiver?...... you mean as a runner?

Well I know guys reach for the goal, but on a 4th down play like that, it was not smart thing for him to do.
With the rules as they are, you want to make a clear catch, give them no reason to rule a non catch.
Dez did give them reasons or excuses, by extending and letting it hit ground, and come loose,
He could have just caught it and went down, with ball never touching ground, and they could not overrule it being
a catch, in fact I doubt they even review it.

When 1 play is that important, you better be smart about it, otherwise something like this can happen.

And I still think if it was other way around with it happening to GB, we would not be saying it was a catch.
But maybe someone wanted dallas to lose this game, as the cobb catch, clearly hit the ground, and it was ruled a catch in the review.??
I was really surprised that was not overturned.
Maybe blandino had a bundle bet on GB >??

 

[DogFace]

going to the ground as a receiver?...... you mean as a runner?

Well I know guys reach for the goal, but on a 4th down play like that, it was not smart thing for him to do.
With the rules as they are, you want to make a clear catch, give them no reason to rule a non catch.
Dez did give them reasons or excuses, by extending and letting it hit ground, and come loose,
He could have just caught it and went down, with ball never touching ground, and they could not overrule it being
a catch, in fact I doubt they even review it.

When 1 play is that important, you better be smart about it, otherwise something like this can happen.

And I still think if it was other way around with it happening to GB, we would not be saying it was a catch.
But maybe someone wanted dallas to lose this game, as the cobb catch, clearly hit the ground, and it was ruled a catch in the review.??
I was really surprised that was not overturned.
Maybe blandino had a bundle bet on GB >??

Yes. I did mean as a runner. My question, since they ruled him "going to the ground", was how many steps would a player have to take before he was no longer said to be falling?

The football moves I believe he made make this irrelevant but, I'd still like an answer from Blandino. My guess is it's his judgement.

I can't really fault Dez for trying to score but, yeah if he did cradle it we might've won. That fast instinctual thinking is part of why he's so good though. Everything slows down when you're at the top of your game like he is.

 

[percyhoward]

Since they ruled him "going to the ground", was how many steps would a player have to take before he was no longer said to be falling?

The football moves I believe he made make this irrelevant but, I'd still like an answer from Blandino. My guess is it's his judgement.

The football moves do make it irrelevant, but I think most people (Blandino included) have misinterpreted the rule. They read it as referring to a receiver who "is going" to the ground. The original rule from 2014 doesn't contain those words. It simply reads "goes" to the ground. That's a huge difference, because the former could mean "is falling" while the latter could simply mean "lands" (and almost certainly does mean just that). It's impossible to determine when somebody stops running and starts falling, because running off-balance could be interpreted as starting to fall. The distinction has to be when the player lands, or "goes to the ground." That's the only way to remove judgment and make it objective.

Compare Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 "Going to the Ground" then vs. now. But read the item's title "Going to the Ground" as "Landing" or "Contacting the Ground." I think that's how it was meant to be understood up through 2014. My words are in bold.

2014
If a player goes to (contacts) 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.

2015 and 2016
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 (contacts) 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.

The only difference is they added that first sentence, which meant the official could no longer look for the observable requirement of a player contacting the ground, but now had to determine how upright was upright, and how long was long enough. That added sentence reflects a misunderstanding of the entire paragraph, and makes a mockery of it.

And there are people behind the scenes (read "not Blandino") who understand this, who wanted to make it clear that the type of play Dez made is a legal catch. That's why the football move was put back in, and why the current rulebook appears to argue with itself. There are warring factions among the rule makers, and both sides are getting their way.

 

[DogFace]

The football moves do make it irrelevant, but I think most people (Blandino included) have misinterpreted the rule. They read it as referring to a receiver who "is going" to the ground. The original rule from 2014 doesn't contain those words. It simply reads "goes" to the ground. That's a huge difference, because the former could mean "is falling" while the latter could simply mean "lands" (and almost certainly does mean just that). It's impossible to determine when somebody stops running and starts falling, because running off-balance could be interpreted as starting to fall. The distinction has to be when the player lands, or "goes to the ground." That's the only way to remove judgment and make it objective.

Compare Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 "Going to the Ground" then vs. now. But read the item's title "Going to the Ground" as "Landing" or "Contacting the Ground." I think that's how it was meant to be understood up through 2014. My words are in bold.

2014
If a player goes to (contacts) 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.

2015 and 2016
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 (contacts) 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.

The only difference is they added that first sentence, which meant the official could no longer look for the observable requirement of a player contacting the ground, but now had to determine how upright was upright, and how long was long enough. That added sentence reflects a misunderstanding of the entire paragraph, and makes a mockery of it.

And there are people behind the scenes (read "not Blandino") who understand this, who wanted to make it clear that the type of play Dez made is a legal catch. That's why the football move was put back in, and why the current rulebook appears to argue with itself. There are warring factions among the rule makers, and both sides are getting their way.

Exactly. I agree that the phrase going to the ground was totally misused and I doubt they meant it that way or meant it to be interpreted as literally going to the ground. Because as you said how is it determined when one starts to fall.

I also didn't like in the 2015-16 wording of "after his initial contact" with the ground. When exactly do they mean? Right after would seem to mean initial. It's confusing to me.

 

[percyhoward]

Exactly. I agree that the phrase going to the ground was totally misused and I doubt they meant it that way or meant it to be interpreted as literally going to the ground. Because as you said how is it determined when one starts to fall.

I also didn't like in the 2015-16 wording of "after his initial contact" with the ground. When exactly do they mean? Right after would seem to mean initial. It's confusing to me.

They need to settle on one arbitrating body, let them straighten out the rulebook, and get the PR guys out of the officiating business.

 

[Sage3030]

The fact we can sit here and debate this today just goes to show that the evidence was not indisputable, so the ruling on the field should have stood.