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

[nathanlt]

I’ve been saying repeatedly for three years that eventually the NFL will get rid of the “going to the ground” part of the rule (check my archives) and it was reported yesterday the league is looking into doing just that. That’s the part of the rule that overturned the Calvin Johnson catch and the Dez catch. Forcing a receiver who clearly catches the ball and is falling to the ground to have to survive the ground with the ball secured is ridiculous.

The rule makes it increasingly difficult for a receiver who is reaching for the end zone or a first down marker with the ball in one hand to survive the impact of the ground without having the ball come loose. There’s no part of the rule that’s frustrated, angered and confused fans/media more than the “going to the ground” part of the rule. Eliminating it will dramatically improve the catch rule. Naturally you’ll still have to determine when the receiver has full control of the ball but if it looks like a catch, rule it a catch.

It took determination to hit the "like" button, but hey, I made it happen! I wish the vague "going to the ground" were replaced for the next season, the last 4 years have been a nightmare in terms of having a predictable idea of what a catch is.

I'll be glad to see the rule changed back.

Clarity in the rule book improves the NFL....

 

[Master22]

Pettigrew had Hichins face mask

Bingo, but don't mention that interesting little fact because that would just be wrong.

 

[blindzebra]

So we know that a lunge ends going to the ground. Do you have any examples of another act common to the game ending going to the ground? Because I have a case play (A.R. 8.12) from 2014 and 2015 that shows "switching hands" does not end going to the ground. We already know that steps are irrelevant in going to the ground. Gee, why is that? Don't people also try to claim that Dez took an "extra step" to make it 3? What's different about a lunge that ends going to the ground that other "acts common to the game" do not?

A.R. 8.12 for reference:

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.​

Just for the sake of anyone out there who might be swayed by this ignorance of how case plays work.

Officials utilize three different books: 1) Rule Book 2) Official's Manual 3) Case Book

The rule book is obviously the rules of the game. The official's manual deals with mechanics, where to stand, where to look, etc. The case book is a supplement to the rule book. It presents rules in play form, with the proper interpretations. But these plays are examples of what can be many more plays. How many possible catch scenarios might there be? 100's, 1000's, tens of 1000's? Common sense would tell you that not every possible scenario is in there. And when something is an either or type of thing, the case play will have an a) and b) ruling. Officials must know how to combine rules to be able to understand the case plays, as well.

So when you get presented with something like the above, it is easy to understand.

In these many threads we have seen the above case play, that the Blandino Boys did not even know existed until I showed them, as well as one covering acts common to the game. While both use a lunge as an example, when you go to the rule book you see a long list of acts followed by an etc. What you don't see is the word lunge. So are we really going to believe that a lunge is the only way going to the ground can end? I mean if it is, don't you think it would at least be included in the list? For that matter, if it is the only way, why have a list and etc. at all?

Here is a little hypothetical:
The play getting overturned causes an uproar. Post game Blandino talks about a reach and it not being enough of a football move. People are not buying what he is selling because they see Dez do much more than just reach after control and two feet. So just maybe someone points out to Deano the case play. Now the stuffs hit the fan, but wait, it says lunge, so let's hang our hat on that. So Blandino puts together two plays with Dez nearly identical. Control, two feet, contact by a defender, going to the ground, with a reach. One in NY was ruled a catch, the one in GB wasn't. Blandino again says Dez' act was not enough of an act. His lunge in NY was more lungie than his lunge in GB.

This is what they are using to misinterpret that case play. They are using the words of a stand up comic, with no on field officiating experience, who was so bad at his job, officiating has become a huge black eye for the league, as gospel. The guy responsible for overturning the call is telling you he is right. That is it, that is their entire argument. A guy so bad at his job he doesn't have it anymore. So bad that every offseason officiating was the major hot topic the league faced. A guy who was caught by TMZ partying with Stephen on the Cowboys bus. Who had that thrown in his face all week after the uproar over the calls in the Detroit game. That is who you rest your entire argument on? No they will say Mike Pereira agreed. The guy who trained Blandino, groomed him to take his place, Deano's mentor agreed. Yep he did, until Blandino no longer had the job and then Pereira immediately did a 180 and said the league got it wrong.

 

[Master22]

Double Post

 

[Idgit]

The DC boards no longer exist because he debunked them. Oh, and stop being such a bully.

They were completely bunked, and then he dubunked them, and then there was no more need for debate so they shut them down and moved everything to twitter where everybody agrees. I think that I have that right.

 

[DallasEast]

Bingo, but don't mention that interesting little fact because that would just be wrong.

The entire non-call hinged completely upon the possibly of faceguarding, which is not illegal in the NFL. Here is an excellent article on it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...uarding-is-not-a-foul/?utm_term=.0a68cf64e9a7

 

[KJJ]

It took determination to hit the "like" button, but hey, I made it happen! I wish the vague "going to the ground" were replaced for the next season, the last 4 years have been a nightmare in terms of having a predictable idea of what a catch is.

I'll be glad to see the rule changed back.

Clarity in the rule book improves the NFL....

It’s looking like there’s a real good chance the “going to the ground” part of the rule will be removed for this upcoming season. It’s the part of the rule that’s caused everything to be trumped from steps, lunges and football moves. If a receiver is ruled “going to the ground” nothing they do athletically matters, they must survive the ground with possession of the ball. The NFL has allowed the ground to eliminate great plays. For years the ground can’t cause a fumble but the ground has been allowed to overturn great catches.

It’s time for the league to put an end to this nonsense and it appears they’re going to. The fans have not only been frustrated with the rule but so has the owners, players and commissioner. The rule has caused more controversy, confusion, anger and frustration than any rule the league has adopted. They’ve finally have had enough of it and they’re going to do something about it.

 

[nathanlt]

It’s looking like there’s a real good chance the “going to the ground” part of the rule will be removed for this upcoming season. It’s the part of the rule that’s caused everything to be trumped from steps, lunges and football moves. If a receiver is ruled “going to the ground” nothing they do athletically matters, they must survive the ground with possession of the ball. The NFL has allowed the ground to eliminate great plays. For years the ground can’t cause a fumble but the ground has been allowed to overturn great catches.

It’s time for the league to put an end to this nonsense and it appears they’re going to. The fans have not only been frustrated with the rule but so has the owners, players and commissioner. The rule has caused more controversy, confusion, anger and frustration than any rule the league has adopted. They’ve finally have had enough of it and they’re going to do something about it.

Well, we don't agree on everything there, but you have a great day, KJJ!

 

[aria]

So was it a catch or not?

 

[Aviano90]

So was it a catch or not?

Just watched the replay. Unfortunately, Rodgers still took the next snap.

 

[MarcusRock]

Right, and that was Blandino's perfect opportunity to say the reach didn't matter, if that had been true.

So why didn't he?

In the tutorial video "Explaining the Calvin Johnson Rule," the whole purpose of that presentation was to educate people on how "going to the ground" works. And in that video, he says a reach is an act common to the game that shows the catch process is completed and makes the player a runner.

False. He says that Julius Thomas reaching for the goal line was an act that established him as a runner in the example. Remember, Thomas in the example is upright (just like Ertz was in the SB). He started the entire sequence with Johnson by saying that Johnson was "going to the ground in the process of making the catch" and that in describing what Johnson did (including his reach) was "all one process." This is similar to what he said about Dez' case being "all part of his momentum" in going to the ground. Jesse James' no-catch was better than Johnson's in this case because he got his knee down before he reached. Why was his catch not allowed? Because going to the ground rule requirements take precedence over the 3-part process when you haven't performed those requirements. I've said this from the very beginning. It's a yes or no determination. If yes, you have to survive the ground.

If you want to know how such plays were ruled at the time, then refer to Blandino's tutorial. Case book plays aren't a comprehensive list of all possible scenarios, as you already know, so they don't prove a negative.

If the case book plays are not all scenarios, then neither is Blandino's video because he's only highlighting 2 plays that happened that week.

I already showed you where in A.R. 8.12 how "switching hands" as you said Dez did, does not save a player from going to the ground. Again, only a lunge is shown as such in both case plays. If steps do not matter in GTTG, and neither does "switching hands" then neither can waving to your mom or doing a 360 turn because you're on your way to the ground unless you can show you're not. This includes reaching out.

That means you either have to find a case play that says a reach was not an act common to the game that could be performed while the player was falling, or some proof that the NFL said that.

No. See above. You have to prove that something other than a lunge gets someone out of going to the ground. I proved your "switching hands" move does not and we know that steps do not.

The case book play being changed from a lunge to a reach is interesting, given the timing, don't you think? If the newer version of that case play had been in the book in 2014, that would have justified the overturn, but it would also have contradicted everything Blandino was saying at the time about a reach being an act common to the game that completed the catch process, even when a player was falling.

As for the case plays in 2015, remember that the point of the rules re-wording was to make it "easier to understand." So why what would be the need to continue to show 2 case plays that show a lunge getting someone out of going to the ground? A.R. 8.12 did that clearly enough as I keep showing you. It's also why they re-worded the act common to the game to remove "pitch it, pass it," etc. Why have things in there a receiver rarely, if ever, does if you want to make it easier?

As for the reach, he said it was what made Thomas a runner in that one example of him catching a pass while upright. Different story. And this is where it goes back to that question of mine you avoided in the beginning before finally answering where you admit that Dez' reach was in no way as demonstrative as any of the video examples of reaches presented in any of the threads on this recently including this video you speak of. Remember? Well, the officials agreed with you and it's why they said Dez' attempt needed to be more demonstrative. You agreed HERE, right?

 

[KJJ]

False. He says that Julius Thomas reaching for the goal line was an act that established him as a runner in the example. Remember, Thomas in the example is upright (just like Ertz was in the SB).

What established Thomas as a runner was the fact that he caught the ball with his feet on the ground and turned up field immediately after making the catch just prior to going to the ground, which established him as a runner. That play was similar to the Ertz play and the Larry Fitzgerald play from a few years ago. None of those receivers were going to the ground during the process of making the catch.

 

[MarcusRock]

If this were a pickup basketball game, you'd be the dude saying he's getting hacked when he's not, hacking when he shouldn't, jumping up and down declaring victory in the middle of the game, yelling at all the other team's best players, and then going home angry--and this is the best part--blaming your loss on the officials.

There aren't winners or losers in threads. It's just an exchange of opinions. You're fighting a losing battle putting forward an unpopular opinion. I probably know better than most what that's like. But you don't win points by declaring victories that haven't happened. All you can do is put out your argument and try to convince people you've got the better ideas.

I put forth an opinion without regard for how popular it'll be. Subscribing to popular opinion for this thread's title and original and purpose would mean that I'm terrible at reading comprehension. I also don't need to convince "people." It's enough for me that the person I'm debating with knows that I know that they can't hang in the discussion. And when people go avoiding questions or trying to side track with "let's take a vote" diversions knowing my opinion is unpopular, it tells me they know they don't want to have the discussion anymore. For me, that's enough and then I move on to the next person. So for me, it is a victory because even they know it's done but they'd never say so. Can't have it all, lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

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

Got it.

"It" is a camouflaged diversion from wanting to continue the tete-a-tete as I stated above, so onward I go .

 

[blindzebra]

"It" is a camouflaged diversion from wanting to continue the tete-a-tete as I stated above, so onward I go .

LOL, translation, I would lose the poll 99.9% to .01% so I will run away while still flapping my mouth.

 

[MarcusRock]

Just stop. The NFL rules committee is turning back the clock on your argument. Blandino tweets Dezcaughtit all the time, undercutting your argument. Periera now says it should have been a catch, undercutting your argument. The written language in the rulebook undercuts your argument, as has been explained many times to you.

Your only argument going forward is that "during the game in 2014, the unwritten intent applied, per NFL press conferences afterwards discussing damage control"

It's weak.

The NFL can never repay the damage done, no amount of draft picks (unoffered at present) will right the wrong that occurred that day. Referee interference during a playoff game destroyed the integrity of that game and the playoffs themselves.

Did I bring up the argument in this thread? I was here calling out poor reading comprehension skills when people showed up seeing an opportunity to re-debate the rule and play in 2014. We did that in the other thread and we know how that one settled out. Talk to the challengers looking for another title shot.

 

[blindzebra]

I put forth an opinion without regard for how popular it'll be. Subscribing to popular opinion for this thread's title and original and purpose would mean that I'm terrible at reading comprehension. I also don't need to convince "people." It's enough for me that the person I'm debating with knows that I know that they can't hang in the discussion. And when people go avoiding questions or trying to side track with "let's take a vote" diversions knowing my opinion is unpopular, it tells me they know they don't want to have the discussion anymore. For me, that's enough and then I move on to the next person. So for me, it is a victory because even they know it's done but they'd never say so. Can't have it all, lol.

Is it me or was that just an admission of trolling?

 

[blindzebra]

Did I bring up the argument in this thread? I was here debunking poor reading comprehension skills when people showed up seeing an opportunity to re-debate the rule and play in 2014. We did that in the other thread and we know how that one settled out. Talk to the challengers looking for another title shot.

The other thread, where when you were losing and you started reporting posts and complaining to mods and got people locked out of the thread...that thread?

 

[nathanlt]

Did I bring up the argument in this thread? I was here calling out poor reading comprehension skills when people showed up seeing an opportunity to re-debate the rule and play in 2014. We did that in the other thread and we know how that one settled out. Talk to the challengers looking for another title shot.

You're a legend in your own mind.

 

[percyhoward]

False. He says that Julius Thomas reaching for the goal line was an act that established him as a runner in the example. Remember, Thomas in the example is upright (just like Ertz was in the SB). He started the entire sequence with Johnson by saying that Johnson was "going to the ground in the process of making the catch" and that in describing what Johnson did (including his reach) was "all one process." This is similar to what he said about Dez' case being "all part of his momentum" in going to the ground. Jesse James' no-catch was better than Johnson's in this case because he got his knee down before he reached. Why was his catch not allowed? Because going to the ground rule requirements take precedence over the 3-part process when you haven't performed those requirements. I've said this from the very beginning. It's a yes or no determination. If yes, you have to survive the ground.

The James and Ertz plays happened long after the 2015 rule change that required that a player remain "upright long enough" to be a runner. The video we're talking about is from 2013, when players could still complete the catch process by performing an act common to the game, even while falling. In this case, that act is reaching for the goal line.

In the video, Blandino says that in the NFL there's a 3-part catch process, then he describes the process. You say the catch process didn't apply to players who were going to the ground in 2013-14. But if the catch process didn't apply to players who were going to the ground, there would be absolutely no reason to describe the catch process in a video that's intended to educate people on the "going to the ground" rule. It would be completely out of place in such a presentation.

Instead, the presenter would say things like, "It all depends on how upright you are," or "you have to stay upright for a certain amount of time in order to be considered a runner," or even "Your momentum can't be taking you to the ground." Basically, the things you're saying. Blandino doesn't say anything like that in his self-described explanation of the going to the ground rule. Why not?

Because he's trying to explain to fans what a player must do, in 2013, in order to complete the catch process while going to the ground.

And his explanation in the tutorial is consistent with his explanation on the day of the catch that the reach would have completed the catch process if it had been with two hands. Again, why describe the ideal reach that would make it a catch, if the reach wouldn't have made it a catch? There's no logic there.

And again, both in the explanation of the Johnson play and the Dez play, why not just say the reach didn't matter? According to you the main point is that the reach did not matter. The bottom line is that you're saying the reach didn't matter, and Blandino is saying it did matter. (from the season before the overturn up until 24 hours after the overturn, when he stopped talking about the reach altogether).