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

[KJJ]

Just don't reach. Simple answer. Secure the ball first.

Dez attempted to bite off more than he could chew. He had the ball secured but reaching and pounding the ball on the turf caused it to come loose. He’s an instinctive player who’s looking to score on every play so it’s hard to be critical of him trying to score on that play. Making spectacular plays is what made him a great player. Unfortunately he couldn’t hang onto the ball at the very end.

 

[BlindFaith]

The “going to the ground” part of the rule is ridiculous. It’s allowing the ground to overturn obvious catches. They’re saying the ground can’t cause a fumble but they’ve allowed the ground to overturn great plays involving obvious catches. That part of the rule has caused most of the controversy and frustration which is why the league is looking into removing it. If it looks like a catch on replay then rule it a catch.

Maintaining possession through contacting the ground has been in the rules for ages.

The first big uproar in modern times was the Emmanuel non catch. There they said he used the ground to secure the ball, but the ball didn't even move. The following year they relaxed that part of it, but you still had to maintain possession.

What everyone thinks as the Calvin Johnson rule was actually rule changes made 3 years before the Johnson play. In 2007 they removed having to make any football move. But in doing so, that left a player going to the ground no wiggle room to become a runner. So every catch had to maintain through contacting the ground.

Then they added in become a runner in 2011. Then that was still a huge issue in 2013, so for 2014 they added some more clarification about the time/regain balance aspect. Then that obviously led to the Dez fiasco. 2015 they clarified it even further to replace time with upright long enough. This is where the conspiracy kicks in.

So they have been going back and forth on what is or isn't a catch for 20 years now.

And honestly, it affects less than 1% of all catches any given year. If even that much.

Whatever they do next, I just hope they are crystal clear on it.

 

[BlindFaith]

Dez attempted to bite off more than he could chew. He had the ball secured but reaching and pounding the ball on the turf caused it to come loose. He’s an instinctive player who’s looking to score on every play so it’s hard to be critical of him trying to score on that play. Making spectacular plays is what made him a great player. Unfortunately he couldn’t hang onto the ball at the very end.

If he didn't know the rule, then that's on Garrett. WRs should be reminded every day to secure the ball first.

I get that they want to score. Especially with the egos they have. But a bird in hand is better than two in the bush.

 

[blueblood70]

Maintaining possession through contacting the ground has been in the rules for ages.

The first big uproar in modern times was the Emmanuel non catch. There they said he used the ground to secure the ball, but the ball didn't even move. The following year they relaxed that part of it, but you still had to maintain possession.

What everyone thinks as the Calvin Johnson rule was actually rule changes made 3 years before the Johnson play. In 2007 they removed having to make any football move. But in doing so, that left a player going to the ground no wiggle room to become a runner. So every catch had to maintain through contacting the ground.

Then they added in become a runner in 2011. Then that was still a huge issue in 2013, so for 2014 they added some more clarification about the time/regain balance aspect. Then that obviously led to the Dez fiasco. 2015 they clarified it even further to replace time with upright long enough. This is where the conspiracy kicks in.

So they have been going back and forth on what is or isn't a catch for 20 years now.

And honestly, it affects less than 1% of all catches any given year. If even that much.

Whatever they do next, I just hope they are crystal clear on it.

not crossing the goal line at worst it should have remained a catch as called but down at the one..

 

[KJJ]

Maintaining possession through contacting the ground has been in the rules for ages.

Hardly anyone was aware of the rule until the Calvin Johnson play in 2010. I can’t recall ever seeing a play ruled like that until that play. According to Mike Pereira maintaining possession through the ground has been called that way since the Johnson play. I have yet to see a play prior to that play where a receiver clearly caught the ball but lost it when the ball contacted the ground and the catch was overturned.

 

[BlindFaith]

not crossing the goal line at worst it should have remained a catch as called but down at the one..

That would have been ideal if he just hung onto the ball. Pesky rules.

 

[BlindFaith]

Hardly anyone was aware of the rule until the Calvin Johnson play in 2010. I can’t recall ever seeing a play ruled like that until that play. According to Mike Pereira maintaining possession through the ground has been called that way since the Johnson play. I have yet to see a play prior to that play where a receiver clearly caught the ball but lost it when the ball contacted the ground and the catch was overturned.

Go read the history of the catch rule article I posted in the other thread. There was a mention of a Raiders receiver that it happened to as well. And various other reports but nothing that got the attention that the CJ play.

 

[KJJ]

If he didn't know the rule, then that's on Garrett. WRs should be reminded every day to secure the ball first.

I get that they want to score. Especially with the egos they have. But a bird in hand is better than two in the bush.

He may have known the rule but the impact of the ground knocked the ball loose. Dez certainly knew about the rule the following year because the same thing happened in the opener against the Giants. He went up and caught the ball in the end zone and when he came down he lost the ball ball and the on the field TD call was overturned on replay.

 

[Kevinicus]

Exactly. It's the remarkably dissimilar examples, the hypotheticals, literally cherry picking out lines from a complete explanation, comparing 1 part of one rule to another part of a different rule. Using still photos?!?!?

I so want to walk away from this but they come back with even something more over the top.

Congratulations on summarizing your arguments (except the still photos). It's mind boggling the thought process you guys are presenting. It is very difficult to believe it's real.

 

[BlindFaith]

Hardly anyone was aware of the rule until the Calvin Johnson play in 2010. I can’t recall ever seeing a play ruled like that until that play. According to Mike Pereira maintaining possession through the ground has been called that way since the Johnson play. I have yet to see a play prior to that play where a receiver clearly caught the ball but lost it when the ball contacted the ground and the catch was overturned.

Another reason you don't see it as much is because it really only happens when a player gets greasy and tries to score.

Most catches in the field are routine and player's secure the ball before contacting the ground. No reaching.

 

[Soth]

This argument has been going on for so long the past three years those who keep whining and agonizing over the ruling in Green Bay are comparing plays with it that weren’t even remotely similar. In the video Percy posted Dez never left the ground to make the catch but they’re trying to draw parallels between that play and the one in Green Bay. If they see similarities between those plays then no wonder they can’t figure anything out.

It was claimed Dez was practically falling down on that play posted due to his body lean but somehow stayed upright when that couldn’t have be further from the truth. It’s gotten to the point where breaking down their arguments have become child’s play. This has become pure comedy. The reason I keep getting pulled back into these arguments is because it’s hard to resist breaking down some of the lunacy that’s being posted.

Let me see if I understand, if I agree that it wasn't a catch, then I am reasonable, with no agenda and no bias. If I really believe it was not a catch, then I am just whining, I am a conspiracy theorist (catch theorist is what you call it?), etc? Is that how you view this argument?

I personally think it has to do with how each poster thinks and processes information. For example, you feel a statement from Blandino is support for your position, but I see it as a comment from someone that is trying to defend his own call and is clearly biased. You see a modification to the wording of a rule, and to you that does not equal change. I personally don't know what else to call an amendment to a rule. Calling it a clarification is just semantics. It is the NFL trying to handle optics.

But to address the issue regarding the "different plays", I think there is a thing that you fail to consider in your argument. Maybe I am wrong, and if you point out the flaw in my argument then great (although I think it is more likely that you will just call me names and ignore my actual question). Here is my argument:

1. Yes, certain plays like the Demaryius Thomas catch are clearly different from the Dez catch.
2. Dez jumped in the air and brought the ball down, then took steps while going to the ground, then reached and the lost control.
3. Demaryius Thomas caught the ball while running, but I believe he lost his balance as he was catching the ball (not sure if due to contact or because we was trying to reach the ball), and then as he was going to the ground he took a couple of steps then reached.
4. There is nothing in the rulebook that says "going to the ground" part only applies to someone that jumped in the air. Players sometimes can be tripped and go to the ground without jumping, right?
5. I agree, it is more obvious in the Dez play that he is going to the ground vs the Thomas play, but Thomas was still falling as he caught the ball. He would not have been able to take more steps because his knees were close to the floor. HE WAS GOING TO THE GROUND as he caught it. Nothing in the rulebook says you can only go the ground while in the air.

This is why the rule is terrible because it requires an incredible degree of judgment. Where does it say you are only going to the ground if you jump in the air? What is upright long enough? how many seconds? What is demonstrative enough? How much do you need to travel while reaching for the end zone? How many steps do you need to take to be considered a runner? What if you take those steps but you are out of balance and falling? When does a person that jumps in the air and lands become a runner? how long do they need to be upright or how many steps need to be taken?

The degree of judgment required to make these calls is unbelievable, and I know the NFL tries to put out examples, train referees, etc to make it easier, but with such vague rules it is impossible to apply the rule consistently. Sure some plays will be clear catches and others clear non-catches, but for the catches that are in the gray area, referees just need to make a judgment call and move on.

 

[KJJ]

Go read the history of the catch rule article I posted in the other thread. There was a mention of a Raiders receiver that it happened to as well. And various other reports but nothing that got the attention that the CJ play.

I’m just going by what I’ve seen and by what Mike Pereira said. If anyone has a video of a Raiders receiver having the same thing happen I would love to see it and see what year it was. The Johnson play made big news because everyone was shocked that the catch was overturned. First time I had ever seen anything like that and couldn’t believe a rule like that existed.

 

[BlindFaith]

Congratulations on summarizing your arguments (except the still photos). It's mind boggling the thought process you guys are presenting. It is very difficult to believe it's real.

Give one example of any hypothetical situation we posed. Or one example where we didn't post a fully quoted explanation or a direct link. Or any example of us posting the rules out of context.

Another example of "I know you are, but what am I?"

 

[MarcusRock]

The “going to the ground” part of the rule is ridiculous. It’s allowing the ground to overturn obvious catches. They’re saying the ground can’t cause a fumble but they’ve allowed the ground to overturn great plays involving obvious catches. That part of the rule has caused most of the controversy and frustration which is why the league is looking into removing it. If it looks like a catch on replay then rule it a catch.

Then it'll be interesting where they draw the "time enough" line because you have to account for when players make all out dives where only control can be said to have been established. Can't wait. Then we can all gather back here to debate the Dez no-catch again. Keep the light on, will ya?

 

[BlindFaith]

Let me see if I understand, if I agree that it wasn't a catch, then I am reasonable, with no agenda and no bias. If I really believe it was not a catch, then I am just whining, I am a conspiracy theorist (catch theorist is what you call it?), etc? Is that how you view this argument?

I personally think it has to do with how each poster thinks and processes information. For example, you feel a statement from Blandino is support for your position, but I see it as a comment from someone that is trying to defend his own call and is clearly biased. You see a modification to the wording of a rule, and to you that does not equal change. I personally don't know what else to call an amendment to a rule. Calling it a clarification is just semantics. It is the NFL trying to handle optics.

But to address the issue regarding the "different plays", I think there is a thing that you fail to consider in your argument. Maybe I am wrong, and if you point out the flaw in my argument then great (although I think it is more likely that you will just call me names and ignore my actual question). Here is my argument:

1. Yes, certain plays like the Demaryius Thomas catch are clearly different from the Dez catch.
2. Dez jumped in the air and brought the ball down, then took steps while going to the ground, then reached and the lost control.
3. Demaryius Thomas caught the ball while running, but I believe he lost his balance as he was catching the ball (not sure if due to contact or because we was trying to reach the ball), and then as he was going to the ground he took a couple of steps then reached.
4. There is nothing in the rulebook that says "going to the ground" part only applies to someone that jumped in the air. Players sometimes can be tripped and go to the ground without jumping, right?
5. I agree, it is more obvious in the Dez play that he is going to the ground vs the Thomas play, but Thomas was still falling as he caught the ball. He would not have been able to take more steps because his knees were close to the floor. HE WAS GOING TO THE GROUND as he caught it. Nothing in the rulebook says you can only go the ground while in the air.

This is why the rule is terrible because it requires an incredible degree of judgment. Where does it say you are only going to the ground if you jump in the air? What is upright long enough? how many seconds? What is demonstrative enough? How much do you need to travel while reaching for the end zone? How many steps do you need to take to be considered a runner? What if you take those steps but you are out of balance and falling? When does a person that jumps in the air and lands become a runner? how long do they need to be upright or how many steps need to be taken?

The degree of judgment required to make these calls is unbelievable, and I know the NFL tries to put out examples, train referees, etc to make it easier, but with such vague rules it is impossible to apply the rule consistently. Sure some plays will be clear catches and others clear non-catches, but for the catches that are in the gray area, referees just need to make a judgment call and move on.

I have no issue with everything you said

We've said many times that there are judgements to be made. I think Blandino even said that the Thomas play was borderline. I would have probably ruled the Fitz call as incomplete, but I do see why they ruled it as complete.

But these borderline type plays are very few. But when they do come up, yes, there is judgement that comes into play.

The Dez play, Ertz, James. To me those weren't boarderline.

 

[MarcusRock]

Just received alerts from Bleedblue and blublood. Thought that was interesting.

I think it's a sign. We are discussing receivers catching balls.

 

[KJJ]

Let me see if I understand, if I agree that it wasn't a catch, then I am reasonable, with no agenda and no bias. If I really believe it was not a catch, then I am just whining, I am a conspiracy theorist (catch theorist is what you call it?), etc? Is that how you view this argument?

You don’t understand. Those who’ve been going on for three years constantly complaining about the call are whining. There’s many who disagreed with the call but they’ve moved on. You have at least 2 posters who’ve been whining over the call for the past three years and keep going like energizer bunny’s in everyone of these threads. You can disagree with the call and be reasonable but when some are arguing that the ball never touched the ground dispite blown up pictures of the ball clearly touching the ground or that it didn’t come loose that’s not being reasonable. What’s been going on this board the past three years has been nothing but a whine fest.

 

[MarcusRock]

Dez attempted to bite off more than he could chew. He had the ball secured but reaching and pounding the ball on the turf caused it to come loose. He’s an instinctive player who’s looking to score on every play so it’s hard to be critical of him trying to score on that play. Making spectacular plays is what made him a great player. Unfortunately he couldn’t hang onto the ball at the very end.

I agree. Throughout all this I can never blame Dez for doing what comes naturally. Just unlucky with this and the pinkie finger against the Giants. Amazing how 2 close plays might have made him a bit of a legend if he makes them both.

 

[blindzebra]

Maintaining possession through contacting the ground has been in the rules for ages.

The first big uproar in modern times was the Emmanuel non catch. There they said he used the ground to secure the ball, but the ball didn't even move. The following year they relaxed that part of it, but you still had to maintain possession.

What everyone thinks as the Calvin Johnson rule was actually rule changes made 3 years before the Johnson play. In 2007 they removed having to make any football move. But in doing so, that left a player going to the ground no wiggle room to become a runner. So every catch had to maintain through contacting the ground.

Then they added in become a runner in 2011. Then that was still a huge issue in 2013, so for 2014 they added some more clarification about the time/regain balance aspect. Then that obviously led to the Dez fiasco. 2015 they clarified it even further to replace time with upright long enough. This is where the conspiracy kicks in.

So they have been going back and forth on what is or isn't a catch for 20 years now.

And honestly, it affects less than 1% of all catches any given year. If even that much.

Whatever they do next, I just hope they are crystal clear on it.

Again misrepresenting the facts:

Here are the 2013 and 2014 rules for a catch:
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

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.

There was no clarification, that case play was in the 2012 case book too, so from 2012 to 2015 the catch rules were the same.

 

[MarcusRock]

2015 they clarified it even further to replace time with upright long enough. This is where the conspiracy kicks in.

No. That's what the conspiracy theorists say happened. But maybe you meant that.

"Time enough" to commit an act was replaced with "clearly become a runner" which likewise can be demonstrated with an act or time so nothing changed there. "Upright long enough" is just a descriptor for when someone is considered to be going to the ground. That descriptor didn't exist before so they attempted to clarify what refs were using to judge slapping the going to the ground tag on someone.