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

[BlindFaith]

As opposed to drilling them to break up the pass?

They cant hit a defenceless player. So the timing is different. And for a player on their feet they can make a football move. They can lower a shoulder and brace for a hit. And if they havent done so, or had time to do so, its incomplete.

This is exactly why the going to the ground rule is so controversial. The NFL wants to allow a player going to the ground to be able to complete the catch. But they also understand that a player going to the ground is in no position to defend themselves.

So they settled on if a player can manage to at least somewhat do that, regaining their balance, but still go to the ground and lose the ball, that they would still rule it a catch.

If you open that up to basically anything, then it opens it up to big hits on player's who can't protect themselves.

And currently defenders know that at no point while a player is falling can they cause a fumble.

If the rule is changed, defenders will start targeting player's as soon as they get both feet down. Knowing if they time it right, they could cause a fumble.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

Why could we not beat a gimpy, one legged Aaron Rodgers who was limping around playing in one the most basic offenses I’ve ever seen him run due to his immobility? That was the most frustrating part to me, we couldn’t beat a severely hobbled QB...that’s pathetic, even if it AR or Brady.

Give the man some credit. Even on one leg, he was still more mobile than Tom Brady, and had just as good, if not better arm. The Murray fumble and Bailey missed field goal before the half had more impact in losing that game in my opinion. Not to mention, Hannah jumping over a wide open live fumble on a kick off coverage.

 

[blindzebra]

They cant hit a defenceless player. So the timing is different. And for a player on their feet they can make a football move. They can lower a shoulder and brace for a hit. And if they havent done so, or had time to do so, its incomplete.

This is exactly why the going to the ground rule is so controversial. The NFL wants to allow a player going to the ground to be able to complete the catch. But they also understand that a player going to the ground is in no position to defend themselves.

So they settled on if a player can manage to at least somewhat do that, regaining their balance, but still go to the ground and lose the ball, that they would still rule it a catch.

If you open that up to basically anything, then it opens it up to big hits on player's who can't protect themselves.

And currently defenders know that at no point while a player is falling can they cause a fumble.

If the rule is changed, defenders will start targeting player's as soon as they get both feet down. Knowing if they time it right, they could cause a fumble.

They are defenseless regardless or are you claiming defenders don't hit receivers in the act of catching the ball.

 

[big dog cowboy]

So Dez caught it?

 

[BlindFaith]

They are defenseless regardless or are you claiming defenders don't hit receivers in the act of catching the ball.

They have changed their approach somewhat due to the penalty for hitting defenceless players.

 

[BlindFaith]

They are defenseless regardless or are you claiming defenders don't hit receivers in the act of catching the ball.

And it's actually a penalty to hit a player in the process of catching a ball.

 

[Kevinicus]

And it's actually a penalty to hit a player in the process of catching a ball.

Hit them at all?

 

[BlindFaith]

Hit them at all?

Yes. They can't be hit until they have completed the catch process. Do you trust me or do you need a link to the rules?

 

[blindzebra]

Hit them at all?

I looked it up it says that, but they sure as hell don't officiate it that way. The NFL has the worse written rules I have ever seen.

 

[BlindFaith]

Hit them at all?

Just in case.
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/defenseless-player/

 

[BlindFaith]

I looked it up it says that, but they sure as hell don't officiate it that way. The NFL has the worse written rules I have ever seen.

They do, for the most part. I've seen it called a few times. But the defensive players know not to do it now, so it doesn't come up very often. And why you see more plays on the ball instead of huge hits on guys.

 

[Cowpolk]

Just in case.
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-video-rulebook/defenseless-player/

 

[BlindFaith]

Nice! Not very many know about these guys.

I should put that in my sig. Thanks for that!

 

[KJJ]

The Tate play happened in the endzone and was pretty boarderline as well. If that had been the field of play it would have been a fumble. Your proposal would give them far less time. There will be fumbles everywhere.

The Tate play wouldn’t fly with my proposal. With my proposal it has to be conclusive that the receiver has clear control of the ball. A bang-bang play like Tate’s isn’t going to be ruled a catch. That happened much too quick. With my proposal there will be more fumbles because more catches will be confirmed. We’ve all seen on replay where it looks like a receiver has control of the ball but gets hit and loses it and it goes as a no catch. On replay they felt the receiver didn’t have it long enough to show clear possession and a lot of times they’re ruled going to the ground. Today everyone is asking what is a catch? During the 70s, 80s, and 90s no one ever asked what a catch was.

The reason they have the rule they have today is because receivers would lose the ball and some were ruled catches which resulted in more fumbles being called. The controversy then was that the receiver didn’t have the ball long enough or they didn’t have full control. The league finally decided to make the receiver hold the ball through the contact of the ground to make sure they have it. There’s too many things a receiver has to do to show full control of the football. There’s a process they have to complete which has added confusion and frustration. There was no talk about football moves or acts common to the game many years ago. Even knowledgeable football people aren’t sure what all that entails. My proposal simplifies things a lot.

There’s always going to be some controversy and catches are always going to be reviewed to make sure it’s a catch, that’s not going to change regardless of the rule. What the NFL is likely to do is when the receiver is going to the ground if their elbow or knee contacts the ground before they lose the football it will be down by contact at that point. If that rule was in place back in 2014 Dez’s catch wouldn’t have been overturned because his elbow hit the ground before he reached and the ball came loose. It would’ve been down by contact which was the original call. A tweak like that would certainly improve the rule.

 

[BlindFaith]

The Tate play wouldn’t fly with my proposal. With my proposal it has to be conclusive that the receiver has clear control of the ball. A bang-bang play like Tate’s isn’t going to be ruled a catch. That happened much too quick. With my proposal there will be more fumbles because more catches will be confirmed. We’ve all seen on replay where it looks like a receiver has control of the ball but gets hit and loses it and it goes as a no catch. On replay they felt the receiver didn’t have it long enough to show clear possession and a lot of times they’re ruled going to the ground. Today everyone is asking what is a catch? During the 70s, 80s, and 90s no one ever asked what a catch was.

The reason they have the rule they have today is because receivers would lose the ball and some were ruled catches which resulted in more fumbles being called. The controversy then was that the receiver didn’t have the ball long enough or they didn’t have full control. The league finally decided to make the receiver hold the ball through the contact of the ground to make sure they have it. There’s too many things a receiver has to do to show full control of the football. There’s a process they have to complete which has added confusion and frustration. There was no talk about football moves or acts common to the game many years ago. Even knowledgeable football people aren’t sure what all that entails. My proposal simplifies things a lot.

There’s always going to be some controversy and catches are always going to be reviewed to make sure it’s a catch, that’s not going to change regardless of the rule. What the NFL is likely to do is when the receiver is going to the ground if their elbow or knee contacts the ground before they lose the football it will be down by contact at that point. If that rule was in place back in 2014 Dez’s catch wouldn’t have been overturned because his elbow hit the ground before he reached and the ball came loose. It would’ve been down by contact which was the original call. A tweak like that would certainly improve the rule.

Make a football move and maintain possession through the ground were in the rules going back a long time. How the two worked together or how the rules were applied I don't recall. And there are no rule books that I could find predating 2008.

And maybe there were controversies then as well. But it really wasn't until instant replay kicked in that the real issues started. Then more cameras and camera angles. Then HD. Each play could be diagnosed to death.

I personally don't agree with your approach, but do respect the idea of making things simpler. I just don't want to see a messy, fumblefest and even more reviews and more judgement calls.

 

[Cowpolk]

Nice! Not very many know about these guys.

I should put that in my sig. Thanks for that!

Rates right up there with Born to be Wild on the oldies chart

 

[KJJ]

Make a football move and maintain possession through the ground were in the rules going back a long time. How the two worked together or how the rules were applied I don't recall. And there are no rule books that I could find predating 2008.

And maybe there were controversies then as well. But it really wasn't until instant replay kicked in that the real issues started. Then more cameras and camera angles. Then HD. Each play could be diagnosed to death.

I personally don't agree with your approach, but do respect the idea of making things simpler. I just don't want to see a messy, fumblefest and even more reviews and more judgement calls.

As long as they tweak or remove the going to the ground part of the rule it will improve things. Replay has improved the game and it was brought in due to many controversial/bad calls. The problem with the catch rule is there’s too many things involved where judgment comes into play. There’s too much that has to be determined to know what is or isn’t a catch. The rule has to be simplified.

 

[DogFace]

If you watch the video all the way to the end, he clearly says that Thomas "was not going to the ground in the process of making the catch." Did my ears deceive me or did I just read another deceptive post from another poster?

Now you get it. Exactly like Dez.

Good boy!

 

[DogFace]

Ask Blandino. Did he say two feet down while falling? Did he mean two feet down before falling? Did he mean regain balance with two feet down? I have no idea what he means.

But I guarantee you that IF he had gotten the second foot down a fraction of a second earlier, he still would have been falling and it would have still been incomplete. If he had gotten a second foot down at any point while falling it would have been incomplete.

I've disagreed with how Blandino has tried to explain this rule from the start. That catch was from 2013. I have no idea what he was thinking or why.

Ask Blandino. Did he say two feet down while falling? Did he mean two feet down before falling? Did he mean regain balance with two feet down? I have no idea what he means.

But I guarantee you that IF he had gotten the second foot down a fraction of a second earlier, he still would have been falling and it would have still been incomplete. If he had gotten a second foot down at any point while falling it would have been incomplete.

I've disagreed with how Blandino has tried to explain this rule from the start. That catch was from 2013. I have no idea what he was thinking or why.

His first line is “Calvin is going to the ground in the process of making a catch”

Blandino: “he did not have two feet down prior to REACHING for the goaline, so this is all one process of going to the ground”

He is clearly going to ground the entire time. Yet, in this explanation, Blandino says if he could’ve completed control, two feet down, and time for a football move it would have been a catch.

 

[DogFace]

Then why'd you say this?

He became a runner while going to the ground. You aren’t playing. You really don’t understand this, do you?



Blandino’s first line of the video “Calvin is GOING TO THE GROUND in the process of MAKING THE CATCH”