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

[OmerV]

Actually it is intended to clarify every rule in the rule book, what it can't do is cover every situation pertaining to those individual rules.

Are you seriously going to argue that? There are no case plays that would address the size of the field, or the time of the game or the yardage marked off for a false start penalty or the fact that on 1st and 10 the team has to move 10 yards from that spot to get a first down, or a multitude of other things. The casebook is not intended for every rule. It is to give specific examples to help explain specific situations.

Again, how does it make sense to believe that they set up a very specific set of circumstances with the intent that anyone can apply that specific set of circumstances to any scenario that individual person chooses? It doesn't. That would defeat the purpose of a case play and just add an extra layer of interpretation.

 

[blindzebra]

Those last two, the other side do not want to touch with a 10 foot pole. And here's why, they define the acts that can be used to fulfill the Time Element, which is the only act common to the game a player can perform while going to the ground during the act of catching a pass.

LOL, too funny.

We are the ones who posted them, so we touched them, used them, and still do, because we are interpreting them correctly, unlike the nonsense you keep posting.

 

[OmerV]

Hello, the play has him getting his second foot down after the contact.

I may be wrong, but I believe it simply says that after getting 1 foot down the receiver is contacted by a defender, and that contact causes him to go to the ground - no mention of the second foot - but even if that weren't the case, where is the football move?

 

[blindzebra]

Are you seriously going to argue that? There are no case plays that would address the size of the field, or the time of the game or the yardage marked off for a false start penalty or the fact that on 1st and 10 the team has to move 10 yards from that spot to get a first down, or a multitude of other things. The casebook is not intended for every rule. It is to give specific examples to help explain specific situations.

Again, how does it make sense to believe that they set up a very specific set of circumstances with the intent that anyone can apply that specific set of circumstances to any scenario that individual person chooses? It doesn't. That would defeat the purpose of a case play and just add an extra layer of interpretation.

Yeah, I overstated, but it does not change the point. It links to the written rule and there is an interplay between rule and case play. The words in the heading, the words in the ruling, all link back to the rule book. What matters is which words you are focusing on, and your side are focusing on ones with no rule support. Act common to the game and not part of the catch process is what matters in those case plays because they can be traced back to the written rules.

Act common to the game means 8.1.3.c.
Process of the catch 8.1.3.a.b.c
Going to the ground Item 1

Then you have to see how all that fits together.

Item 1 is about a player falling in the process of a catch, that means he is a receiver. What in the catch process differentiates a receiver from a runner? 8.1.3.a.b.c

So when a case play talks about a receiver becoming a runner, which is what the case plays BF keeps posting do, you have to connect them to the language of the rule. You guys are focusing on the details of the case play instead of the intent of how it connects to the rules.

 

[blindzebra]

I may be wrong, but I believe it simply says that after getting 1 foot down the receiver is contacted by a defender, and that contact causes him to go to the ground - no mention of the second foot - but even if that weren't the case, where is the football move?

It supplies it in the case play, second foot and an act common to the game. All three go back to 8.1.3.a.b.c in the rule book.

 

[KJJ]

He controlled it, changed hands with it, lunged and reached for the “expletive” endzone....he caught it!!!!

 

[Kevinicus]

The case play doesn't even mention any act that would be considered common to the game. One foot down and being knocked to the ground doesn't allow time for an act common to the game. The rule is control, 2 feet down, and an act (or time for an act) common to the game. The case play sets out a scenario that never even gets to the act common to the game because the receiver never gets 2 feet down. It sets out a specific scenario that is an exception.

This is false. The case play definitely gets to two feet down and an act common to the game. It's just after the point you stopped reading.

 

[BlindFaith]

Those are the facts. And asking yes or no questions is not information seeking nor debating, it is an attempt to limit information important to the discussion. Why do you think lawyers use yes or no questions while questioning? It is to keep potentially damaging information away from the jury.

I didn't expect you or anyone else to answer. You never do.

 

[Kevinicus]

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...anges-and-points-of-emphasis-to-watch-in-2015
"Let's be clear. The rule that disallowed an apparent catch by Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the NFC divisional playoffs, and another by Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2009, remains unchanged in substance. The NFL did modify its wording, however, in hopes of making the rule make more sense to players, fans and media members in cases where a player is falling while in the process of making a catch."
​

Let's look at this one first. It's the one you keep pointing to that it actually says "Analysis." It's quite comical. First, let's notice that right after "espn.com/" we get "blog." Judging by your recent comments, this must mean it is worthless. But ignoring you apparent confusion and inconsistency, let's look at the content.

Analysis: Let's be clear. The rule that disallowed an apparent catch by Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the NFC divisional playoffs, and another by Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2009, remains unchanged in substance. The NFL did modify its wording, however, in hopes of making the rule make more sense to players, fans and media members in cases where a player is falling while in the process of making a catch.

Instead of requiring a nebulous "football move" to confirm a reception, the player must now demonstrate he is "clearly a runner." Here is how the league explained the change to players via video presentation:

This is almost the entirety of what is "the author's own words" on this play. The entire "analysis" has a singular reference to the language of each version of the rule. "Football move" completes the reference to the 2014 rules, and "clearly a runner" completes the reference to the changed rules. There is no analysis being done here...at all. Then the author uses the bulk of the remainder of his "analysis" directly quoting the NFL. This can't be possible, you said explicitly this is not what was done, and that these analysis were the author's views, not just a regurgitation of the NFL comments. Perhaps you meant to quote another article?

"In order to complete a catch, a receiver must clearly become a runner. He does that by gaining control of the ball, touching both feet down, and then after the second foot is down, having the ball long enough to clearly become a runner, which is defined as the ability to ward off or protect himself from impending contact.

"If, before becoming a runner, a receiver falls to the ground in an attempt to make the catch, he must maintain control of the ball after contacting the ground. If he loses control of the ball after contacting the ground, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. Reaching the ball out before becoming a runner will not trump the requirement to hold on to the ball when you land. When you are attempting to complete a catch, you must put the ball away or protect the ball so that it does not come loose."

Wow, really in-depth analysis by that author. I especially liked how eloquent his own words were. He really gave us some great insight into his thoughts on the matter there and broke down his reasoning. Great comparison to the language of the rule from before the change to how it is now.

The last sentence is key. Players can do only one thing to ensure a catch in these instances: Don't let the ball fall loose. At all. Not even for a second.

[/quote]
This seems kind of like a summary of what the NFL said...hmm...

Next article:

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy
"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

PHOENIX -- The NFL has sought to clarify it, but the rule that denied Dez Bryant a game-changing catch in Green Bay this past January will remain unchanged for 2015.

NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino, along with several other members of the NFL Competition Committee, spoke at length to reporters Monday at the NFL Annual Meetings. Blandino spent roughly 10 minutes combing over the now-infamous Bryant play, which saw the receiver go to ground while reaching for the end zone in the divisional round playoff game against Green Bay.

“The committee doesn’t recommend a change to the rule, but looked at the language and tweaked the language in an attempt to make it clearer and easier to understand,” Blandino said.

So far, just a summary of the NFL's comments/"goals."

A lot of the confusion from that afternoon came from referee Gene Steratore’s decision to overrule the catch, citing that Bryant had neither made “an act common to the game” while possessing the ball, nor had he maintained possession all the way through the process of the catch.

The committee’s tweaking of the language has done away with the confusing phrase about “an act common to the game.”

“In order to complete a catch, the receiver has to have control, both feet on the ground and he has to have it after that long enough to clearly establish himself as a runner,” Blandino said.

Establishing oneself as a runner now becomes the crucial element of maintaining possession. Blandino said in order for a receiver to establish himself as a runner – basically, “that means he has the ability to ward off, avoid, protect himself from the impending contact.”

That doesn’t do a lot to clarify the play involving Bryant, which saw him take several steps before reaching toward the goal line, all while falling down in the process. Blandino said in the instance of a receiver going to the ground, maintaining possession of the ball is critical.

From the press conference: “If he hasn’t clearly established himself as a runner prior to going to the ground, then he has to hold on to the ball until after his initial contact with the ground. And that’s the rule that applied here. When you watch the play, Bryant is going to the ground. He is falling to the ground to make the catch, he has not clearly established himself as a runner prior to going to the ground, so he has to hold on to the ball until after that initial contact with the ground. He’s basically got to hold on to it throughout this action. If the ball touches the ground and comes loose, it’s an incomplete pass. And you’ll see the ball hit the ground and then it pops loose.”

To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed. Blandino said that he hopes the clarification in the language will make the rule easier to interpret, however.

“What we’re saying is to having it long enough to clearly become a runner, to clearly be able to do something other than just attempting to secure possession of the football,” he said. “So I don’t think the standard changes, but the way we’re communicating the standard has changed.”

I'm not going to bother going line by line. It's the same as before, just taking the NFL's explanation and running with it. No comparison of the rules, no analysis of the language, just "Here's what the NFL says, and what that means." So, exactly as I said, a summary of the NFL's PR comments, and zero analysis.

Last article:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rule-and-it-might-actually-be-more-confusing/
"The interesting part here is that Dez Bryant's no-catch, the thing that sparked the rule change, would still be a no-catch under the new rule."

This one has the closest thing to analysis, but also doesn't really say anything. It has Pereira essentially quoting the new rule, and then later quotes a good portion of the old rule. If anything, the author seems to think the rule is just more confusing now and doesn't find "clarity" with what the NFL says. He even has this comment which seems to indicate he sees a "change" in the rule:

Under the old rule, a player had to make a "football move" before the refs would rule that something close to a catch was actually a catch and not an incomplete pass.

Under the new rule, all a player has to do is "clearly establish himself as a runner."

Before, a player just had to do X, but now he only has to do Y. Why are X and Y referred to as different things, if the author is convinced there is no change?

As I stated, these articles are not analysis. It's insulting to everyone's intelligence that you would try and pass them off as such.

*Mods, I'm sorry if I quoted too much of any of these articles. Feel free to edit if you need to.

 

[OmerV]

It supplies it in the case play, second foot and an act common to the game. All three go back to 8.1.3.a.b.c in the rule book.

What rule common to the game was discussed in the case play? Being knocked to the ground? Come on - this is a specific scenario setting out a specific exception to the rule common to the game requirement.

And lets not act as if this is the only case play and therefore has to serve as the guideline for everything regarding a catch or incompletion. There are several other case plays setting out different scenarios.

 

[OmerV]

This is false. The case play definitely gets to two feet down and an act common to the game. It's just after the point you stopped reading.

What act common to the game? What was the act set out in the case play?

 

[Kevinicus]

What rule common to the game was discussed in the case play? Being knocked to the ground? Come on - this is a specific scenario setting out a specific exception to the rule common to the game requirement.

And lets not act as if this is the only case play and therefore has to serve as the guideline for everything regarding a catch or incompletion. There are several other case plays setting out different scenarios.

So you think if there was one single possible "exception" to the (I'm going to assume you meant "Going to the Ground") rule, that they would put it down in a case play and not in the actual rules? And they wouldn't actually say, hey, this is an exception that contradicts everything else we told you? No, case plays are meant to provide *support* of the rules and their concepts and provide better understanding of those rules and concepts. They are not designed to show exceptions to the rules.

 

[blindzebra]

I didn't expect you or anyone else to answer. You never do.

We have addressed everything in that post over and over again. You are not fooling anyone with the snide accusations. I am not running away from the case plays, I brought them to the discussion two years ago when you were saying NOTHING ENDS GOING TO THE GROUND. When you were confronted with them again here you realized you were wrong and instead of just saying you know they may have gotten it wrong, you instead create a complete fantasy interpretation. When asked for a rule citation to support it, you got nothing. When I give you rule support in a logical( and correct) way to interpret the case plays, and we supply a video where Blandino himself says our interpretation is correct. You post an outright fabrication of a rule change between 2013 and 2014 to run away from Blandino's words that destroy your theory. You then post a War and Peace sized misrepresentation of the rules, pumped full of questions you think will prove a point, when there is no point to be made, and more snide remarks and accusations. It is laughable.

Anyone wanting to know the correct interpretation here it is:
Rule 8.1.3.a.b.c tells us how a receiver becomes a runner.
Item 1 deals with a receiver going to the ground, key word here is receiver.

The catch process in rule 8.1.3 is as follows:
a) Control...player is a receiver
b) Two feet down inbounds...player is a receiver
c) Time to perform any act common to the game...player is a runner

Case play A.R. 15.95 has a heading of act common to the game, so we know it is connected to 8.1.3.c that says any act common to the game.
Case plays A.R. 8.12 and 8.13 are have going to the ground as its heading. Now if we go back we know that Item 1 is for a receiver going to the ground. That is a player that has not completed part c) of 8.1.3. Both case plays describe a player that is going to the ground that meets part a) control, part b) two feet, and then complete an act common to the game to complete part c) and they become a runner.

To sum up, Control, Two Feet, Act Common to the Game, makes you a runner and Item 1 goes away.

 

[blindzebra]

What act common to the game? What was the act set out in the case play?

What act does not matter, the rules say any act common to the game turns a receiver into a runner.

 

[Kevinicus]

What act common to the game? What was the act set out in the case play?

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.

A second foot down, followed by:
Two acts, occurring simultaneously. This has been told to you repeatedly.

Both of which occur after he starts towards the ground.

It's amazing you guys still try and argue this. This case play doesn't even get to part b of the catch process before the going to the ground part starts. Only part a is satisfied and that point, and the player STILL is able to complete parts b and c for a completion prior to contacting the ground.

 

[blindzebra]

What rule common to the game was discussed in the case play? Being knocked to the ground? Come on - this is a specific scenario setting out a specific exception to the rule common to the game requirement.

And lets not act as if this is the only case play and therefore has to serve as the guideline for everything regarding a catch or incompletion. There are several other case plays setting out different scenarios.

8.1.3.c ANY ACT COMMON TO THE GAME TURNS A RECEIVER INTO A RUNNER!

 

[blindzebra]

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.

A second foot down, followed by:
Two acts, occurring simultaneously. This has been told to you repeatedly.

Both of which occur after he starts towards the ground.

It's amazing you guys still try and argue this. This case play doesn't even get to part b of the catch process before the going to the ground part starts. Only part a is satisfied and that point, and the player STILL is able to complete parts b and c for a completion prior to contacting the ground.

They are trying to rationalize the magical lunge theory.

 

[Kevinicus]

They are trying to rationalize the magical lunge theory.

It's real. I found photographic evidence.

I present, the magical lunge:

 

[BlindFaith]

We have addressed everything in that post over and over again. You are not fooling anyone with the snide accusations. I am not running away from the case plays, I brought them to the discussion two years ago when you were saying NOTHING ENDS GOING TO THE GROUND. When you were confronted with them again here you realized you were wrong and instead of just saying you know they may have gotten it wrong, you instead create a complete fantasy interpretation. When asked for a rule citation to support it, you got nothing. When I give you rule support in a logical( and correct) way to interpret the case plays, and we supply a video where Blandino himself says our interpretation is correct. You post an outright fabrication of a rule change between 2013 and 2014 to run away from Blandino's words that destroy your theory. You then post a War and Peace sized misrepresentation of the rules, pumped full of questions you think will prove a point, when there is no point to be made, and more snide remarks and accusations. It is laughable.

Anyone wanting to know the correct interpretation here it is:
Rule 8.1.3.a.b.c tells us how a receiver becomes a runner.
Item 1 deals with a receiver going to the ground, key word here is receiver.

The catch process in rule 8.1.3 is as follows:
a) Control...player is a receiver
b) Two feet down inbounds...player is a receiver
c) Time to perform any act common to the game...player is a runner

Case play A.R. 15.95 has a heading of act common to the game, so we know it is connected to 8.1.3.c that says any act common to the game.
Case plays A.R. 8.12 and 8.13 are have going to the ground as its heading. Now if we go back we know that Item 1 is for a receiver going to the ground. That is a player that has not completed part c) of 8.1.3. Both case plays describe a player that is going to the ground that meets part a) control, part b) two feet, and then complete an act common to the game to complete part c) and they become a runner.

To sum up, Control, Two Feet, Act Common to the Game, makes you a runner and Item 1 goes away.

It you do any of that while going to the ground, you have to maintain possession.

With the exception of a time element
AR15

8.12 and 8.13 explain what that time element is.

Unless you just want to ignore the going to the ground rule like you ignore answering my questions.

 

[BlindFaith]

8.1.3.c ANY ACT COMMON TO THE GAME TURNS A RECEIVER INTO A RUNNER!

Except if they are trying to become a runner while falling.

Read the going to the ground rule again.