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

[percyhoward]

Yes, that was a catch. He was not going to the ground until he got pushed. But like he said, it could go either way.

The question is did he make a football move or have time to do so before he got shoved?

The question was whether he held on long enough after a) control and b) two feet to perform any act common to the game. In other words, did he meet the time requirement?

That was always the question prior to 2015.

 

[BlindFaith]

The question was whether he held on long enough after a) control and b) two feet to perform any act common to the game. In other words, did he meet the time requirement?

That was always the question prior to 2015.

Time or act common.

But yes, that was the question. And they had decided he did. I don't think I would have.

 

[percyhoward]

Time or act common.

Actually, "time to perform any act common." It makes sense that if he already had control and two feet down, and then didn't lose the ball when contacted, he'd met the time requirement.

That's why changing the standard to "upright long enough" has led to calls that leave people scratching their heads about the catch rule. You could meet the old time requirement in fractions of a second, but you may be on your feet for 2-3 seconds after control and two feet down without ever being upright.

You used to have to catch it before you could become a runner. Now you have to become a runner before you can catch it. That's backwards.

 

[BlindFaith]

Actually, "time to perform any act common." It makes sense that if he already had control and two feet down, and then didn't lose the ball when contacted, he'd met the time requirement.

That's why changing the standard to "upright long enough" has led to calls that leave people scratching their heads about the catch rule. You could meet the old time requirement in fractions of a second, but you may be on your feet for 2-3 seconds after control and two feet down without ever being upright.

You used to have to catch it before you could become a runner. Now you have to become a runner before you can catch it. That's backwards.

The requirement was an act common to the game OR time long enough to do so. Please don't make me have to post the rule again.

The updated language has no impact. Upright long enough simply means if they have completed the three step process prior to when they start to go to the ground.

And that is exactly what the going to the ground rule was in 2014.

And time long enough was added I think in 2013. Prior to that it was just act common to the game.

Time long enough is subjective. But how many times do you see a player just stand there? Very rarely, if ever. It's usually enforced when a player gets hit right away. Just like the video you posted.

They key to reading these plays are at what point do they start to go to the ground. Then you back track from there. Had he made a football move Prior? Had he gotten both feet down prior. Had he possessed the ball prior.

But you can see that the ideal way to determine this is arse backwards from how it happens in real time. Not to say they can't get it right on the field, but it is much easier when looking at instant replay.

Going forward, how do we make it easier to see as it happens? And still protect a player who's going to the ground?

Removing the judgment of when he started falling would be the best. That's why they are looking at removing the going to the ground part of the rule. Then all they have to do is complete the catch process. Now it will be interesting to see how they handle a player who dives for the ball and makes no football move. Maintaining possession through contacting the ground is the actual act that completes that play now.

So we'll see.

 

[percyhoward]

The requirement was an act common to the game OR time long enough to do so. Please don't make me have to post the rule again.

There is no "or." There was no requirement for an act common to the game. Read the bold part.

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.
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.
​

The updated language has no impact. Upright long enough simply means if they have completed the three step process prior to when they start to go to the ground.

First, it's not even the same three-step process.

2014
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.

2015
(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 after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner.

2014
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of pitching the ball, passing it, advancing with it, or avoiding or warding off an opponent.

2015
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.
​

Second, Item 1 does not say "starts to go to the ground." Those are your words.

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...

​

And time long enough was added I think in 2013. Prior to that it was just act common to the game.

Wrong. They were both in the 2011 rule book together.

​

The key to reading these plays are at what point do they start to go to the ground.

No it's not. Not prior to 2015.

Post any rule from before 2015 that says so.

 

[BlindFaith]

There is no "or." There was no requirement for an act common to the game. Read the bold part.

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.
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.
​

First, it's not even the same three-step process.

2014
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.

2015
(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 after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner.

2014
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of pitching the ball, passing it, advancing with it, or avoiding or warding off an opponent.

2015
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.
​

Second, Item 1 does not say "starts to go to the ground." Those are your words.

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...

​

Wrong. They were both in the 2011 rule book together.

​

No it's not. Not prior to 2015.

Post any rule from before 2015 that says so.

Ok

 

[MarcusRock]

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.



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?



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.


​

This seems kind of like a summary of what the NFL said...hmm...

Next article:




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


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:
​

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:



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.

Number 1, where did I say the analysis was done in the articles themselves? I said the authors did their own analysis to come to the conclusions they did. Further, I asked you to prove that what I posted was just a summary of the NFL's findings instead of the authors' own words on the matter (after posting the authors' own words on the matter). Summary would mean a quote like, "The NFL says the rule didn't change" versus attributing the rules not changing to their OWN names, which they did quite emphatically. That was a lot of work there for not understanding what was asked. But I know, I know. I'm "wrong" and have used logical fallacies, etc. Like I said, in scientific research other independent identical conclusions strengthens an argument. The crap you posted yesterday only confirmed yours is weak. The author didn't know what a fumble was, said Dez didn't look like a runner, and said the rule was applied correctly to the Dez play in 2014 right after complaining about it. Insulting indeed.

 

[Kevinicus]

Number 1, where did I say the analysis was done in the articles themselves? I said the authors did their own analysis to come to the conclusions they did. Further, I asked you to prove that what I posted was just a summary of the NFL's findings instead of the authors' own words on the matter (after posting the authors' own words on the matter). Summary would mean a quote like, "The NFL says the rule didn't change" versus attributing the rules not changing to their OWN names, which they did quite emphatically. That was a lot of work there for not understanding what was asked. But I know, I know. I'm "wrong" and have used logical fallacies, etc. Like I said, in scientific research other independent identical conclusions strengthens an argument. The crap you posted yesterday only confirmed yours is weak. The author didn't know what a fumble was, said Dez didn't look like a runner, and said the rule was applied correctly to the Dez play in 2014 right after complaining about it. Insulting indeed.

Lol, God bless.

 

[BlindFaith]

Post any rule from before 2015 that says so.

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.

What exactly do you think that means? Because it's clearly not what the people who wrote the rules thinks it means.

 

[Kevinicus]

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.

What exactly do you think that means? Because it's clearly not what the people who wrote the rules thinks it means.

It means if you haven't completed the catch process by the time you hit the ground you must maintain possession throughout that contact (unless the ball doesn't hit the ground and you regain control).

Everything prior to the Dez catch that has been shown to you repeatedly throughout these threads indicates that is exactly what the people who wrote and enforced the rules thought it meant.

 

[OmerV]

He got his hand on the ball and ripped Dez's right hand away from the ball which he then had to put back on the ball and if you've ever tried to hold on to something being ripped out of your hands you'd know that getting one hand taken away usually results in dropping the object and you definitely wouldn't say it had no affect on the the play. I'm not presenting evidence that the bobble contributed to the incomplete call as you insinuate; on the contrary I'm saying it contributes if not outright satisfies the act common to the game portion of completing the catch and becoming a runner. You said your self, even though you are trying to down play the action you admit the defender "caused a slight bobble" so you agree that the defender did affect the play, and then you admit that "but Dez got control"; so Dez went from having control, to not having control, to having control again as you pointed out. Sounds an awful lot like an act common to the game to me.

That's a big exaggeration - look at the replay - the defender only got a finger on the ball and only hooked Dez's arm with 2 fingers - not to mention that a ball can't be "ripped" away when it hasn't even been caught yet. That all happened with both players in the air and both reaching for the ball. Dez hadn't yet secured the ball.

In any case, Dez gaining possession after that couldn't qualify as the "football move" or "act common to the game" anyway because that all happened before control had been established and before before Dez had 2 feet down, which is the sequence that has to happen before a "football move", or "act common to the game" comes into play under the rules.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I don't care about case play or fan's interpretation of the rules. The ball was jarred loose by Shields which caused Dez to pin it against his shoulder pad before transferring it to his left hand. At that point he was tripped by Shields. The only step he could take was with his left foot because his right was blocked by shield's leg. His next move was lunging, but at this point he went perpendicular with the ground, and this is where he reached out and the ground caused the fumble.

Two threads, approximately 140 pages, and none of it makes a difference, because he was going to the ground and the ground moved the ball. Now write another 30,000 words that will not change that result.

 

[Kevinicus]

I don't care about case play or fan's interpretation of the rules. The ball was jarred loose by Shields which caused Dez to pin it against his shoulder pad before transferring it to his left hand. At that point he was tripped by Shields. The only step he could take was with his left foot because his right was blocked by shield's leg. His next move was lunging, but at this point he went perpendicular with the ground, and this is where he reached out and the ground caused the fumble.

Two threads, approximately 140 pages, and none of it makes a difference, because he was going to the ground and the ground moved the ball. Now write another 30,000 words that will not change that result.

Why are you going to post if you just want to show you don't care about any of the facts and rules (the case plays go along with the rules), or anything and just want to go with your interpretation which isn't based on much? I don't get why you bother...or why you keep bringing up the Shields thing which doesn't really matter to the ruling at all.

 

[MarcusRock]

It means if you haven't completed the catch process by the time you hit the ground.

Except the rule is called going to the ground, not hit the ground.

It's like I've said from the very beginning. It is a yes/no determination. When you have that slapped on you, you have to have the ball survive the ground.

 

[Kevinicus]

Except the rule is called going to the ground, not hit the ground.

It's like I've said from the very beginning. It is a yes/no determination. When you have that slapped on you, you have to have the ball survive the ground.

Going to the ground includes hitting the ground. It is not merely falling. As has been proven, you can be falling and on your way to the ground and still complete the process.

 

[MarcusRock]

Going to the ground includes hitting the ground. It is not merely falling. As has been proven, you can be falling and on your way to the ground and still complete the process.

Right. The 3 case plays say so:

Lunge (A.R.15.95)
Lunge (A.R. 8.12)
Lunge (A.R. 8.13)

Even with a smorgasbord of acts common to the game, they spent their 3 shots on the same item. Wonder why that is.

 

[DallasEast]

I don't care about case play or fan's interpretation of the rules. The ball was jarred loose by Shields which caused Dez to pin it against his shoulder pad before transferring it to his left hand. At that point he was tripped by Shields. The only step he could take was with his left foot because his right was blocked by shield's leg. His next move was lunging, but at this point he went perpendicular with the ground, and this is where he reached out and the ground caused the fumble.

Two threads, approximately 140 pages, and none of it makes a difference, because he was going to the ground and the ground moved the ball. Now write another 30,000 words that will not change that result.

This is an open question for all thread participants:

What do you believe fuels the longevity of these threads questioning the legitimacy of the Bryant no-catch ruling?

I am only posing the question because I think this type of thread would expire quickly after creation under certain conditions.

 

[OmerV]

Going to the ground includes hitting the ground. It is not merely falling. As has been proven, you can be falling and on your way to the ground and still complete the process.

True, but the ruling in the game, and Blandino's explanation of the ruling, indicated that Dez did not complete the process.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

This is an open question for all thread participants:

What do you believe fuels the longevity of these threads questioning the legitimacy of the Bryant no-catch ruling?

I am only posing the question because I think this type of thread would expire quickly after creation under certain conditions.

Don’t mince words, Bones. What do you really think?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Y’all need to pace yourselves. This thread has to last all offseason.