News: DC: No Discussion On Bryant’s Overruled Catch From NFL Competition Committee At Combine

[NewsBot]

INDIANAPOLIS – It’s an issue that no Cowboys fan has forgotten, but there will be a longer wait to hear about any developments with the Calvin Johnson Rule – or perhaps the

Continue reading...

 

[WoodysGirl]

I think I read it should happen in May..

 

[erod]

Who thought this would be discussed at the combine?

 

[JoeKing]

I think I read it should happen in May..

NFL League Meetings take place in late March. I'm pretty sure that includes the Competition Committee. On the docket is the pregame logging of air pressure in balls, changing the official width of the goal posts, re-addressing the Calvin Johnson rule, and possible playoff expansion.

 

[cowboyvic]

INDIANAPOLIS – It’s an issue that no Cowboys fan has forgotten, but there will be a longer wait to hear about any developments with the Calvin Johnson Rule – or perhaps the

Continue reading...

Don't fall into this trap. no rule needs to be changed. they have been using that to try and white wash the BS call thaty ended the Cowboys season. do not buy this BS. the rule was not the problem here. the NFL and Dean Blandino, are the problem.Dean Blandino and the replay ref in that game need to be fired.

 

[Corso]

Don't fall into this trap. no rule needs to be changed. they have been using that to try and white wash the BS call thaty ended the Cowboys season. do not buy this BS. the rule was not the problem here. the NFL and Dean Blandino, are the problem.Dean Blandino and the replay ref in that game need to be fired.

Hear hear!

 

[TheCount]

I think the rule is fine.

 

[percyhoward]

Jeff Fisher: "There’s a standard, and what we have is we have basically two standards – the standard on the field, and the standard on replay."

You know it goes way beyond a simple rule change when people on the competition committee are questioning the power of the replay official.

 

[Bullflop]

I'll never be able to wrap my head around the idea that it's OK for a RB if the ground causes a fumble but it's not forgivable if a WR experiences the same thing. If that's not a contradictory rule, then I surely don't know what is.

 

[percyhoward]

I'll never be able to wrap my head around the idea that it's OK for a RB if the ground causes a fumble but it's not forgivable if a WR experiences the same thing. If that's not a contradictory rule, then I surely don't know what is.

They got around that by saying Dez was going to the ground to make the catch, so he wasn't a runner yet. IOW, at the point where the ball came loose, they say he was still trying to catch it.

But the key is that the ruling on the field was a catch. That's why it's important that Fisher is talking about "two standards" for what is a catch. In order to prove that Dez was going to the ground to make the catch, there needed to be indisputable evidence that Dez was falling down on his own (even without being tripped). No such evidence exists, and in fact we've all seen Dez have less control of his balance and still stay upright. But let's say there had been such evidence, and that it was obvious that he was going to the ground on his own. In that case, all he has to do is make a football move before he hits the ground, and it's a catch. So that means there needed to be indisputable evidence that he was not reaching for the goal line.

No evidence of that exists, either. In fact, in an interview a couple of weeks later, when Blandino was asked what advice he had for receivers in this situation, he said, "Just secure possession of the ball and don't try to do more." Of course, the "trying to do more" is Dez's lunge and reach for the goal line, which is obviously a football move, so Blandino admitted he saw Dez make a football move, after first saying that the move wasn't obvious enough. If it wasn't obvious enough to make him think Dez was trying to do more, then how else could he know Dez was trying to do more?

The field judge has his own standard for what constitutes "going to the ground to make a catch," and he did not think it was that type of play. Maybe he was basing this on the contact by the defender, or maybe he was basing it on Dez having more than sufficient time to commit an act common to the game. I lean toward the former, but in the end, it doesn't matter. The field judge obviously saw the ball come out, and marked the ball dead at that spot anyway, so he did not think Dez was going to the ground to make the catch. Why did Blandino see it differently? That's the double standard Fisher is talking about.

 

[TheCount]

I'll never be able to wrap my head around the idea that it's OK for a RB if the ground causes a fumble but it's not forgivable if a WR experiences the same thing. If that's not a contradictory rule, then I surely don't know what is.

I was under the impression that the ground can only cause a fumble for a RB if he goes down without anyone touching him.

 

[percyhoward]

I was under the impression that the ground can only cause a fumble for a RB if he goes down without anyone touching him.

I think what he's saying is why doesn't a WR get the same consideration a RB does. IOW, if a RB is ruled down when he goes down by contact and loses the ball when he hits the ground, then why not a WR? Of course, the WR does get the same consideration provided he has possession of the ball first, as was ruled on the field and reversed by replay officials.

 

[DallasEast]

The rule is flawed in its wording. I will be highly surprised if the rule does not get changed. Hopefully, the competition committee will resolve whether the rule will stand as is or revise it within the next few months.

Rules (and that's all rules, not just those governing football play) are changed to help prevent further intentional and unintentional interpretations. That said, humans are not perfect. There aren't any perfect rules. Some rules are better than others though. Changing this particular rule will not stop someone else from purposefully or innocently screwing a call in the future. Not changing this particular rule shall encourage and (not discourage) Blandino and people like him to do the exact same thing he did to Bryant and Dallas.

So, I know people, especially Dallas fans, want justice. They want Blandino and the NFL to confess and face punishment. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that sentiment. Nothing whatsoever. I just think there is zero chance in west hell it will ever happen. Me? I think the closest thing remotely resembling an apology happening is a rule change. I'm gonna wait-and-see if that happens. Then, I'm gonna wait-and-see how Blandino and the league will officiate games from here on out based either upon the current rule or the anticipated changed rule.

 

[TheCount]

I think what he's saying is why doesn't a WR get the same consideration a RB does. IOW, if a RB is ruled down when he goes down by contact and loses the ball when he hits the ground, then why not a WR? Of course, the WR does get the same consideration provided he has possession of the ball first, as was ruled on the field and reversed by replay officials.

If a WR catches a ball and is running in the open field then goes down without being touched and loses the ball, that's a fumble, isn't it? I don't even know anymore.

I still remember a few years ago when a Chargers receiver caught the ball, wasn't touched and then spiked it. They ruled it an illegal forward pass and that one I definitely didn't get.

 

[percyhoward]

If a WR catches a ball and is running in the open field then goes down without being touched and loses the ball, that's a fumble, isn't it?

Sure, and the same is true for a RB. It doesn't matter what position you play, it matters whether you have possession in the first place. Dez had possession according to the official nearest the play, but the replay officials took it into their own hands to rule that he was going to the ground in order to make the catch. That meant he had to maintain possession after contacting the ground.

That "going to the ground to make the catch" rule isn't supposed to apply when the player is down by contact (as Dez was), or if the player performs an act common to the game (as Dez did), but the replay officials ignored both the contact and the football move and applied it anyway.

 

[xwalker]

They got around that by saying Dez was going to the ground to make the catch, so he wasn't a runner yet. IOW, at the point where the ball came loose, they say he was still trying to catch it.

But the key is that the ruling on the field was a catch. That's why it's important that Fisher is talking about "two standards" for what is a catch. In order to prove that Dez was going to the ground to make the catch, there needed to be indisputable evidence that Dez was falling down on his own (even without being tripped). No such evidence exists, and in fact we've all seen Dez have less control of his balance and still stay upright. But let's say there had been such evidence, and that it was obvious that he was going to the ground on his own. In that case, all he has to do is make a football move before he hits the ground, and it's a catch. So that means there needed to be indisputable evidence that he was not reaching for the goal line.

No evidence of that exists, either. In fact, in an interview a couple of weeks later, when Blandino was asked what advice he had for receivers in this situation, he said, "Just secure possession of the ball and don't try to do more." Of course, the "trying to do more" is Dez's lunge and reach for the goal line, which is obviously a football move, so Blandino admitted he saw Dez make a football move, after first saying that the move wasn't obvious enough. If it wasn't obvious enough to make him think Dez was trying to do more, then how else could he know Dez was trying to do more?

The field judge has his own standard for what constitutes "going to the ground to make a catch," and he did not think it was that type of play. Maybe he was basing this on the contact by the defender, or maybe he was basing it on Dez having more than sufficient time to commit an act common to the game. I lean toward the former, but in the end, it doesn't matter. The field judge obviously saw the ball come out, and marked the ball dead at that spot anyway, so he did not think Dez was going to the ground to make the catch. Why did Blandino see it differently? That's the double standard Fisher is talking about.

If a WR has possession of the ball with 2 feet down, then it should be a catch, IMO. Dez had "3 feet down" with possession.

 

[percyhoward]

If a WR has possession of the ball with 2 feet down, then it should be a catch, IMO. Dez had "3 feet down" with possession.

The only reason it's not is that he could dive for the ball and catch it, then tap both feet down, then lose it when he hits the ground. They don't want that to be a catch and fumble, they want that to be incomplete -- and so it is.

But that's not even what happened on this play. They based their reversal on some rule that applies to a different kind of play.

 

[xwalker]

The only reason it's not is that he could dive for the ball and catch it, then tap both feet down, then lose it when he hits the ground. They don't want that to be a catch and fumble, they want that to be incomplete -- and so it is.

But that's not even what happened on this play. They based their reversal on some rule that applies to a different kind of play.

I'm just saying that 2 feet down with possession would be much easier to define and interpret. The current rules are too complicated.

Their reasoning for making it complicated (that they don't want it to be a fumble) is just dumb, IMO.

 

[jimmy40]

I'm just saying that 2 feet down with possession would be much easier to define and interpret. The current rules are too complicated.

Their reasoning for making it complicated (that they don't want it to be a fumble) is just dumb, IMO.

they changed the rule to make it simpler, don't lose the ball going to the ground. pretty simple.

 

[percyhoward]

they changed the rule to make it simpler, don't lose the ball going to the ground. pretty simple.

That's only if you're going to the ground to make the catch. There's already a rule that says when you get both feet down and contact sends you to the ground, you don't have to maintain control of the ball after hitting the ground. There's an obvious difference between Dez's catch, and when a receiver is actually going to the ground to make the catch, like this.

Both players got 2 feet down, but any sighted adult in control of his faculties should be able to tell the difference between these two plays. Johnson is simply falling because he had to stretch out for the ball, whereas Dez went up and high-pointed the ball. If Dez isn't tripped, he's still going to gain several more yards, and certainly reach the end zone where he may or may not fall. In any case, there is no evidence that merely catching the ball is what caused him to fall, which has to be the case for the rule you're talking about to apply.