Dean Blandino, Asst VP of Officiating, explains what a catch is if you're a Bengals WR

[logii]

The problem is the ruling as it's stated allows for so much gray area in judging too many variables. There's too much interpretation of the "process of the catch" , when that is completed, and what constitutes a "football move". "Was Dez just falling or making football moves with forward steps and lunge?" It can be interpreted both ways. Dez could appear to be falling or unbalanced but take 50 steps making unbalanced cuts but it can be interpreted as he was clearly falling or going to the ground anyways instead seeing those unbalanced jukes as "football moves." What constitutes a clear lunge? Arm kinda extended or has to be all the way with no bend whatsoever? If it can kinda be bent, what kind of angle and how far? If it's kinda bent, does an arched back count as a clear lunge? If so, how much of an arched back because that could be just how he falls or breaks his fall also.

If there is a new ruling it should be stated that if the player goes to the ground with the ball in possession, the ground cannot cause the incompletion. Possession should constitute the ball not moving or being bobbled on the way to the ground. That way a receiver would not be able to make a completion as a result of the ground also. Just as the ground can't cause a fumble, the ground should not be able to cause an incompletion because it was "possessed" prior up until that point just as is the case in a fumble.

If that rule was in place that would leave less room for gray area. If that rule were in play, all 3 instances would be be catches as Megatron, Gresham, and Dez all maintained control up to the ground with the ground causing the dislodging of the ball. If however, the ball was moving or being bobbled prior to contacting the ground, that should be an incompletion.

 

[mahoneybill]

The problem is the ruling as it's stated allows for so much gray area in judging too many variables. There's too much interpretation of the "process of the catch" , when that is completed, and what constitutes a "football move". "Was Dez just falling or making football moves with forward steps and lunge?" It can be interpreted both ways. Dez could appear to be falling or unbalanced but take 50 steps making unbalanced cuts but it can be interpreted as he was clearly falling or going to the ground anyways instead seeing those unbalanced jukes as "football moves." What constitutes a clear lunge? Arm kinda extended or has to be all the way with no bend whatsoever? If it can kinda be bent, what kind of angle and how far? If it's kinda bent, does an arched back count as a clear lunge? If so, how much of an arched back because that could be just how he falls or breaks his fall also.

If there is a new ruling it should be stated that if the player goes to the ground with the ball in possession, the ground cannot cause the incompletion. Possession should constitute the ball not moving or being bobbled on the way to the ground. That way a receiver would not be able to make a completion as a result of the ground also. Just as the ground can't cause a fumble, the ground should not be able to cause an incompletion because it was "possessed" prior up until that point just as is the case in a fumble.

If that rule was in place that would leave less room for gray area. If that rule were in play, all 3 instances would be be catches as Megatron, Gresham, and Dez all maintained control up to the ground with the ground causing the dislodging of the ball. If however, the ball was moving or being bobbled prior to contacting the ground, that should be an incompletion.

Posted a similar comment . To me if they maintain possession ( don't fumble it away) then its a catch. Also if they didn't catch it off the ground ( hits ground, then they grab it ) its a catch......

 

[DallasEast]

I disagree. There will always been subjectivity over calls, especially a controversial one made during a playoff game. I've heard players and former referees say this very rule is in place to take subjectivity out of what constitutes a "catch." But with any rule, there's always that one case that the rule doesn't seemingly cover. And truth be told, rules covering catches, pass interference, holding and unsportsmanlike conduct are among the most controversial because they happen in the ordinary course of the game. The refs aren't always consistent with pass interference calls and holding calls. And fans even argue of those calls.
Wherever you have fans and whenever a call is made against their favorite team, particularly when the stakes are high, you're going to have situations like these. The good thing is that they don't happen that often. But when they do, they're heightened to the nth degree.

lol. There is subjective opinion following practically every call. That's why boos are heard every time a flag is thrown, but that is beside the point.

I have yet to read or hear disagreement that Bryant did not leap above the defender, snatch the ball at the highest point, land (damn the laws of gravity), and take several steps inbounds with full control of the ball.

That is a reception. It is after this point (e.g. the steps) that the current rule was intentionally or unintentionally interpreted to disallow an undisputable catch.

The current rule is flawed. It should be corrected. Additionally, any flawed rule should be corrected whether they exist inside or outside the NFL. However, the priority for correcting rules should be given to cases that have presented themselves for immediate review. This is one such case. Unfortunately, it is a case which re-surfaced after it had not been properly addressed when the Calvin Johnson catch was disallowed (which I mentioned at that time as well).

Correcting the current rule will not prevent future officials from incorrectly applying a revised version of it. Correcting the current rule shall prevent future officials from using the same tactic to disallow actual receptions. There is only one logical recourse. Of course, the fact does not preclude the competition committee undertaking the proper steps for fixing the problem. The committee is composed of humans and humans often resist logic--no matter how simple the circumstances may be.

 

[DallasEast]

The problem is the ruling as it's stated allows for so much gray area in judging too many variables. There's too much interpretation of the "process of the catch" , when that is completed, and what constitutes a "football move". "Was Dez just falling or making football moves with forward steps and lunge?" It can be interpreted both ways. Dez could appear to be falling or unbalanced but take 50 steps making unbalanced cuts but it can be interpreted as he was clearly falling or going to the ground anyways instead seeing those unbalanced jukes as "football moves." What constitutes a clear lunge? Arm kinda extended or has to be all the way with no bend whatsoever? If it can kinda be bent, what kind of angle and how far? If it's kinda bent, does an arched back count as a clear lunge? If so, how much of an arched back because that could be just how he falls or breaks his fall also.

If there is a new ruling it should be stated that if the player goes to the ground with the ball in possession, the ground cannot cause the incompletion. Possession should constitute the ball not moving or being bobbled on the way to the ground. That way a receiver would not be able to make a completion as a result of the ground also. Just as the ground can't cause a fumble, the ground should not be able to cause an incompletion because it was "possessed" prior up until that point just as is the case in a fumble.

If that rule was in place that would leave less room for gray area. If that rule were in play, all 3 instances would be be catches as Megatron, Gresham, and Dez all maintained control up to the ground with the ground causing the dislodging of the ball. If however, the ball was moving or being bobbled prior to contacting the ground, that should be an incompletion.

Logical.

 

[tyke1doe]

lol. There is subjective opinion following practically every call. That's why boos are heard every time a flag is thrown, but that is beside the point.

I have yet to read or hear disagreement that Bryant did not leap above the defender, snatch the ball at the highest point, land (damn the laws of gravity), and take several steps inbounds with full control of the ball.

That is a reception. It is after this point (e.g. the steps) that the current rule was intentionally or unintentionally interpreted to disallow an undisputable catch.

The current rule is flawed. It should be corrected. Additionally, any flawed rule should be corrected whether they exist inside or outside the NFL. However, the priority for correcting rules should be given to cases that have presented themselves for immediate review. This is one such case. Unfortunately, it is a case which re-surfaced after it had not been properly addressed when the Calvin Johnson catch was disallowed (which I mentioned at that time as well).

Correcting the current rule will not prevent future officials from incorrectly applying a revised version of it. Correcting the current rule shall prevent future officials from using the same tactic to disallow actual receptions. There is only one logical recourse. Of course, the fact does not preclude the competition committee undertaking the proper steps for fixing the problem. The committee is composed of humans and humans often resist logic--no matter how simple the circumstances may be.

To the bold, it sounds all the same. As it stands now, a receiver must maintain possession on his way to the ground in order for a pass to be ruled complete. Even if you change the rules, you still have the same type of interpretative quandary. You still have a case for subjectivity because if the rule changes, you have to determine whether it is indeed a catch even if the player snags it like Dez did then mistakenly loses it on the way down. At what point did Dez make the catch? Up in the air? So any point beyond that, regardless of what happens, Dez's catch, and all such like it, would be ruled a catch. Furthermore, does two steps while you're falling constitute possession? Again, there are just so many areas where interpretations are involved. You simply can't get around it.

Again, there's no way you're going to eliminate subjectivity. And I've heard others say that the rule takes away the guessing game. It just so happens that there are those special cases that seemingly lie "outside" the rules.

Furthermore, I wouldn't say that humans resist logic. I think I'd say humans try to create rules to govern general situations. But every now and then, there are situations that don't seem to be covered by the rules. And that's why we've coined the phrase "There's an exception to every rule."

 

[tyke1doe]

The problem is the ruling as it's stated allows for so much gray area in judging too many variables. There's too much interpretation of the "process of the catch" , when that is completed, and what constitutes a "football move". "Was Dez just falling or making football moves with forward steps and lunge?" It can be interpreted both ways. Dez could appear to be falling or unbalanced but take 50 steps making unbalanced cuts but it can be interpreted as he was clearly falling or going to the ground anyways instead seeing those unbalanced jukes as "football moves." What constitutes a clear lunge? Arm kinda extended or has to be all the way with no bend whatsoever? If it can kinda be bent, what kind of angle and how far? If it's kinda bent, does an arched back count as a clear lunge? If so, how much of an arched back because that could be just how he falls or breaks his fall also.

If there is a new ruling it should be stated that if the player goes to the ground with the ball in possession, the ground cannot cause the incompletion. Possession should constitute the ball not moving or being bobbled on the way to the ground. That way a receiver would not be able to make a completion as a result of the ground also. Just as the ground can't cause a fumble, the ground should not be able to cause an incompletion because it was "possessed" prior up until that point just as is the case in a fumble.

If that rule was in place that would leave less room for gray area. If that rule were in play, all 3 instances would be be catches as Megatron, Gresham, and Dez all maintained control up to the ground with the ground causing the dislodging of the ball. If however, the ball was moving or being bobbled prior to contacting the ground, that should be an incompletion.

I like your point and your suggestion about the ball not being bobbled on the way to the ground.

But the statement in bold is still open to interpretation. I would eliminate "the ball not moving" because if a player simultaneously catches the ball then shifts it to another hand while both arms are extended (say he catches with his left hand and shifts the ball to his right while both are in the air and he falls to the ground in a similar manner that Dez did, and the ball comes out. The ball, by the letter of the law, moves) and the ball comes out when he hits the ground (kind of like what Megatron did) then by the definition of the rules, the play would result in an incompletion.

But your suggestion seems to be a little less messy, though I still think it won't alleviate the controversy altogether. And there will arise that unique situation that even leads to questioning under a revised rule.

 

[nablives]

Just when you feel like you're moving on...

 

[percyhoward]

As it stands now, a receiver must maintain possession on his way to the ground in order for a pass to be ruled complete.

Not if contact after the catch is what made him fall. Both feet down and then contact means a completed catch.

That's how it was ruled on the field.

 

[DallasEast]

To the bold, it sounds all the same. As it stands now, a receiver must maintain possession on his way to the ground in order for a pass to be ruled complete. Even if you change the rules, you still have the same type of interpretative quandary. You still have a case for subjectivity because if the rule changes, you have to determine whether it is indeed a catch even if the player snags it like Dez did then mistakenly loses it on the way down. At what point did Dez make the catch? Up in the air? So any point beyond that, regardless of what happens, Dez's catch, and all such like it, would be ruled a catch. Furthermore, does two steps while you're falling constitute possession? Again, there are just so many areas where interpretations are involved. You simply can't get around it.

Again, there's no way you're going to eliminate subjectivity. And I've heard others say that the rule takes away the guessing game. It just so happens that there are those special cases that seemingly lie "outside" the rules.

Furthermore, I wouldn't say that humans resist logic. I think I'd say humans try to create rules to govern general situations. But every now and then, there are situations that don't seem to be covered by the rules. And that's why we've coined the phrase "There's an exception to every rule."

Perhaps I am not making myself clear when I state that a rule change will address the problem. Here's a link to my version of revising the current rule as an example:

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/the-...etc-thread-merged.312899/page-28#post-5937891

If the language, which I have highlighted in red, had been absence during the officials review of Bryant's play, the call would not have been reversed for the reasons stated. Of course THAT DOES NOT MEAN the officials, using MY revised rule, would not have ruled against Bryant, saying, for example, that Bryant bobbled the ball and never had established control DESPITE the video evidence. Still, that scenario would enjoy a very small probability of occurring but the re-occurrence of another bad call based on the language of the current rule is highly probable.

No one, especially me, desires a perfect rule. No such thing has ever been created by humanity. However, people have always had the capacity to improve upon flawed rules.

And yes. Humans resist logic. I do apologize that I did not clarify my observation by including "at varying degrees for differing situations during any given circumstance."

 

[logii]

I like your point and your suggestion about the ball not being bobbled on the way to the ground.

But the statement in bold is still open to interpretation. I would eliminate "the ball not moving" because if a player simultaneously catches the ball then shifts it to another hand while both arms are extended (say he catches with his left hand and shifts the ball to his right while both are in the air and he falls to the ground in a similar manner that Dez did, and the ball comes out. The ball, by the letter of the law, moves) and the ball comes out when he hits the ground (kind of like what Megatron did) then by the definition of the rules, the play would result in an incompletion.

But your suggestion seems to be a little less messy, though I still think it won't alleviate the controversy altogether. And there will arise that unique situation that even leads to questioning under a revised rule.

ah yes. by not moving i meant not being controlled. although control can also be an interpretation, if the rule stated that control would be contacting the hands or arms all the way to the ground after 2 feet were established i'm fine with that. the judgements would then be more the referees judging if there was constant contact rather than interpretations of what constitutes "football moves" for "completing the process of the catch".

while it's true you won't be able to completely eliminate subjectivity, especially as long as there are judges of a sport or in this case referees, i would hope that the rule change would shift the focus of the referees to reviewing more facts on if it's clear that the player maintained contact rather than leaving them more leeway to interpretation of what is football move or whether they think he would have gone to the ground prior to contact. just the facts. did he go to the ground? did he maintain contact all the way to the ground? those questions should be clearer on film for them to judge rather giving them things more open interpretations.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

Just when you feel like you're moving on...

I will never move on. Never.

Its there forever!! which oddly enough benefits the NFL and all involved except the Cowboys!!

But, I will NEVER MOVE ON.

This was beyond a bad call. Beyond an honest mistake....

 

[Cebrin]

I tend to agree with you that if Dez wanted to, he could perhaps have stood up after catching the ball without going to the ground, but that's certainly not clear from the video. The bigger issue to me is that it seems very clear that he was lunging, which should have completed the pass.

If he were falling the entire time, he couldn't turn himself around, take 3 steps and shift the ball from one hand to the next.

 

[percyhoward]

If he were falling the entire time, he couldn't turn himself around, take 3 steps and shift the ball from one hand to the next.

And it doesn't have to be clear on the video that he wasn't falling anyway. It has to be indisputable that he was.

 

[cowboyvic]

I will never move on. Never.

Its there forever!! which oddly enough benefits the NFL and all involved except the Cowboys!!

But, I will NEVER MOVE ON.

This was beyond a bad call. Beyond an honest mistake....

Could not have said it better myself. +1000. what the NFL did to the cowboys is the worst screw job in NFL playoff history. i will never move on and let this go. and neither should Jerry and Garrett. it's a disgrace that Jerry and Garrett just set back and took this crap. they should have fought for their players and fans.

 

[ConstantReboot]

The problem is the ruling as it's stated allows for so much gray area in judging too many variables. There's too much interpretation of the "process of the catch" , when that is completed, and what constitutes a "football move". "Was Dez just falling or making football moves with forward steps and lunge?" It can be interpreted both ways. Dez could appear to be falling or unbalanced but take 50 steps making unbalanced cuts but it can be interpreted as he was clearly falling or going to the ground anyways instead seeing those unbalanced jukes as "football moves." What constitutes a clear lunge? Arm kinda extended or has to be all the way with no bend whatsoever? If it can kinda be bent, what kind of angle and how far? If it's kinda bent, does an arched back count as a clear lunge? If so, how much of an arched back because that could be just how he falls or breaks his fall also.

If there is a new ruling it should be stated that if the player goes to the ground with the ball in possession, the ground cannot cause the incompletion. Possession should constitute the ball not moving or being bobbled on the way to the ground. That way a receiver would not be able to make a completion as a result of the ground also. Just as the ground can't cause a fumble, the ground should not be able to cause an incompletion because it was "possessed" prior up until that point just as is the case in a fumble.

If that rule was in place that would leave less room for gray area. If that rule were in play, all 3 instances would be be catches as Megatron, Gresham, and Dez all maintained control up to the ground with the ground causing the dislodging of the ball. If however, the ball was moving or being bobbled prior to contacting the ground, that should be an incompletion.

Look up the rule on what a catch is.

Two feet down. Control of the ball, etc.

Bryant fulfilled these requirements and more.

The Calvin Johnson rule doesn't apply here. Thats nothing more than a diversion for a bad and biased call. Thats a catch.

 

[tyke1doe]

Could not have said it better myself. +1000. what the NFL did to the cowboys is the worst screw job in NFL playoff history. i will never move on and let this go. and neither should Jerry and Garrett. it's a disgrace that Jerry and Garrett just set back and took this crap. they should have fought for their players and fans.

And done exactly what???

 

[big dog cowboy]

The Calvin Johnson rule doesn't apply here. Thats nothing more than a diversion for a bad and biased call. Thats a catch.

It's not that hard to figure out is it?

 

[JoeBoBBY]

It's not that hard to figure out is it?

apparently, for some it is. including the NFL officiating crew ....

i will never let this go. i will never understand why? there is more to it then an honest mistake....

no one if that incompetent...

 

[ConstantReboot]

It's not that hard to figure out is it?

I wish the NFL would figure it out. For some reason they can't.

 

[cowboyvic]

And done exactly what???

Throw a fit and let them know they are really pissed about this playoff screw job. that's what they can do.WAKE UP and stop making excuses for this screw job.