News: ESPN: NFL owners OK new catch rule by 32-0 vote

[percyhoward]

It all started with the Bert Emanuel play in 1999, the year that instant replay returned to the NFL for good after a six-year hiatus. The rule at that time was that if the ball touched the ground while the player was in the act of catching a pass, it was incomplete. The league decided that this was an unfair rule, and that the ball should be allowed to touch the ground as long as it didn't move. The following season, they changed the rule to say that the ball could touch the ground if the player maintained control throughout the process.

"It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground, and that control is maintained after the ball has touched the ground."​

This led to years of replays looking at whether or not the ball touched the ground, and if so, whether it moved. These replays also brought up the question of whether the player had already completed the act of catching the pass when the ball hit the ground, because if that was the case, it was okay for the ball to move, or even come loose completely.

Interestingly, only then did the 3-part catch process begin to take shape. For plays other than sideline or end line catches, the only catches that are ever in doubt are the ones that involve contact with the ground or another player. That's why the ancestor of Item 1 ("going to the ground" rule) is older than the ancestor of the catch process. That's also why the 2015 change to Item 1 affected more catches than any change to the catch process would have affected.

So it's odd that when the NFL announced the new catch rule, it focused on the 3-part catch process rather than on Item 1. The league told us "Oh by the way" that "going to the ground" (which I assume means Item 1) would be eliminated.

 

[blindzebra]

It all started with the Bert Emanuel play in 1999, the year that instant replay returned to the NFL for good after a six-year hiatus. The rule at that time was that if the ball touched the ground while the player was in the act of catching a pass, it was incomplete. The league decided that this was an unfair rule, and that the ball should be allowed to touch the ground as long as it didn't move. The following season, they changed the rule to say that the ball could touch the ground if the player maintained control throughout the process.

"It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground, and that control is maintained after the ball has touched the ground."​

This led to years of replays looking at whether or not the ball touched the ground, and if so, whether it moved. These replays also brought up the question of whether the player had already completed the act of catching the pass when the ball hit the ground, because if that was the case, it was okay for the ball to move, or even come loose completely.

Interestingly, only then did the 3-part catch process begin to take shape. For plays other than sideline or end line catches, the only catches that are ever in doubt are the ones that involve contact with the ground or another player. That's why the ancestor of Item 1 ("going to the ground" rule) is older than the ancestor of the catch process. That's also why the 2015 change to Item 1 affected more catches than any change to the catch process would have affected.

So it's odd that when the NFL announced the new catch rule, it focused on the 3-part catch process rather than on Item 1. The league told us "Oh by the way" that "going to the ground" (which I assume means Item 1) would be eliminated.

Which makes you wonder just how smart these people are.

Going to the ground as a rule was unnecessary if you have a 3 point catch process in place. If a player has control and gets two feet down, but does not become a runner before they hit the ground and the ball comes out what can it be? It is not a fumble because they were never a runner. It is not a catch because they never completed the catch process. All that is left is incomplete. I mean seriously that is just common sense.

 

[percyhoward]

Which makes you wonder just how smart these people are.

For what it's worth, evidently they were at least as smart as Jeff Fisher.

 

[Idgit]

What is even better is the same people in this thread and the others supporting the Dez play say that is inconclusive.

I didn't even think to check if this was covered elsewhere in this thread. I basically only come in here every couple of days to make sure people are still being nice to each other. Sorry if I derailed it.

That was not inconclusive, for the record. It's absurd that it was ruled a catch at all.

 

[percyhoward]

I didn't even think to check if this was covered elsewhere in this thread. I basically only come in here every couple of days to make sure people are still being nice to each other. Sorry if I derailed it.

That was not inconclusive, for the record. It's absurd that it was ruled a catch at all.

You didn't derail anything. This train went off the tracks long ago, and is currently traversing uncharted mountains, canyons, and swamps.

I'd say we're being as nice as can be expected, given the nonsense we deal with on a daily basis.

 

[blindzebra]

I didn't even think to check if this was covered elsewhere in this thread. I basically only come in here every couple of days to make sure people are still being nice to each other. Sorry if I derailed it.

That was not inconclusive, for the record. It's absurd that it was ruled a catch at all.

It was in another of the Dez threads.

 

[DogFace]

I’ve got too many things better to do than to continue wasting my time with this. You’re never going to see it and not going to continue trying to explain it. This is why these threads go on as long as they do.

How’d I know you’d say that? Probably because everyone, but one person on your side of the argument attempted to discuss the Calvin play compared to the Dez catch.

I don’t know why it’s so hard to admit that you’re wrong. Try it. It can be liberating. Fooling yourself really is fooling no one.

 

[DogFace]

You need to think and pay attention to context - I didn't use Blandino's words to make an argument about the way the play was called, and in fact, the words I referred to supported your side. I merely mentioned that video to show I am willing to look at what information people on your side of the argument provide.

But, ignoring Blandino's words, I've cited the rule many times - over and over. Item 1 says a player going to the ground has to maintain possession, and it doesn't indicate that it is subservient to the 3 step process, nor does it say the 3 step process can override it. If we ignore Blandino's words, what is there to dispute that?

The point is that before the Dez catch Blandino said different things about what was required to complete a catch while gong to the ground and what circumvented what After the Dez catch his explanations changed. A few times and were wildly inconsistent.

His 2013 tutorial made it clear. I do applaud you for addressing that video. Despite the fact this is on the internet and doesn’t really matter many on your side lacked the integrity within this debate to respond about the video.

 

[DogFace]

Didn't see it posted, but I'll add it here just in case there's already a thread.

Owners also eliminated the PAT requirement after a walk-off TD. No more awkward end of game situations like in MN when they had to drag a handful of Saints back on to the field, just so the winning team can kneel down for a 2 pt. try.

That’s bull****!!!

They’re ruining the game!

 

[percyhoward]

The new rule isn't going to say that a player going to the ground has to maintain possession through the play, and my understanding of the rule as it was proposed, the definition of a "football move'' will include a reach and a 3rd step, which was not in the rule in 2014. Accordingly, it is not the same rule.

In 2015, they told us they were just clarifying the rule, but they really changed it. Nothing is official yet, but as another poster so astutely noted, it appears that this new rule for 2018 really is a clarification of the 2011-14 rule, as it 1) gives specific examples of 2011-14's football move "advancing with the ball," and 2) leaves no doubt that the catch process can be completed while falling.

Failure to complete the catch process still results in an incomplete pass, whether the player is on the ground or upright. While they're spelling out football moves, they might as well make "surviving the ground" a football move, because people who don't understand "football move" probably also won't understand that surviving the ground satisfies the time element and completes the catch process.

History should teach them not to list "surviving the ground" as an item separate from the catch process, because 1999's "Bert Emanuel Rule" was the seed that sprouted into Item 1.

 

[Kevinicus]

Didn't see it posted, but I'll add it here just in case there's already a thread.

Owners also eliminated the PAT requirement after a walk-off TD. No more awkward end of game situations like in MN when they had to drag a handful of Saints back on to the field, just so the winning team can kneel down for a 2 pt. try.

I have a slight problem with this. There are situations this can matter (1 pt game, and playoff tie-breakers).

 

[aria]

So did Dez catch it or not?

 

[percyhoward]

Here is the first application of Item 1 ("going to the ground"), from week 1 of 2009. This predates the Calvin Johnson play by a full year. Slow motion replay of Louis Murphy's overturned catch begins at :23

It's the kind of play that will always cause controversy, even with the new rule. This is completely a judgment call, because it's in the end zone so there is no football move to look for. Is it a catch? After control with two feet down, he doesn't do anything except fall down.

Assuming Item 1 is eliminated, the official in 2018 will have to decide whether or not the receiver completed the catch process, exactly as the replay official decided on this play in 2009. He ruled that "as part of the process of making the catch, the receiver was going to the ground. He lost possession as he went to the ground, therefore the pass is incomplete."

In 2018, with no more going to the ground rule, the official on the field might decide that the receiver did not maintain possession long enough to perform an act common to the game, and rule it incomplete.

Or he might decide that possession was maintained long enough, and rule it a catch and a touchdown.

Although it seems like the league stopped short of Pereira's suggestion that the third part of the catch process not be reviewable, this is exactly the kind of play that will put to the test the point of emphasis that "indisputable" evidence is required to overturn the ruling on the field. Whatever the field officials rule this kind of play, that's how it should stand.

 

[CPanther95]

I have a slight problem with this. There are situations this can matter (1 pt game, and playoff tie-breakers).

Playoff tiebreaker could be a problem, but total points scored tiebreaker is extremely rare since it is so far down the list.

It wouldn't affect a one or 2 point game ... this is only for walk off TDs where the victory is assured with the 6 point TD.

 

[KJJ]

How’d I know you’d say that? Probably because everyone, but one person on your side of the argument attempted to discuss the Calvin play compared to the Dez catch.

I don’t know why it’s so hard to admit that you’re wrong. Try it. It can be liberating. Fooling yourself really is fooling no one.

I’ve compared both Calvin Johnson plays to the Dez play numerous times. I asked you to provide a video of a receiver who was ruled going to the ground during the process of making the catch, where they lost the ball when contacting the ground and it was ruled a catch and you provided the Julius Thomas play. Thomas was not going to the ground during the process of making the catch and Blandino pointed that out in the video you provided.

Providing that play proved you don’t understand the rule. The only one who’s wrong and fooling themselves is you but you won’t admit it because you’re part of the group that wants to keep this argument going. I have better things to do with my time but apparently you don’t.

 

[DogFace]

I’ve compared both Calvin Johnson plays to the Dez play numerous times. I asked you to provide a video of a receiver who was ruled going to the ground during the process of making the catch, where they lost the ball when contacting the ground and it was ruled a catch and you provided the Julius Thomas play. Thomas was not going to the ground during the process of making the catch and Blandino pointed that out in the video you provided.

Providing that play proved you don’t understand the rule. The only one who’s wrong and fooling themselves is you but you won’t admit it because you’re part of the group that wants to keep this argument going. I have better things to do with my time but apparently you don’t.

First I provided the Calvin Johnson play. I also said the Thomas one was in the same link.

Calvin, as the second sentence says, was going to the ground in the process of making the catch. He didn’t complete the catch ONLY because he didn’t get two feet down prior to the lunge. Had he it would’ve been a completion EVEN THOUGH he was going to the ground.

You often go to the tactic of insulting, telling others they don’t understand, because that is who you are.

You’re not understanding this. Calvin did lose the ball when he hit the ground. He was also going to the ground in the process of making the catch.

Imagine, just imagine for a moment he had gotten two feet down prior to the reach. That’s what Blandino is trying to make people like you understand. What would’ve made it a catch. What was missing. Only the two feet down prior to the reach.

Everyone else does understand this. Blondfaith said the rules changed and that’s why that example doesn’t apply anymore—that was a lie. Omar said “Blandino seems to indicate a player could complete the process while going to the ground”. Marcussock cried to the admins that it hurt his feelings.

You are the only one that’s not understanding that this tutorial, the Calvin Johnson play, would’ve been ruled a catch had he gotten two feet down.

He jumped.
He landed and immediately(he was not nearly as upright as Dez) went to the ground while performing his reach for the endzone. He ONLY failed to get two feet down prior to the reach. It was ruled incomplete because he didn’t get two feet down. That’s the only reason. Do you understand what that is saying/means?

This is about the Calvin Johnson play :

“This is something we’ve worked really hard at to educate people, in terms of the catch process.”


“Let’s look at the play from week one, the Minn. Det. Game where Calvin is GOING TO THE GROUND in the PROCESS of MAKING THE CATCH.

The process of the catch is a 3 part process-control, 2 feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 parts, in that order, you HAVE a catch. If not and you’re GOING TO THE GROUND you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.

That was about the Calvin Johnson play.


Please be an honest debater. You owe it to the site and yourself.

 

[percyhoward]

Imagine, just imagine for a moment he had gotten two feet down prior to the reach. That’s what Blandino is trying to make people like you understand. What would’ve made it a catch. What was missing. Only the two feet down prior to the reach

This is certainly the natural conclusion to draw from what Blandino said in that video. It's the also the way a Detroit reporter understood it at the time. Does this Detroit reporter's interpretation of Blandino's words make him an emotional (but clairvoyant) Cowboys fan reacting to a play that wouldn't happen until more than a year later?

"According to Blandino, Johnson began his reach for the goal line prior to getting his second foot down, meaning the receiver had to control the ball once he hit the ground. Had Johnson's second foot touched down before he initiated his reach, the call on the field (catch) would have stood."

http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2013/09/vp_of_nfl_officiating_offers_c.html

 

[KJJ]

First I provided the Calvin Johnson play. I also said the Thomas one was in the same link.

Calvin, as the second sentence says, was going to the ground in the process of making the catch. He didn’t complete the catch ONLY because he didn’t get two feet down prior to the lunge. Had he it would’ve been a completion EVEN THOUGH he was going to the ground.

You often go to the tactic of insulting, telling others they don’t understand, because that is who you are.

You’re not understanding this. Calvin did lose the ball when he hit the ground. He was also going to the ground in the process of making the catch.

Imagine, just imagine for a moment he had gotten two feet down prior to the reach. That’s what Blandino is trying to make people like you understand. What would’ve made it a catch. What was missing. Only the two feet down prior to the reach.

Everyone else does understand this. Blondfaith said the rules changed and that’s why that example doesn’t apply anymore—that was a lie. Omar said “Blandino seems to indicate a player could complete the process while going to the ground”. Marcussock cried to the admins that it hurt his feelings.

You are the only one that’s not understanding that this tutorial, the Calvin Johnson play, would’ve been ruled a catch had he gotten two feet down.

He jumped.
He landed and immediately(he was not nearly as upright as Dez) went to the ground while performing his reach for the endzone. He ONLY failed to get two feet down prior to the reach. It was ruled incomplete because he didn’t get two feet down. That’s the only reason. Do you understand what that is saying/means?

This is about the Calvin Johnson play :

“This is something we’ve worked really hard at to educate people, in terms of the catch process.”


“Let’s look at the play from week one, the Minn. Det. Game where Calvin is GOING TO THE GROUND in the PROCESS of MAKING THE CATCH.

The process of the catch is a 3 part process-control, 2 feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 parts, in that order, you HAVE a catch. If not and you’re GOING TO THE GROUND you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.

That was about the Calvin Johnson play.


Please be an honest debater. You owe it to the site and yourself.

I asked you to provide a video of a receiver who was ruled going to the ground during the process of making the catch, where they lost the ball when contacting the ground and it was ruled a catch and you provided a video of Calvin Johnson. He was going to the ground during the process of making the catch and it was ruled incomplete because he didn’t hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. The other video that was provided showed Julius Thomas who wasn’t going to the ground during the process of making the catch and although he lost the ball when contacting the ground it was ruled complete because he established himself as a runner prior to going to the ground.

No video exists of a receiver performing the three steps necessary for a completed pass who began going to the ground during the process of making a catch, then immediately lost the ball when contacting the ground and it was ruled a catch. Provide a video of a receiver who jumped in the air to make a catch and began falling to the ground during the catch process but was able to get both feet down for a completed catch even though they lost the ball when contacting the ground.

 

[KJJ]

He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.

That was about the Calvin Johnson play.


Please be an honest debater. You owe it to the site and yourself.

That’s what Blandino said that Calvin Johnson didn’t have both feet down prior to the reach for the goal line. Answer this question, do you think Dez had both feet down prior to the reach for the goal line?

 

[KJJ]

Are you seriously trying to say Bryant didn't get his 2nd foot down before he reached?

No, I’m saying Dez DID have a second foot down before he reached, that’s my point. He took three steps before he reached. In the video Mr_C provided, Blandino said had Calvin Johnson got both feet down prior to the reach for the endzone it would have been a completed pass. Dez got both feet down prior to reaching for the end zone but his was ruled incomplete. Blandino provided a second set of eyes on that play.

Blandino had different explanations for all these rulings. What’s been perfectly clear is that when a receiver was going to the ground during the catch process and lost the ball when contacting the ground everyone of those plays were ruled incomplete regardless if the receiver got both feet down.