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

[blindzebra]

Provide some documentation as to how they explained the Cruz call. That call happened prior to the Dez play. Had the Cruz play happened after the Dez play, no way they rule that a completed pass. More scrutiny was placed on the rule after the Dez play.

Find your own documentation, you are the one trying to refute it.

 

[blindzebra]

It’s laughable you trying to explain what Blandino said. Lol I quoted him. If want to continue wasting your time arguing go ahead. It’s no mystery why these threads keep going and going and going. Once this one is finally done you’ll disappear until the next one.

It is called context, and not picking out one sentence and misinterpreting its meaning to fit your failed argument and complete failure you understand the rules.

 

[KJJ]

Find your own documentation, you are the one trying to refute it.

Try and find someone who’s going to say that play is different than both Johnson plays, the Dez play and the Jesse James play. Good luck!

 

[KJJ]

It is called context, and not picking out one sentence and misinterpreting its meaning to fit your failed argument and complete failure you understand the rules.

I quoted Blandino and you twisted what he said...fact! The video and audio is proof.

 

[blindzebra]

Try and find someone who’s going to say that play is different than both Johnson plays, the Dez play and the Jesse James play. Good luck!

It is different then both Johnson plays (Endzone, not getting 2 feet down) , and it is similar to Dez and James proves we are correct and you are wrong.

 

[blindzebra]

I quoted Blandino and you twisted what he said...fact! The video and audio is proof.

No, you ignored everything he said before that, that contradicts your interpretation of the last sentence...and that is the fact.

 

[KJJ]

It is different then both Johnson plays, and the fact that it is similar to Dez and James proves we are correct and you are wrong.

Go play your delusional game somewhere else. It’s obvious you have nothing else better to do than this.

 

[KJJ]

No, you ignored everything he said before that, that contradicts your interpretation of the last sentence...and that is the fact.

I took in everything he said before that and you twisted what he said after that....fact!

 

[blindzebra]

Go play your delusional game somewhere else. It’s obvious you have nothing else better to do than this.

Yet you keep replying....hmmmm

 

[blindzebra]

I took in everything he said before that and you twisted what he said after that....fact!

I don't think you have any idea what the word fact means.
Makes sense because you have no idea what the rules are either.

 

[KJJ]

Yet you keep replying....hmmmm

If you want to spend all night on this go ahead, I’m done!

 

[blindzebra]

If you want to spend all night on this go ahead, I’m done!

 

[percyhoward]

Had the Cruz play happened after the Dez play, no way they rule that a completed pass. More scrutiny was placed on the rule after the Dez play.

You're basically right that something did in fact change after the Dez play. They started requiring the player to be upright while he completed the catch process.

At no point was Cruz on his feet and upright with control of the ball. Even though Cruz was just falling, they assumed he had both feet down, then the reach made him a runner so he didn't have to survive the ground. That's how these plays were ruled prior to 2015, when they added this sentence to item 1:

2015
Item 1. Player Going to the Ground
A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. 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 until after his initial contact with 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.

2014
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.​

After they added that the player must "remain upright long enough" to complete the catch and become a runner, the player could no longer complete the catch and become a runner by making a football move while falling. That's when all these plays that were catches started being ruled incomplete according to the rule from 2015-17.

And it's why we've got a new rule in 2018.

 

[BlindFaith]

You're basically right that something did in fact change after the Dez play. They started requiring the player to be upright while he completed the catch process.

At no point was Cruz on his feet and upright with control of the ball. Even though Cruz was just falling, they assumed he had both feet down, then the reach made him a runner so he didn't have to survive the ground. That's how these plays were ruled prior to 2015, when they added this sentence to item 1:

2015
Item 1. Player Going to the Ground
A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. 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 until after his initial contact with 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.

2014
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.​

After they added that the player must "remain upright long enough" to complete the catch and become a runner, the player could no longer complete the catch and become a runner by making a football move while falling. That's when all these plays that were catches started being ruled incomplete according to the rule from 2015-17.

And it's why we've got a new rule in 2018.

I've tried to stay out of this, but things need to get reigned back in.

First, you are trying to find every borderline play you can find where as much judgement as possible has to be applied. Fine, let's go with it.

The Cruz play would have been ruled a catch even if had happened after the Dez play, provided the same judgement of if he was going to the ground in the process.

They determined that Cruz had established himself as a runner prior to beginning to go to the ground.

If no player had contacted him, he would not have fell. Even with contact, he was still in a position to twist and reach. But his momentum was not clearly taking him to the ground. You could easily apply the regain balance plus lunge/reach concept here.

And yes, I know that contact by another player should not matter.

This play could have easily been ruled incomplete. But I have no problem with it being called complete either. It is the exact example of being completely on the boarder.

But if you can't see the difference between that play and the Johnson play, then you don't understand the rule. Johnsons momentum was taking him to the ground the whole way.

This video demonstrates exactly the differences that Blandino was TRYING to call out in his explanation that you use as your lynch pin of truth to support your argument.

This proves nothing other than yes, there is judgment involved. But the new rule change will have plenty of judgment calls as well.

 

[blindzebra]

I've tried to stay out of this, but things need to get reigned back in.

First, you are trying to find every borderline play you can find where as much judgement as possible has to be applied. Fine, let's go with it.

The Cruz play would have been ruled a catch even if had happened after the Dez play, provided the same judgement of if he was going to the ground in the process.

They determined that Cruz had established himself as a runner prior to beginning to go to the ground.

If no player had contacted him, he would not have fell. Even with contact, he was still in a position to twist and reach. But his momentum was not clearly taking him to the ground. You could easily apply the regain balance plus lunge/reach concept here.

And yes, I know that contact by another player should not matter.

This play could have easily been ruled incomplete. But I have no problem with it being called complete either. It is the exact example of being completely on the boarder.

But if you can't see the difference between that play and the Johnson play, then you don't understand the rule. Johnsons momentum was taking him to the ground the whole way.

This video demonstrates exactly the differences that Blandino was TRYING to call out in his explanation that you use as your lynch pin of truth to support your argument.

This proves nothing other than yes, there is judgment involved. But the new rule change will have plenty of judgment calls as well.

As usual total and complete BS. You really should have stayed out of it.

 

[percyhoward]

This play could have easily been ruled incomplete. But I have no problem with it being called complete either. It is the exact example of being completely on the boarder.

This play should not have been ruled a catch because Cruz only got one foot down. It was erroneously ruled a catch -- here's the important part -- because they thought he'd completed the catch process (control + two feet down + football move). In this case the football move was his reach for the goal line. Because he'd completed the catch process, he didn't have to hold onto the ball when he hit the ground. They thought he was a runner.

The following has been true for decades:
"to complete the catch process" = "to become a runner"

Over time, the catch process underwent several changes, but beginning in 2011 a player completed the catch process (became a runner) if he...
A) had control of the ball,
B) got two feet down, and
C) maintained control long enough to perform any act common to the game

A player did not have to be upright in order to complete the catch process and become a runner. Item 1 ("going to the ground") addressed players who don't complete the three-part process before they hit the ground. It said that even if the player went to the ground, he could complete the process if he maintained possession after contacting the ground. This is also known as "surviving the ground."

In 2015, when they added "a player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner," it effectively created a new standard for completing the catch process if the player was not upright. It also meant that there were now two definitions of "becoming a runner" in the rule book at the same time. Both definitions agreed that a runner is a player in possession of a live ball. But they disagreed over how the player obtained this possession. According to the older definition, he completed the catch process. According to the newer one, he completed the catch process while upright. "Upright long enough" wasn't added to the the three-part catch process, but was instead put into Item 1 ("going to the ground").

Also in 2015, as a companion piece to that aforementioned change, they removed "advancing with the ball" from the list of football moves in part C of the catch process, leaving "the ability to ward off a defender" as the only football move. These two changes made the older standard meaningless. How? Because you can make football moves and be able to ward off defenders while not being upright long enough, but you can't be upright long enough without also being able to ward off defenders and make football moves.

That's why there was virtually no practical effect when the catch committee spelled out several football moves and they were added to part C in 2016. (Yes, they tried to fix the catch rule after just one year of "upright long enough.") But part C had already been emasculated, so no matter how they changed it, it could only affect plays that involved a player losing control while still upright. After 2015, it could only ever do that. The real problem lay in the types of catches that involved going to the ground. If there was to be a practical change, it had to happen to Item 1 ("going to the ground") where they had put in the requirement of remaining upright long enough.

This past week, they said that they're eliminating Item 1 completely, which along with it eliminates the requirement to be upright long enough.

How that requirement got in there in the first place is a whole other story, but it started in Green Bay.

 

[Bullflop]

U-m-m, theoretically, 32 supposedly intelligent owners can't be wrong, can they?

(Just kidding) -- the new catch rule will be tested . . . let's see where it takes us.

 

[BlindFaith]

This play should not have been ruled a catch because Cruz only got one foot down. It was erroneously ruled a catch -- here's the important part -- because they thought he'd completed the catch process (control + two feet down + football move). In this case the football move was his reach for the goal line. Because he'd completed the catch process, he didn't have to hold onto the ball when he hit the ground. They thought he was a runner.

The following has been true for decades:
"to complete the catch process" = "to become a runner"

Over time, the catch process underwent several changes, but beginning in 2011 a player completed the catch process (became a runner) if he...
A) had control of the ball,
B) got two feet down, and
C) maintained control long enough to perform any act common to the game

A player did not have to be upright in order to complete the catch process and become a runner. Item 1 ("going to the ground") addressed players who don't complete the three-part process before they hit the ground. It said that even if the player went to the ground, he could complete the process if he maintained possession after contacting the ground. This is also known as "surviving the ground."

In 2015, when they added "a player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner," it effectively created a new standard for completing the catch process if the player was not upright. It also meant that there were now two definitions of "becoming a runner" in the rule book at the same time. Both definitions agreed that a runner is a player in possession of a live ball. But they disagreed over how the player obtained this possession. According to the older definition, he completed the catch process. According to the newer one, he completed the catch process while upright. "Upright long enough" wasn't added to the the three-part catch process, but was instead put into Item 1 ("going to the ground").

Also in 2015, as a companion piece to that aforementioned change, they removed "advancing with the ball" from the list of football moves in part C of the catch process, leaving "the ability to ward off a defender" as the only football move. These two changes made the older standard meaningless. How? Because you can make football moves and be able to ward off defenders while not being upright long enough, but you can't be upright long enough without also being able to ward off defenders and make football moves.

That's why there was virtually no practical effect when the catch committee spelled out several football moves and they were added to part C in 2016. (Yes, they tried to fix the catch rule after just one year of "upright long enough.") But part C had already been emasculated, so no matter how they changed it, it could only affect plays that involved a player losing control while still upright. After 2015, it could only ever do that. The real problem lay in the types of catches that involved going to the ground. If there was to be a practical change, it had to happen to Item 1 ("going to the ground") where they had put in the requirement of remaining upright long enough.

This past week, they said that they're eliminating Item 1 completely, which along with it eliminates the requirement to be upright long enough.

How that requirement got in there in the first place is a whole other story, but it started in Green Bay.

You don't understand the concept of the rule.

If you did, you could see why they ruled it a catch for Cruz. And you would see clearly why Johnsons was ruled not a catch.

Until you can acknowledge that, I can't help you. You can copy and paste all the rules you want, over and over. Find every obscure, boarder line play that they didn't explain it with thorough, precise and articulate language.

But it changes nothing. Instead, why don't you ever address the other 100 videos, explanations, comments, expert analysis?

You are a classic conspiracy theorist. There is an 80/20 concept that works well in life. If it works 80% of the time, or if 80% of the factual evidence supports a view, go with it. This whole catch conspiracy has only a handful of Cowboys fan with no factual evidence.

If you were to walk into a room of NFL officials and present your case, it would take them less than 5 minutes to tell you that you're wrong. They would leave chuckling and you would leave still saying they are wrong.

You are only somewhat relevant here with your view because you have some emotional Cowboys fans that never knew the rule and don't even want to bother understanding it, that just like to say "we wuz robbed".

Thats just the truth. You haven't proved anything. The NFL removing the going to the ground rule to make the Dez play a catch going forward should have shut this thing down.

But you have some desire to, what? What's your goal here? To convince the we wuz robbed fans that you unlocked a conspiracy? Because those handful of Cowboys fans are the only ones that may take you seriously.

I think you're a good dude. You provide a lot to this board. I ignore the other parrots that just regurgitate nonsense or flat out lie.

But I'm saying this as honestly as I can. You have and continue to misunderstand this part of the rule and how it was applied. And for whatever reason, simply refuse to accept the expert explanations. And only hang on to the thread of a couple of examples that were poorly explained.

 

[blindzebra]

You don't understand the concept of the rule.

If you did, you could see why they ruled it a catch for Cruz. And you would see clearly why Johnsons was ruled not a catch.

Until you can acknowledge that, I can't help you. You can copy and paste all the rules you want, over and over. Find every obscure, boarder line play that they didn't explain it with thorough, precise and articulate language.

But it changes nothing. Instead, why don't you ever address the other 100 videos, explanations, comments, expert analysis?

You are a classic conspiracy theorist. There is an 80/20 concept that works well in life. If it works 80% of the time, or if 80% of the factual evidence supports a view, go with it. This whole catch conspiracy has only a handful of Cowboys fan with no factual evidence.

If you were to walk into a room of NFL officials and present your case, it would take them less than 5 minutes to tell you that you're wrong. They would leave chuckling and you would leave still saying they are wrong.

You are only somewhat relevant here with your view because you have some emotional Cowboys fans that never knew the rule and don't even want to bother understanding it, that just like to say "we wuz robbed".

Thats just the truth. You haven't proved anything. The NFL removing the going to the ground rule to make the Dez play a catch going forward should have shut this thing down.

But you have some desire to, what? What's your goal here? To convince the we wuz robbed fans that you unlocked a conspiracy? Because those handful of Cowboys fans are the only ones that may take you seriously.

I think you're a good dude. You provide a lot to this board. I ignore the other parrots that just regurgitate nonsense or flat out lie.

But I'm saying this as honestly as I can. You have and continue to misunderstand this part of the rule and how it was applied. And for whatever reason, simply refuse to accept the expert explanations. And only hang on to the thread of a couple of examples that were poorly explained.

Yeah the parrots that kicked your butt repeatedly in these threads. And calling anyone a liar is laughable Mr. They changed the rules after 2013 to expain away that 2013 video. I'd love to get in a room with 5 NFL officials who got to speak off the record and who were working before the Dez play. And they would not be laughing at Percy and me, they'd be laughing with us as we told them your nonsense.

 

[percyhoward]

Why don't you ever address the other 100 videos, explanations, comments, expert analysis?

So far, we've got three plays from before the 2015 rule change (Johnson, Cruz, Bryant) that clearly show that a player could complete the catch process with a reach while falling. We've got zero that show he couldn't. Find one, and you'll be onto something.

And we can disagree without having to label each other. I'm no more a "conspiracy theorist" than you are a sheep.