Fitz catch vs. Dez non-catch

[Hoofbite]

That is completely wrong. It clearly states he completed step 1 control, got one foot down and was contacted and THE RESULT OF THAT CONTACT CAUSED HIM TO GO TO THE GROUND. He was not a runner when contacted he completed step 2 with a second step and then a football move with the lunge.

The caseplay is clear and nearly identical to what happened in GB, and it proves without any doubt that they got it wrong.

Perhaps you should read it again. The lunge is noted to not have been a part of the process of the catch. The lunge was not the football move.

Best I can tell the football move was the player "bracing himself". Keeping himself upright to afford himself the opportunity to make the lunge. If not that, then there is no football move and whole example because absolutely pointless because the player doesn't even satisfy the 3 prerequisites required for a completed pass. If not the brace nor the lunge, there's nothing in between the 2nd foot coming down and the lunge to satisfy the football move.

Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The pass is complete. When the receiver hits the ground in the end zone, it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of the catch. Since the ball crossed the goal line, it is a touchdown. If the ball is short of the goal line, it is a catch, and A2 is down by contact.

So no. This player did not complete the process of the catch and lose possession along the way.

He caught the ball, contact caused him to go to the ground (somehow without resulting in down by contact), got the 2nd foot down, and then braced himself. Most importantly, he maintained possession all along the way through as it wasn't until the end of the lunge that he lost possession. The lunge was a subsequent act that was made after having completed the process.

As an aside, if you want to watch the play that this case play is almost assuredly built off of then here it is. Some may remember it.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000240906/Cruz-18-yard-TD-catch

 

[blindzebra]

Perhaps you should read it again. The lunge is noted to not have been a part of the process of the catch. The lunge was not the football move.

Best I can tell the football move was the player "bracing himself". Keeping himself upright to afford himself the opportunity to make the lunge. If not that, then there is no football move and whole example because absolutely pointless because the player doesn't even satisfy the 3 prerequisites required for a completed pass. If not the brace nor the lunge, there's nothing in between the 2nd foot coming down and the lunge to satisfy the football move.



So no. This player did not complete the process of the catch and lose possession along the way.

He caught the ball, contact caused him to go to the ground (somehow without resulting in down by contact), got the 2nd foot down, and then braced himself. Most importantly, he maintained possession all along the way through as it wasn't until the end of the lunge that he lost possession. The lunge was a subsequent act that was made after having completed the process.

As an aside, if you want to watch the play that this case play is almost assuredly built off of then here it is. Some may remember it.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000240906/Cruz-18-yard-TD-catch

Are you really that dense?

Clearly what was meant was that it was no longer part of attempting to make the catch, in other words the player is now a runner and the ball came out as a runner downed by contact. The case play clearly destroys all the arguments being put forward by you and the rest of the people defending the overturn who keep saying that going to the ground trumps everything.

A side-by-side comparison of the case play and Dez:

CBP: Player catches ball and lands on one foot...Step one complete.

Dez: Catches ball and lands on two feet...Steps one and two complete.

CBP: Player is contacted and begins to go down.

Dez: Is contacted and turns over 90 degrees and takes a step and is tripped by Shields and begins to go down...one can make the argument that the turn and step complete the catch process.

CPB: Player takes a 2nd step as he continues to go down...Step two complete.

Dez: Changes ball from two hands to one...a move that has nothing to do with the act of catching a pass and is thus a move common to the game...Step three complete and going to the ground is moot.

CPB: Player braces with one arm and lunges...Step three complete.

Dez: Braces with his right arm and pushes off his left leg kicking up turf...Dez does what is worst case the 2nd move common to the game and most likely the third such move.

And as for that being the case play again you are wrong. I tweeted with Mike Pereira about that play and he said that it was in fact not a TD because he never got the second foot down before going into the endzone and thus needed to hold onto the ball. CJ had a TD taken away on an identical play.

 

[Hoofbite]

Watch this (from 2013), and note that you will never hear anything along the lines of "He's making a football move here, but it doesn't matter because he's already started falling." It's always either, "he didn't complete the process of the catch," or "he completed the process, now he's a runner." Falling or upright, doesn't matter.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

Sure you do. Right at the the 2:00 mark.

If you can perform all three 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.​

What do you think he means in saying, "when you hit the ground", in relation to his usage of "going to the ground"? What would you call "going to the ground" when used in such a manner? Certainly isn't when you "hit" the ground because that comes after. Falling is probably appropriate.

Or maybe just listen to his explanation of the Calvin play.

He did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line so this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.​

Calvin actually completes all 3 parts but does not do so in the order outlined in the rulebook. He acknowledge the reach for the goal line, but it doesn't occur after having the 2nd foot down so he has not completed the process. Furthermore, the officials didn't make the call based on the timing of foot placement versus reach. The ball moved and he's going to the ground so that's all that's required to be incomplete, according to the rulebook. Here's how the referee from that game saw things:

After the game, referee John Parry said whether or not Johnson had already crossed into the end zone did not matter in this case and that he saw the ball move without Johnson having control.

“A player that is going to the ground on his own, which Calvin was on that play, must possess and maintain the possession of the football throughout the entire act of the catch,” Parry said. “The catch did not end in that scenario. When the ball hit the end zone, the ball moved. It rotated. So he didn’t maintain possession of the football.”​

And an additional quote:

"The ball moved without control. If he would have maintained control of the football throughout the entire process, it’s a touchdown. But when the ball hit in the end zone, the ball moved. He did not have complete control of the football, which is why it's incomplete.”​

From his perspective, Calvin fulfilled the 3 basic requirements of a completed pass. As it is being called on the field, calls that Blandino is defending by the way, fulfillment of the 3 basic requirements does not negate the requirement to maintain possession once a player has been deemed to be going to the ground. The only thing that mattered was whether or not Johnson held on to the ball after hitting the ground. Once a player is going to the ground the "process of the catch" is extended to include maintaining possession throughout.

Sticking with Calvin, how about comments from Gene Steratore, the official who made the initial Calvin Johnson ruling:

Q: What is the rule used on the near Detroit touchdown at the end of the game?​

Steratore: The ruling is that in order for the catch to be completed he has got to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch.​

Q: He was on his behind before he rolled over. If he stayed on his behind would it have been a touchdown?​

Steratore: No. We don’t play with the two feet or one knee or anything of that scenario. We’re talking now about the process of the catch. He’s catching the football, as he goes to the ground, he must maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process. So as he continues to fall if he fell with two feet and his elbow hit the ground and came out it would be incomplete.​

As for what Blandino talks about, of course his discussion focuses on completing the process or not. That's what determines whether or not the rule can be applied and he's trying to explain to people when the rule is applicable. When you complete the process prior to going to the ground, it's not applicable. When you haven't then the rule is applicable. Ending up on the ground is not the same as going to the ground in process of the catch as evidenced by the Julius Thomas play.

Then watch this (January 2015). It's Blandino's interview after the game. At 1:15, he says they "absolutely" looked for a football move and they decided that it wasn't obvious enough, and that Dez needed to "reach with both hands" or "extend the ball for the goal line." If the rule had been that a football move couldn't be made while falling, then that's all that Blandino would have needed to say. He wouldn't have wasted his time looking for a football move that didn't matter.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-gameday/0ap3000000457053/Dean-Blandino-on-Dez-Bryant-call

Again, a football move can be made while going to the ground but the act of going to the ground adds the requirement that the ball be held on to. If you're going to hang your hat on the fact that Blandino didn't explicitly say that a football act couldn't be made to trump going to the ground then you're missing the actual letter of the rule. A football act was not required. I'm not sure how many times I've had to say this, but you need no football move. You just need the time afforded to have been able to make such a move. If we're going to pretend that the real reason Dez didn't get credit for the catch was because he didn't make enough of a football move then we have to completely ignore that a partial football move itself is indicative of the time necessary to make a football move. The rule is written, and has been relayed to fans countless times, such that it requires the player to maintain possession through the "entire process of going to the ground". There is no exception. Never has been.

We can say Dez didn't make enough of a move, but that only means that he had the time to make a move and according to the rule book that's all that's needed. Why wasn't this addressed? Who knows.

Here's the NFL's explanation of rule changes for the 2011 season. Skip ahead to around 8:10. Listen to the part where it describes how long a player must maintain control. You won't find any exceptions in the rule book, and you won't find any exceptions in this explanation either.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8216a10b/2011-NFL-rule-changes-and-points-of-emphasis

Why didn't Blandino just say that? Who knows. Maybe he wanted to address the specific aspect that was asked of him. Maybe he was trying a different approach seeing how the league has spent years saying just that only to find themselves in a situation where nobody actually understands the rule and they're still called to answer questions about it on television. Whatever the reason, it doesn't really matter. The rulebook doesn't allow it and, in fact, Jim Schwartz spoke on this very issue when questioned about Calvin's TD that was taken off the board in the video you posted.

Lions head coach Jim Schwartz seemed to understand what the refs were thinking.

“If he wasn’t going to the ground as a part of the catch, that would have been the case," Schwartz said, when asked if he thought that Johnson made a 'football move.' "If he would have been on his feet and reaching over and then it would have been a football move. But he was still going to the ground as a part of that catch. I mean, he’s a two-time loser on his own rule."​

Lastly, if you're looking for confirmation that all 3 requirements must be completed before going to the ground (beginning your fall), here ya go with another Dez video.

Dez does get control here, but he doesn't have possession yet until he gets two feet down and has the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. So, if he doesn't complete that before he goes to the ground, he has hold onto it when he lands. He doesn't, that's what makes it incomplete.​

Again we have the same two aspects as before. A clear distinction between "going to the ground" and actually making contact with the ground, this time in the form of "when he lands". Mike Periera has made the same distinction. Also, you may notice that Dez shields himself from the incoming defender. That, by written rule, constitutes and act common to the game. Didn't matter because as it has been demonstrated numerous times, you must retain possession after the process of going to the ground has started.

If you're still not convinced, here's Perreira echoing what Blandino said. Perreira said nothing about the fall negating the catch process, and specifically noted that the catch process was not completed because of the nature of the reach (which obviously happened while Bryant was falling).

"If you're going to the ground, you have to prove that you have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game and do so," said Pereira. "And part of that is stretching all the way out and to me even though he moved the ball a little bit forward, they are not going to consider that a football act."

http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pereira-dez-bryant-reversal-2015-1

First off, you don't have to make any move so Perriera is wrong on that statement.

Again, the line between not enough of a football move and enough of a football requires the time afforded in the first place, and therefore the move is not even necessary. Dez had the time, and on two instances hasn't gotten call.

Why doesn't he just say Dez's fall superseded the catch process? Because it clearly didn't.

Sort of like this?

“Very similar to the Dez play, he’s not a runner before he went to the ground, and the requirement is he has to hold onto the ball. So regardless of any reach, he’s got to hold onto the ball when he lands, and there’s an element of time the receiver has to complete in order to complete a catch. He didn’t complete that element of time and, very similar to the Dez play, it was ruled incomplete,” Blandino said.​

This is his response to Eifert's lost TD from this season. While the rule has changed in as much as what is considered to be "going to the ground", how a player who is going to the ground has not changed at all. In reality, this "new" aspect of time isn't even new so the only change to the rule is that they included like 7 words that explicitly state a player must maintain possession after his initial contact. If that statement applies now and they haven't changed anything in regards to how a player who is going to the ground should be treated, then how can it not apply to Dez? The only way would be if officials are given basic guidelines and are allowed to determine for themselves what is or isn't a catch.

As for Mike Perriera, he's agreed with and disagreed with the NFL on their rulings on this. In fact, the Victor Cruz TD that I posted earlier that can more or less be found in play-by-play form in the NFL casebook is one such play where Periera thinks they made the wrong ruling. Imagine that, Perriera disagrees with how the NFL has instructed officials to call such a play.

Bottom line, the rulebook doesn't allow it, coaches (Marvin Lewis echo'd Schwartz's statement more or less) don't believe a player in the process of going to the ground can complete the catch without maintaining possessions, and officials are not even considering that aspect when a player goes to the ground.

Honestly, what else is there?

 

[DogFace]

Sure you do. Right at the the 2:00 mark.

If you can perform all three 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.​

What do you think he means in saying, "when you hit the ground", in relation to his usage of "going to the ground"? What would you call "going to the ground" when used in such a manner? Certainly isn't when you "hit" the ground because that comes after. Falling is probably appropriate.

Or maybe just listen to his explanation of the Calvin play.

He did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line so this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.​

Calvin actually completes all 3 parts but does not do so in the order outlined in the rulebook. He acknowledge the reach for the goal line, but it doesn't occur after having the 2nd foot down so he has not completed the process. Furthermore, the officials didn't make the call based on the timing of foot placement versus reach. The ball moved and he's going to the ground so that's all that's required to be incomplete, according to the rulebook. Here's how the referee from that game saw things:

After the game, referee John Parry said whether or not Johnson had already crossed into the end zone did not matter in this case and that he saw the ball move without Johnson having control.

“A player that is going to the ground on his own, which Calvin was on that play, must possess and maintain the possession of the football throughout the entire act of the catch,” Parry said. “The catch did not end in that scenario. When the ball hit the end zone, the ball moved. It rotated. So he didn’t maintain possession of the football.”​

And an additional quote:

"The ball moved without control. If he would have maintained control of the football throughout the entire process, it’s a touchdown. But when the ball hit in the end zone, the ball moved. He did not have complete control of the football, which is why it's incomplete.”​

From his perspective, Calvin fulfilled the 3 basic requirements of a completed pass. As it is being called on the field, calls that Blandino is defending by the way, fulfillment of the 3 basic requirements does not negate the requirement to maintain possession once a player has been deemed to be going to the ground. The only thing that mattered was whether or not Johnson held on to the ball after hitting the ground. Once a player is going to the ground the "process of the catch" is extended to include maintaining possession throughout.

Sticking with Calvin, how about comments from Gene Steratore, the official who made the initial Calvin Johnson ruling:

Q: What is the rule used on the near Detroit touchdown at the end of the game?​

Steratore: The ruling is that in order for the catch to be completed he has got to maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process of the catch.​

Q: He was on his behind before he rolled over. If he stayed on his behind would it have been a touchdown?​

Steratore: No. We don’t play with the two feet or one knee or anything of that scenario. We’re talking now about the process of the catch. He’s catching the football, as he goes to the ground, he must maintain possession of the ball throughout the entire process. So as he continues to fall if he fell with two feet and his elbow hit the ground and came out it would be incomplete.​

As for what Blandino talks about, of course his discussion focuses on completing the process or not. That's what determines whether or not the rule can be applied and he's trying to explain to people when the rule is applicable. When you complete the process prior to going to the ground, it's not applicable. When you haven't then the rule is applicable. Ending up on the ground is not the same as going to the ground in process of the catch as evidenced by the Julius Thomas play.



Again, a football move can be made while going to the ground but the act of going to the ground adds the requirement that the ball be held on to. If you're going to hang your hat on the fact that Blandino didn't explicitly say that a football act couldn't be made to trump going to the ground then you're missing the actual letter of the rule. A football act was not required. I'm not sure how many times I've had to say this, but you need no football move. You just need the time afforded to have been able to make such a move. If we're going to pretend that the real reason Dez didn't get credit for the catch was because he didn't make enough of a football move then we have to completely ignore that a partial football move itself is indicative of the time necessary to make a football move. The rule is written, and has been relayed to fans countless times, such that it requires the player to maintain possession through the "entire process of going to the ground". There is no exception. Never has been.

We can say Dez didn't make enough of a move, but that only means that he had the time to make a move and according to the rule book that's all that's needed. Why wasn't this addressed? Who knows.

Here's the NFL's explanation of rule changes for the 2011 season. Skip ahead to around 8:10. Listen to the part where it describes how long a player must maintain control. You won't find any exceptions in the rule book, and you won't find any exceptions in this explanation either.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8216a10b/2011-NFL-rule-changes-and-points-of-emphasis

Why didn't Blandino just say that? Who knows. Maybe he wanted to address the specific aspect that was asked of him. Maybe he was trying a different approach seeing how the league has spent years saying just that only to find themselves in a situation where nobody actually understands the rule and they're still called to answer questions about it on television. Whatever the reason, it doesn't really matter. The rulebook doesn't allow it and, in fact, Jim Schwartz spoke on this very issue when questioned about Calvin's TD that was taken off the board in the video you posted.

Lions head coach Jim Schwartz seemed to understand what the refs were thinking.

“If he wasn’t going to the ground as a part of the catch, that would have been the case," Schwartz said, when asked if he thought that Johnson made a 'football move.' "If he would have been on his feet and reaching over and then it would have been a football move. But he was still going to the ground as a part of that catch. I mean, he’s a two-time loser on his own rule."​

Lastly, if you're looking for confirmation that all 3 requirements must be completed before going to the ground (beginning your fall), here ya go with another Dez video.

Dez does get control here, but he doesn't have possession yet until he gets two feet down and has the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. So, if he doesn't complete that before he goes to the ground, he has hold onto it when he lands. He doesn't, that's what makes it incomplete.​

Again we have the same two aspects as before. A clear distinction between "going to the ground" and actually making contact with the ground, this time in the form of "when he lands". Mike Periera has made the same distinction. Also, you may notice that Dez shields himself from the incoming defender. That, by written rule, constitutes and act common to the game. Didn't matter because as it has been demonstrated numerous times, you must retain possession after the process of going to the ground has started.



First off, you don't have to make any move so Perriera is wrong on that statement.

Again, the line between not enough of a football move and enough of a football requires the time afforded in the first place, and therefore the move is not even necessary. Dez had the time, and on two instances hasn't gotten call.



Sort of like this?

“Very similar to the Dez play, he’s not a runner before he went to the ground, and the requirement is he has to hold onto the ball. So regardless of any reach, he’s got to hold onto the ball when he lands, and there’s an element of time the receiver has to complete in order to complete a catch. He didn’t complete that element of time and, very similar to the Dez play, it was ruled incomplete,” Blandino said.​

This is his response to Eifert's lost TD from this season. While the rule has changed in as much as what is considered to be "going to the ground", how a player who is going to the ground has not changed at all. In reality, this "new" aspect of time isn't even new so the only change to the rule is that they included like 7 words that explicitly state a player must maintain possession after his initial contact. If that statement applies now and they haven't changed anything in regards to how a player who is going to the ground should be treated, then how can it not apply to Dez? The only way would be if officials are given basic guidelines and are allowed to determine for themselves what is or isn't a catch.

As for Mike Perriera, he's agreed with and disagreed with the NFL on their rulings on this. In fact, the Victor Cruz TD that I posted earlier that can more or less be found in play-by-play form in the NFL casebook is one such play where Periera thinks they made the wrong ruling. Imagine that, Perriera disagrees with how the NFL has instructed officials to call such a play.

Bottom line, the rulebook doesn't allow it, coaches (Marvin Lewis echo'd Schwartz's statement more or less) don't believe a player in the process of going to the ground can complete the catch without maintaining possessions, and officials are not even considering that aspect when a player goes to the ground.

Honestly, what else is there?

Then why was Blandino looking for a football move after he was falling? The reach which he deemed wasn't enough of a move would've completed the 3 part process. According to Blandino.

 

[Hoofbite]

Are you really that dense?

Clearly what was meant was that it was no longer part of attempting to make the catch, in other words the player is now a runner and the ball came out as a runner downed by contact. The case play clearly destroys all the arguments being put forward by you and the rest of the people defending the overturn who keep saying that going to the ground trumps everything.

A side-by-side comparison of the case play and Dez:

CBP: Player catches ball and lands on one foot...Step one complete.

Dez: Catches ball and lands on two feet...Steps one and two complete.

CBP: Player is contacted and begins to go down.

Dez: Is contacted and turns over 90 degrees and takes a step and is tripped by Shields and begins to go down...one can make the argument that the turn and step complete the catch process.

CPB: Player takes a 2nd step as he continues to go down...Step two complete.

Dez: Changes ball from two hands to one...a move that has nothing to do with the act of catching a pass and is thus a move common to the game...Step three complete and going to the ground is moot.

CPB: Player braces with one arm and lunges...Step three complete.

Dez: Braces with his right arm and pushes off his left leg kicking up turf...Dez does what is worst case the 2nd move common to the game and most likely the third such move.

You're asking me if I'm dense? You post a case play that you have misunderstood by claiming that it "clearly says" one thing when it does not. Then when I make you aware of your error you have the nerve to move to a position where we are to no longer look at what the case play "clearly says" but rather discuss what the case play "clearly meant"?

I'm not sure if I should be insulted by being called, "dense", or impressed at the size of the balls it would take to try and pull off such a move.

And as for that being the case play again you are wrong. I tweeted with Mike Pereira about that play and he said that it was in fact not a TD because he never got the second foot down before going into the endzone and thus needed to hold onto the ball. CJ had a TD taken away on an identical play.

Here's a thought. Maybe the NFL and Perriera are at odds on this play.

Look at the description of the play and count the similarities and differences. The only thing they have changed is the down and distance, and spot where the ball was caught. Everything else is exactly identical right down to the roles of each hand. The 1 foot, the brace, the lunge, and the fumble. All the same.

More to the point, if you can read that description and watch that play and conclude that the text should be a TD while the video should not simply because Mike Perriera says so, then I'd say we're done here. It's bad enough that anyone would fail to recognize that this play is what the case play was based on. It would downright horrific if someone could agree with the outcomes provided by both the NFL and Perriera given that the two plays differ so little in nearly every single way.

 

[Hoofbite]

Then why was Blandino looking for a football move after he was falling? The reach which he deemed wasn't enough of a move would've completed the 3 part process. According to Blandino.

I think his quote was, "we looked at that aspect", which - in response to the question presented - could mean that they looked at whether or not Dez reached enough. It could also mean that they looked at whether or not a reach could overrule the player going to the ground in general. Presently it cannot

I'm curious as to why you ask the question. Under the assumption a sufficient reach would have completed the 3 part process, Dez's "inadequate" reach would also complete the 3 part process because a reach (or move) IS NOT NECESSARY. I think I posted this about 4 times in that ridiculously long post. The rule states that a player need not make any move but only have been afforded the time required to perform an act common to the game. If Dez could attempt any reach at all, then he automatically has to be granted the time component. It does not work any other way.

Dez cannot both lack the time to attempt a move that would complete the 3 part process while also making an insufficient attempt. Strong attempt, weak attempt, or anything in between. If the attempt is made, the time was sufficient and therefore the 3 part process would be satisfied with any possible attempt.

 

[DogFace]

I think his quote was, "we looked at that aspect", which - in response to the question presented - could mean that they looked at whether or not Dez reached enough. It could also mean that they looked at whether or not a reach could overrule the player going to the ground in general. Presently it cannot

I'm curious as to why you ask the question. Under the assumption a sufficient reach would have completed the 3 part process, Dez's "inadequate" reach would also complete the 3 part process because a reach (or move) IS NOT NECESSARY. I think I posted this about 4 times in that ridiculously long post. The rule states that a player need not make any move but only have been afforded the time required to perform an act common to the game. If Dez could attempt any reach at all, then he automatically has to be granted the time component. It does not work any other way.

Dez cannot both lack the time to attempt a move that would complete the 3 part process while also making an insufficient attempt. Strong attempt, weak attempt, or anything in between. If the attempt is made, the time was sufficient and therefore the 3 part process would be satisfied with any possible attempt.

Yes. He was looking for the reach to see if it was enough of a move(his words) to complete the 3 part process. Of course it's not nessesary to make the move. Only that the player had enough time to make the move. I must've stated that at least 20 times since the debate last year. He had both the time and actually did make the move. It was a catch.

The question is rhetorical, I guess. Blandino is looking for the reach as being a move, long after the fall started, because it does not matter when the 3 part process is completed in relation to the fall.

 

[percyhoward]

"Regardless of any reach, he’s got to hold onto the ball when he lands,” Blandino said.

This is his response to Eifert's lost TD from this season. While the rule has changed in as much as what is considered to be "going to the ground", how a player who is going to the ground has not changed at all. In reality, this "new" aspect of time isn't even new so the only change to the rule is that they included like 7 words that explicitly state a player must maintain possession after his initial contact. If that statement applies now and they haven't changed anything in regards to how a player who is going to the ground should be treated, then how can it not apply to Dez?

Because they completely changed how a player who is going to the ground should be treated. Instead of requiring that the catch process be completed, they put the cart before the horse and made the requirement that the the runner be "upright long enough." The catch process (including the football move) no longer mattered. It was in all the papers last summer.

http://thebiglead.com/2015/07/23/mike-pereira-says-the-nfl-has-changed-the-catch-rule/

Perreria on the rule change: "The new 'upright long enough' may be a replacement of the 'act common to the game' provision though we don’t know yet. (The season would confirm that's what it was.)...Will this actually solve the confusion? I highly doubt it, but it may provide a different result in a few cases, depending on the interpretation. We should be relieved of people talking about the process of the catch."

Blandino simply changed the rule to fit the overturn, conveniently allowing him to change his explanation for the overturn retroactively.

When Eisen asked him "what about the reach?" after game, all Blandino had to do was say exactly what he said about the Eifert TD from this season. Why didn't he?

Why didn't Blandino just say that? Who knows.

Common sense. Because he couldn't. That wasn't the rule at the time.

 

[percyhoward]

Yes. He was looking for the reach to see if it was enough of a move(his words) to complete the 3 part process. Of course it's not nessesary to make the move. Only that the player had enough time to make the move. I must've stated that at least 20 times since the debate last year. He had both the time and actually did make the move. It was a catch.

And the only reason "enough time" was in the rules was for the kind of play when a football move wouldn't be necessary (like in the end zone). Dez was in the field of play, which is why the move was required to complete the 3-part process. As Perreira said about the Dez play, "If you're going to the ground, you have to prove that you have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game and do so," (pre-2015 rules).

 

[blindzebra]

You're asking me if I'm dense? You post a case play that you have misunderstood by claiming that it "clearly says" one thing when it does not. Then when I make you aware of your error you have the nerve to move to a position where we are to no longer look at what the case play "clearly says" but rather discuss what the case play "clearly meant"?

I'm not sure if I should be insulted by being called, "dense", or impressed at the size of the balls it would take to try and pull off such a move.



Here's a thought. Maybe the NFL and Perriera are at odds on this play.

Look at the description of the play and count the similarities and differences. The only thing they have changed is the down and distance, and spot where the ball was caught. Everything else is exactly identical right down to the roles of each hand. The 1 foot, the brace, the lunge, and the fumble. All the same.

More to the point, if you can read that description and watch that play and conclude that the text should be a TD while the video should not simply because Mike Perriera says so, then I'd say we're done here. It's bad enough that anyone would fail to recognize that this play is what the case play was based on. It would downright horrific if someone could agree with the outcomes provided by both the NFL and Perriera given that the two plays differ so little in nearly every single way.

Cruz did not brace and lunge.

The casebook play was on the books BEFORE the Cruz play, so again you are completely wrong.

You keep arguing this ridiculous point about the casebook play that says that the catch process can be completed after going to the ground begins, it makes no difference if the brace or lunge completed the process, the argument at hand says that the process could not be completed after a player starts going to the ground. That should sound familiar since it is the argument you have been making.

Let me put this really simple for you here is a recap of what you have said in this argument and my reply.

You: He was going to the ground the 3 step process doesn't matter.

Me: Yes it does here is the casebook play that says so.

You: All that says is the lunge was part of the catch process.

Me: That means it was the move of a runner and not a receiver.

You: You don't understand it and here is the play from 2013 it was based on.

Me: I do understand exactly how it matters to the argument and the casebook play was from 2012, so again you are wrong about the Cruz play.

Oh, and to predict your next spin of things, there were no rule changes, points of emphasis, or re-wordings between 2012 and 2014 in the NFL rule book on the catch rules.

 

[Kevinicus]

Perhaps you should read it again. The lunge is noted to not have been a part of the process of the catch. The lunge was not the football move.

Best I can tell the football move was the player "bracing himself". Keeping himself upright to afford himself the opportunity to make the lunge. If not that, then there is no football move and whole example because absolutely pointless because the player doesn't even satisfy the 3 prerequisites required for a completed pass. If not the brace nor the lunge, there's nothing in between the 2nd foot coming down and the lunge to satisfy the football move.



So no. This player did not complete the process of the catch and lose possession along the way.

He caught the ball, contact caused him to go to the ground (somehow without resulting in down by contact), got the 2nd foot down, and then braced himself. Most importantly, he maintained possession all along the way through as it wasn't until the end of the lunge that he lost possession. The lunge was a subsequent act that was made after having completed the process.

As an aside, if you want to watch the play that this case play is almost assuredly built off of then here it is. Some may remember it.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000240906/Cruz-18-yard-TD-catch

I think you are getting things confused again. It's not the lunge that is being described as not part of the catch process, it is "hits the ground" that is not a part of the process because of the brace/lunge (which complete the process).

When the receiver hits the ground in the end zone, it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of the catch

The 3 bolded parts go together. "When the receiver hits the ground," is the subject of that sentence.

 

[blindzebra]

I think you are getting things confused again. It's not the lunge that is being described as not part of the catch process, it is "hits the ground" that is not a part of the process because of the brace/lunge (which complete the process).



The 3 bolded parts go together. "When the receiver hits the ground," is the subject of that sentence.

Ouch that left a mark.

 

[Hoofbite]

Because they completely changed how a player who is going to the ground should be treated. Instead of requiring that the catch process be completed, they put the cart before the horse and made the requirement that the the runner be "upright long enough." The catch process (including the football move) no longer mattered. It was in all the papers last summer.

http://thebiglead.com/2015/07/23/mike-pereira-says-the-nfl-has-changed-the-catch-rule/

Perreria on the rule change: "The new 'upright long enough' may be a replacement of the 'act common to the game' provision though we don’t know yet. (The season would confirm that's what it was.)...Will this actually solve the confusion? I highly doubt it, but it may provide a different result in a few cases, depending on the interpretation. We should be relieved of people talking about the process of the catch."

Blandino simply changed the rule to fit the overturn, conveniently allowing him to change his explanation for the overturn retroactively.

When Eisen asked him "what about the reach?" after game, all Blandino had to do was say exactly what he said about the Eifert TD from this season. Why didn't he?


Common sense. Because he couldn't. That wasn't the rule at the time.

Can you find a single instance where the rule has been applied in the fashion you suggest it has?

Honest question. If you have seen it, I would like to.

 

[Hoofbite]

Cruz did not brace and lunge.

The casebook play was on the books BEFORE the Cruz play, so again you are completely wrong.

I'll take be wrong about whether or not a play nearly identical to case play was the inspiration. That's fair. I pointed out your error, you point out mine.

As to whether or not Cruze braced and lunge, that's just a completely subjective manner. He caught himself as he was going down and held himself off the ground to "reach" for the goal line. I'm not sure what would be consider bracing oneself if that isn't it and a reach is every bit of a football move that a lunge is. The elements of the play are there.

You keep arguing this ridiculous point about the casebook play that says that the catch process can be completed after going to the ground begins, it makes no difference if the brace or lunge completed the process, the argument at hand says that the process could not be completed after a player starts going to the ground. That should sound familiar since it is the argument you have been making.

The case play has somehow provided an example where a player goes to the ground, but the play extends beyond that process. So he went to the ground, didn't end up on the ground, and was credited with completing the process prior to actually making a move that resulted in him contacting with the ground. I guess the take away point here is that if you don't end up on the ground after starting the process of going to the ground, you won't be treated as having gone to the ground. Okay.

And it makes a world of difference if the brace or lunge is considered the final part of the catch process. That's why the case play explicitly says the lunge is not a part of the process. The lunge was where he lost control. If it was a part of the process, he would still be in act of catching the pass and the result would be incomplete.

What this play really deals with is an act subsequent to having completed the process of catching the ball. He doesn't lose possession when contacting the ground while in the act of catching a pass - mainly because he doesn't make contact with the ground while in the act in the first place - so this example isn't applicable to players who are in the act of catching a pass and make contact with the ground.

Let me put this really simple for you here is a recap of what you have said in this argument and my reply.

You: He was going to the ground the 3 step process doesn't matter.

More or less. The requirement for maintaining possession makes completion of the 3 part process unnecessary and control of the football is all that matters. Completing just the 3rd part of the process and no subsequent moves will not nullify the requirements for possession upon contacting the ground if the player is going to the ground while in the act of catching the pass.

Me: Yes it does here is the casebook play that says so.

You: All that says is the lunge was part of the catch process.

Just guessing you meant NOT a part of the process. The process was over prior to the lunge.

Me: That means it was the move of a runner and not a receiver.

You: You don't understand it and here is the play from 2013 it was based on.

The issue at hand is whether or not a loss of control when the player makes contact with the ground would be disregarded because it was determined the player completed the 3 part process on his way to the ground. That is what I believe cannot happen.

The case play doesn't address that because the player retained control all throughout the act of catching the pass. He must have because of when the fumble occurred. In order to make such a determination, he would need to lose the ball when bracing himself.

Me: I do understand exactly how it matters to the argument and the casebook play was from 2012, so again you are wrong about the Cruz play.

Oh, and to predict your next spin of things, there were no rule changes, points of emphasis, or re-wordings between 2012 and 2014 in the NFL rule book on the catch rules.

Do you agree with both Perriera and the NFL case play outcomes?

 

[Hoofbite]

I think you are getting things confused again. It's not the lunge that is being described as not part of the catch process, it is "hits the ground" that is not a part of the process because of the brace/lunge (which complete the process).

The 3 bolded parts go together. "When the receiver hits the ground," is the subject of that sentence.

The lunge was what sent him to the ground and what caused the loss of possession. The brace completed the process, the lunge was subsequent to the brace, which is why it makes clear that two acts were performed in saying "lunging forward after bracing".

The lunge can't be a part of the process if it was the move that sent him to the ground. Loss of possession at any point throughout the entire process - with or without contact - is an incompletion.

Therefore, fumble not being a part of the process requires that the lunge also not be a part of the process because the entirety of the process would have carried through until he contacted the ground.

 

[KJJ]

The lunge was what sent him to the ground and what caused the loss of possession.

He was going to the ground prior to the lunge his momentum took him to the ground which is why he lunged he couldn't maintain his footing.

 

[blindzebra]

I'll take be wrong about whether or not a play nearly identical to case play was the inspiration. That's fair. I pointed out your error, you point out mine.

As to whether or not Cruze braced and lunge, that's just a completely subjective manner. He caught himself as he was going down and held himself off the ground to "reach" for the goal line. I'm not sure what would be consider bracing oneself if that isn't it and a reach is every bit of a football move that a lunge is. The elements of the play are there.



The case play has somehow provided an example where a player goes to the ground, but the play extends beyond that process. So he went to the ground, didn't end up on the ground, and was credited with completing the process prior to actually making a move that resulted in him contacting with the ground. I guess the take away point here is that if you don't end up on the ground after starting the process of going to the ground, you won't be treated as having gone to the ground. Okay.

And it makes a world of difference if the brace or lunge is considered the final part of the catch process. That's why the case play explicitly says the lunge is not a part of the process. The lunge was where he lost control. If it was a part of the process, he would still be in act of catching the pass and the result would be incomplete.

What this play really deals with is an act subsequent to having completed the process of catching the ball. He doesn't lose possession when contacting the ground while in the act of catching a pass - mainly because he doesn't make contact with the ground while in the act in the first place - so this example isn't applicable to players who are in the act of catching a pass and make contact with the ground.



More or less. The requirement for maintaining possession makes completion of the 3 part process unnecessary and control of the football is all that matters. Completing just the 3rd part of the process and no subsequent moves will not nullify the requirements for possession upon contacting the ground if the player is going to the ground while in the act of catching the pass.



Just guessing you meant NOT a part of the process. The process was over prior to the lunge.



The issue at hand is whether or not a loss of control when the player makes contact with the ground would be disregarded because it was determined the player completed the 3 part process on his way to the ground. That is what I believe cannot happen.

The case play doesn't address that because the player retained control all throughout the act of catching the pass. He must have because of when the fumble occurred. In order to make such a determination, he would need to lose the ball when bracing himself.



Do you agree with both Perriera and the NFL case play outcomes?

A lot of spinning.

How can you read a case play that says the player starts going to the ground before the 3 part process is met, hits the ground with the ball coming loose, and have it called a TD if he broke the plain or down by contact if he didn't, and still say that going to the ground trumps completing the 3 steps?

It doesn't under pre-2015 rules. The problem is you are being duped by Blandino's lies to cover up what he did in GB. The rule was CHANGED to saying they must complete the 3 steps before going to the ground with the upright long enough nonsense.

The casebook play is conclusive. It states a player who makes a move that isn't required to catch a pass finishes the process because it is a move common to the game. Dez did not turn over 90 degrees to make the catch, he did not take a step to make the catch, he did not move the ball from two hands to his left hand to make the catch, he did not brace, push off, and extend to make the catch. All of those things are things a runner would do. Just like in the case play where the player braced and lunged, that is a runner attempting to advance the ball and completes the move common to the game aspect of the process.

Just in case anyone is confused.

A player is a receiver when he does steps 1 and 2...control and 2 feet in bounds.

Step 3 is the transition from receiver to runner, and this is the key to going to the ground, the Calvin Johnson rule and all of this confusion.

When a player is upright, that transition is an easy one, the next step, advancing the ball all establish them as a runner. However when a player is falling OOB or in the end zone there is no transitional move occurring which is why they need to maintain control when they hit the ground. Again this does not mean a player falling can't make the transition, it means one has to be made. The casebook play shows that a player completing part of the process and starts to go to the ground can still complete the process in the FIELD OF PLAY.

 

[Hoofbite]

He was going to the ground prior to the lunge his momentum took him to the ground which is why he lunged he couldn't maintain his footing.

And he maintained control through the process of contacting the ground when bracing himself so the act of catching the pass was completed just prior to the lunge.

It doesn't seem possible for the fumble to be outside of the process while the lunge is not, because every utterance of the word is in reference to the entirety of the process through contacting the ground.

 

[Kevinicus]

The lunge was what sent him to the ground and what caused the loss of possession. The brace completed the process, the lunge was subsequent to the brace, which is why it makes clear that two acts were performed in saying "lunging forward after bracing".

The lunge can't be a part of the process if it was the move that sent him to the ground. Loss of possession at any point throughout the entire process - with or without contact - is an incompletion.

Therefore, fumble not being a part of the process requires that the lunge also not be a part of the process because the entirety of the process would have carried through until he contacted the ground.

Uh...I am not even sure what you're trying to say.

There was no "Loss of possession." Once the ball crossed the goal line it's a TD and the play is over. The point is, the case play illustrates very clearly that the process could be completed while the player was in the act of falling and that there is no longer any requirement to keep the ball secure when hitting the ground. Whether or not the lunge or the brace is used as the 3rd requirement of the catch process doesn't matter, the catch process is complete and the ground rule does not apply. Any single move on it's own is enough to satisfy the requirement.

 

[Hoofbite]

A lot of spinning.

How can you read a case play that says the player starts going to the ground before the 3 part process is met, hits the ground with the ball coming loose, and have it called a TD if he broke the plain or down by contact if he didn't, and still say that going to the ground trumps completing the 3 steps?

Because the act of catching the pass was complete prior to the lunge. He maintained possession through contacting the ground when bracing himself.

It doesn't under pre-2015 rules. The problem is you are being duped by Blandino's lies to cover up what he did in GB. The rule was CHANGED to saying they must complete the 3 steps before going to the ground with the upright long enough nonsense.

Yes, that is the change. How they define "going to the ground". What they did not change was how a player who is going to the ground should be treated. That did not change at all.

The casebook play is conclusive. It states a player who makes a move that isn't required to catch a pass finishes the process because it is a move common to the game. Dez did not turn over 90 degrees to make the catch, he did not take a step to make the catch, he did not move the ball from two hands to his left hand to make the catch, he did not brace, push off, and extend to make the catch. All of those things are things a runner would do. Just like in the case play where the player braced and lunged, that is a runner attempting to advance the ball and completes the move common to the game aspect of the process.

Just in case anyone is confused.

A player is a receiver when he does steps 1 and 2...control and 2 feet in bounds.

Step 3 is the transition from receiver to runner, and this is the key to going to the ground, the Calvin Johnson rule and all of this confusion.

When a player is upright, that transition is an easy one, the next step, advancing the ball all establish them as a runner. However when a player is falling OOB or in the end zone there is no transitional move occurring which is why they need to maintain control when they hit the ground. Again this does not mean a player falling can't make the transition, it means one has to be made. The casebook play shows that a player completing part of the process and starts to go to the ground can still complete the process in the FIELD OF PLAY.

Of course he can. He just needs to maintain possession if he's going to the ground in the process of making the catch. There is no distinction about what a player must do in the endzone versus field of play. The rule applies to all places on the field. There is specific attention paid to any part of the field except for on the sideline. Endzone or field of play. It applies all the same.

Can you find me a play where a player lost possession when contacting the ground after a ruling of going to the ground was applied, and the player was subsequently awarded the catch on the basis that he made a football move during his fall?