Fitz catch vs. Dez non-catch

[blindzebra]

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



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.



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?

The casebook play you can't seem to understand.

Anyone stupid enough to think a brace equals contact through the ground must need directions to even breathe...good lord.

 

[Hoofbite]

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.

This only holds true if he is viewed as a runner. Think about it. If the rule applies to the endzone, in what other way would it be possible for this statement to be accurate?

This statement itself indicates that he is viewed as a runner and that is only possible if he has already completed the act of catching the pass PRIOR TO breaking the plane. He lost control of the football AFTER breaking the plane.

Are we okay with this assessment? If the rule applies to the endzone, then breaking the plane would not remove the requirement for a player in the process of the catch. Because this player is granted a TD upon breaking the plane, he must not be in the process of the catch. Can we agree on this?

So the process of the catch must have ended at some point before before breaking the plane?

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.

It does not. It illustrates that a player can be described as "going to the ground", but if he interrupts his fall (braces himself) he will have satisfied the requirements of a completed pass PROVIDED he maintains possession throughout the entire process of contacting the ground as he braced himself. Whatever he does after that is outside of the process of the catch. The moment he stops his fall, he has committed a football move and provided he retains possession during the act of stopping his fall, he is now a runner.

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.

I disagree, whether or not it was the brace or the lunge is crucial to the play. That's why the case play explicitly makes an attempt to highlight that the fumble occurred after those events. Had he lost control while trying to brace himself, it's incomplete. Similarly, if the lunge is ruled the 3rd part, it is also incomplete. In either case, the player would not have satisfied the rule in maintaining possession all throughout the entirety of the process of contacting the ground.

This player made 2 football moves. The brace was the crucial 3rd part that completed the process (but only because he maintained control), and the lunge was a subsequent football act that occurred at a point when the WR was established as a runner.

 

[KJJ]

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.

You're one of those who still doesn't get it. Once Dez gained full control of the ball because he was "going to the ground" he had to maintain control of the ball when it contacted the ground and he didn't. Had he been ruled a "runner" he would not have had to meet that requirement. Are you following me? When he finally gained full control of the ball and the ball came loose when contacting the ground he regained control but because the ball had contacted the ground it goes as an incomplete pass under the RULE. Still with me?

A fumble could not occur on that play because Dez had never established himself as a "runner." Had he established himself as a "runner" when he lunged and the ball came loose upon contacting the ground he would have been down at that spot even had he completely lost the ball because the ground can't cause a "fumble." The only way a "fumble" can occur is a receiver must have full control of the ball and be considered a "runner." If they lose the ball or it's knocked loose prior to a knee, elbow or butt touching the ground it would be a "fumble."

Had Dez established himself as a "runner" like Fitz did in the opinion of the officials on his catch the ball coming loose when contacting the ground wouldn't have mattered. When a receiver has full control of the ball and is ruled to be a "runner" they don't have to complete a step by step process of hanging onto the ball through the contact of the ground. The RULE is simple it's the judgement involved in determining certain aspects of these plays that's confusing to many. There's a lot of judgement as to when control of the ball has been met and when a receiver has become a "runner."

 

[Hoofbite]

You're one of those who still doesn't get it. Once Dez gained full control of the ball because he was "going to the ground" he had to maintain control of the ball when it contacted the ground and he didn't. Had he been ruled a "runner" he would not have had to meet that requirement. Are you following me? When he finally gained full control of the ball and the ball came loose when contacting the ground he regained control but because the ball had contacted the ground it goes as an incomplete pass under the RULE. Still with me? A fumble could not occur on that play because Dez had never made a "football move" according to the officials or established himself as a "runner." Had he established himself as a "runner" when he lunged and the ball came loose upon contacting the ground he would have been down at that spot even had he completely lost the ball because the ground can't cause a "fumble." The only way a "fumble" can occur is a receiver must have full control of the ball and be considered a "runner."

If they lose the ball or it's knocked loose prior to a knee, elbow or butt touching the ground it would be a "fumble." Had Dez established himself as a "runner" like Fitz did in the opinion of the officials on his catch the ball coming loose when contacting the ground wouldn't have mattered. When a receiver has full control of the ball and is ruled to be a "runner" they don't have to complete a step by step process of hanging onto the ball through the contact of the ground. The RULE is simple it's the judgement involved in determining certain aspects of these plays that's confusing to many. There's a lot of judgement as to when control of the ball has been met and when a receiver has become a "runner."

Believe it or not, this discussion has gone so far into the woods that we aren't even talking about Dez.

We're actually talking about an example from the NFL case book that blindzebra posted.

Kind of crazy, really. There are no real life examples to suggest that I am wrong; coaches are under the same impression I am, and; officials who made the calls say the same thing I am saying when asked about it in the post game, yet here we are dissecting a single case play that is more or less meant to only highlight that there may be situations in when a player can be described as going to the ground and fails to maintain control but the sequence of events would allow for a reception upon further review.

Here's the case play that is currently being discussed.

I have posted the casebook play that was applicable in 2014, it 100% shows that the 3 step process continues while going to the ground which ends when the 3 step process is complete.

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out.
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.

 

[Kevinicus]

This only holds true if he is viewed as a runner. Think about it. If the rule applies to the endzone, in what other way would it be possible for this statement to be accurate?

This statement itself indicates that he is viewed as a runner and that is only possible if he has already completed the act of catching the pass PRIOR TO breaking the plane. He lost control of the football AFTER breaking the plane.

Are we okay with this assessment? If the rule applies to the endzone, then breaking the plane would not remove the requirement for a player in the process of the catch. Because this player is granted a TD upon breaking the plane, he must not be in the process of the catch. Can we agree on this?

So the process of the catch must have ended at some point before before breaking the plane?

Of course it did. The process was complete by the brace (and would be by the lunge if there were no brace) If the same play occurs outside the end zone, it would have been down by contact where the player landed (as Dez was initially ruled as well).

It does not. It illustrates that a player can be described as "going to the ground", but if he interrupts his fall (braces himself) he will have satisfied the requirements of a completed pass PROVIDED he maintains possession throughout the entire process of contacting the ground as he braced himself. Whatever he does after that is outside of the process of the catch. The moment he stops his fall, he has committed a football move and provided he retains possession during the act of stopping his fall, he is now a runner.

The receiver's hand is no different from their foot, it is not the "contacting the ground" you're looking for. Hitting the ground with one's hand is not "going to the ground."

 

[DogFace]

Believe it or not, this discussion has gone so far into the woods that we aren't even talking about Dez.

We're actually talking about an example from the NFL case book that blindzebra posted.

Kind of crazy, really. There are no real life examples to suggest that I am wrong; coaches are under the same impression I am, and; officials who made the calls say the same thing I am saying when asked about it in the post game, yet here we are dissecting a single case play that is more or less meant to only highlight that there may be situations in when a player can be described as going to the ground and fails to maintain control but the sequence of events would allow for a reception upon further review.

Here's the case play that is currently being discussed.

I'm still talking about Dez. I'm waiting for your thoughts on why Blandino said it would've been a catch if he determined the reach was "enough" of a football move.
Why would it have matterd if it was "enough" of a move if that part of the play happened after the fall started?

 

[Hoofbite]

Until a player contacted the ground they had not gone to the ground and the 3 requisites would have completed the process.

Not true. I addressed this in a long, long response earlier. Blandino's usage of the term makes it clear that there's a distinction between a player who is going to the ground and the time when the player "hits" or "lands" on the ground. Perriera has said the same thing.

In short it goes like this: "A player who is ruled to be going to the ground must maintain control when he hits the ground".

Now, whether or not you believe it, just think about my argument from that perspective.

If "going to the ground" includes stumbling and falling in addition to making contact with the ground, how would that change the way you view whether or not the 3 part process could be completed by a guy who's on his way to the ground?

 

[KJJ]

Believe it or not, this discussion has gone so far into the woods that we aren't even talking about Dez.

We're actually talking about an example from the NFL case book that blindzebra posted.

Kind of crazy, really. There are no real life examples to suggest that I am wrong; coaches are under the same impression I am, and; officials who made the calls say the same thing I am saying when asked about it in the post game, yet here we are dissecting a single case play that is more or less meant to only highlight that there may be situations in when a player can be described as going to the ground and fails to maintain control but the sequence of events would allow for a reception upon further review.

Here's the case play that is currently being discussed.

I decided to take a breather so I haven't been keeping track how far in the jungle this has gone. There's been more pages to the Dez no catch than in War and Peace.

 

[Hoofbite]

I'm still talking about Dez. I'm waiting for your thoughts on why Blandino said it would've been a catch if he determined the reach was "enough" of a football move.
Why would it have matterd if it was "enough" of a move if that part of the play happened after the fall started?

I have no idea why Blandino says anything he does. Maybe he really is the idiot this board has made him out to be.

Doesn't matter what explanation Blandino really gave. The ruling on the field was made based on a loss of possession when contacting the ground just as it has been time and time again. That's how the officials are calling it. I guess if you're looking for apologies, you can continue down this path. If you're looking for how the rule reads, how the rule is understood, and how the rule is applied, you won't find it in any statement about reaching enough.

What you're saying is that Blandino was looking for a move because he knew that a move could complete the process, but at the same time he was completely unaware that a move isn't required.

Okay.

 

[Kevinicus]

Not true. I addressed this in a long, long response earlier. Blandino's usage of the term makes it clear that there's a distinction between a player who is going to the ground and the time when the player "hits" or "lands" on the ground. Perriera has said the same thing.

In short it goes like this: "A player who is ruled to be going to the ground must maintain control when he hits the ground".

Now, whether or not you believe it, just think about my argument from that perspective.

If "going to the ground" includes stumbling and falling in addition to making contact with the ground, how would that change the way you view whether or not the 3 part process could be completed by a guy who's on his way to the ground?

You might read the long long post again. Particularly the first quote. Focus on the words, "If not." They are crucial.

 

[DogFace]

I have no idea why Blandino says anything he does. Maybe he really is the idiot this board has made him out to be.

Doesn't matter what explanation Blandino really gave. The ruling on the field was made based on a loss of possession when contacting the ground just as it has been time and time again. That's how the officials are calling it. I guess if you're looking for apologies, you can continue down this path. If you're looking for how the rule reads, how the rule is understood, and how the rule is applied, you won't find it in any statement about reaching enough.

What you're saying is that Blandino was looking for a move because he knew that a move could complete the process, but at the same time he was completely unaware that a move isn't required.

Okay.

I never said he thought a move was required. By me saying he was looking for a move also means he was looking for time for a move. He mentioned the move specifically so I said that to identify what he said he was looking for to complete the 3 part process.

The 3 part process is not affected by when it was started or completed in relation to a fall.

 

[Hoofbite]

Of course it did. The process was complete by the brace (and would be by the lunge if there were no brace) If the same play occurs outside the end zone, it would have been down by contact where the player landed (as Dez was initially ruled as well).

If there was no brace then the loss of control would have occurred within the entirety of the process. How is this not clear? If you include the lunge in the process, you have to include the subsequent loss of control because it would then all be considered as one process.

The receiver's hand is no different from their foot, it is not the "contacting the ground" you're looking for. Hitting the ground with one's hand is not "going to the ground."

The rulebook doesn't say whether or not contact with the had is outside of the scope of going to the ground. I'm not even sure they would try.

More to the point, if you chose to say that going to the ground is strictly defined as contacting the ground and the hand does not count, how is this play not over at the 3 yard line? If he contacted the ground with anything other than his hand, the plays is over. He went to the ground as a result of the contact that took places prior to the lunge. Play has to be over.

Seems like we need to reconcile a couple of things here. The contact sent the player to the ground, but only his hand touched, yet the hand doesn't count as contacting the ground, which means some other body part must have contacted the ground. Any other body part produces a dead ball.

You're clearly caught between having an incorrect interpretation of "going to the ground" on the one hand, or an incorrect interpretation of "contacting the ground" on the other.

You cannot have both because it doesn't seem possible.

 

[Hoofbite]

You might read the long long post again. Particularly the first quote. Focus on the words, "If not." They are crucial.

As in, if you don't complete all three parts before falling?

Going to the ground is strictly limited to contacting the ground.

 

[KJJ]

The ruling on the field was made based on a loss of possession when contacting the ground just as it has been time and time again. That's how the officials are calling it.

That ruling all came down to Dez "going to the ground." Once it was determined he "was going to the ground" a legal catch can only be made by hanging onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Some here can't even understand "what going to the ground" means in terms of the RULE. When a receiver is in the process of making a catch and their momentum is taking them to the ground that's "going to the ground" so they must follow a step by step process to complete the catch.

 

[blindzebra]

This only holds true if he is viewed as a runner. Think about it. If the rule applies to the endzone, in what other way would it be possible for this statement to be accurate?

This statement itself indicates that he is viewed as a runner and that is only possible if he has already completed the act of catching the pass PRIOR TO breaking the plane. He lost control of the football AFTER breaking the plane.

Are we okay with this assessment? If the rule applies to the endzone, then breaking the plane would not remove the requirement for a player in the process of the catch. Because this player is granted a TD upon breaking the plane, he must not be in the process of the catch. Can we agree on this?

So the process of the catch must have ended at some point before before breaking the plane?



It does not. It illustrates that a player can be described as "going to the ground", but if he interrupts his fall (braces himself) he will have satisfied the requirements of a completed pass PROVIDED he maintains possession throughout the entire process of contacting the ground as he braced himself. Whatever he does after that is outside of the process of the catch. The moment he stops his fall, he has committed a football move and provided he retains possession during the act of stopping his fall, he is now a runner.



I disagree, whether or not it was the brace or the lunge is crucial to the play. That's why the case play explicitly makes an attempt to highlight that the fumble occurred after those events. Had he lost control while trying to brace himself, it's incomplete. Similarly, if the lunge is ruled the 3rd part, it is also incomplete. In either case, the player would not have satisfied the rule in maintaining possession all throughout the entirety of the process of contacting the ground.

This player made 2 football moves. The brace was the crucial 3rd part that completed the process (but only because he maintained control), and the lunge was a subsequent football act that occurred at a point when the WR was established as a runner.

Good lord. The case book play mentions one foot down and then contact sending the player to the ground, why mention that if the brace was the contact through the ground part of going to the ground? Why mention the second step that completes the 2 feet down part of the catch process if the brace fulfilled contact through the ground of going to the ground?

Explain why a casebook play that you says follows the going to the ground clause even bothers mentioning control and 2 steps if all that matters is holding onto the ball through contact with the ground?

Anyone with any sense at all reads that case play as step one complete, contact, going to the ground begins, step two complete, brace and lunge completes step three as a move common to the game thus rendering going to the ground and maintaining control meaningless.

 

[percyhoward]

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

Every instance, pre-2015. The catch process is what determined whether a player was going to the ground as a runner or as a receiver. If he completed the catch process, he was going to the ground as a runner, and all the rules that apply to runners applied to him. (If the ball came loose and he hadn't been contacted it would be a fumble, for example). If he didn't complete the catch process, then he was going to the ground as a receiver, and the rules that apply to receivers applied to him. (If the ball came loose on contact with the ground it would be an incomplete pass, for example).

The important thing when you watch those videos is to listen to Blandino's words. His focus throughout is on the catch process. Nowhere does he say that the catch process has been negated by a player going to the ground. Here's the full transcript:

Blandino, Sept 2013:

This is something that we've worked really hard at to educate people in terms of the catch process. It seems like we're talking about a Calvin Johnson play every season, but I guess when you catch as many passes as he does, it's bound to happen. So let's look at the play from week 1, the Minnesota-Detroit game, where Calvin is going to the ground in the process of making the catch.

The process of the catch is a three-part process: control, two feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. 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. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground. The ball comes loose. 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.

In the above, there is no language about going to the ground superseding the catch process,as you claim it did in 2013. On the contrary, the emphasis is on the importance of completing the three parts of the catch process. If the catch process were truly negated by the fact that Johnson was going to the ground, Blandino would have simply said so. He would not have pointed out that Johnson didn't get his second foot down, because it wouldn't matter. Back to Blandino's commments...

Now I'll show you the difference. Let's go to Julius Thomas this week against the Giants. Watch what Julius does. He's gonna get control, take several steps, and then reach the ball out for the goal line. Here's the replay. Control at this point. Take two steps. And now reach for the goal line. He has established himself as a runner. He's reaching the ball for the goal line, and we know when a runner breaks the plane of the goal line with the football , it is a touchdown. So that is an example of a catch, because he was not going to the ground in the process of making the catch.

Thomas was a runner, and Johnson wasn't. Blandino tells us that this distinction isn't arbitrary, and that it is determined by the catch process. They both controlled the ball (part 1), and they both reached (part 3). But Johnson didn't get both feet down (part 2), so he didn't perform all three parts of the catch process. Thomas did get both feet down. That means he established himself as a runner.

You're thinking that (under pre-2015 rules) once a player started going to the ground that the catch process didn't matter. That's why people are telling you that you've got it backwards. Back then, the catch process was everything. If you completed the catch process before going to the ground (not "starting" to go to the ground, but actually meeting terra firma), then you were considered a runner.

When they changed to rule to "upright long enough," Perreira's comment was "We should be relieved of people talking about the process of the catch." He understood that the catch process would no longer be a part of the discussion, and he was right.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

Old rule
control, two feet, and a football move = going to the ground as a runner
any of the above 3 parts missing = going to the ground as a receiver

New rule
control and upright long enough = going to the ground as a runner
control and not upright long enough = going to the ground as a receiver

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?

If he made a football move during his fall, that means he went to the ground as a runner, and the rule about going to the ground as a receiver could not apply.

 

[KJJ]

Now I'll show you the difference. Let's go to Julius Thomas this week against the Giants. Watch what Julius does. He's gonna get control, take several steps, and then reach the ball out for the goal line. Here's the replay. Control at this point. Take two steps. And now reach for the goal line. He has established himself as a runner. He's reaching the ball for the goal line, and we know when a runner breaks the plane of the goal line with the football , it is a touchdown. So that is an example of a catch, because he was not going to the ground in the process of making the catch.

What Blandino failed to point out is that Thomas turned his body to go up field as he took those steps similar to what Fitz did which is why he established himself as a "runner." This "turning of the body" is something Blandino is starting to point out now to try and make everyone better understand what it means for a receiver to establish themselves as a "runner."

 

[Kevinicus]

As in, if you don't complete all three parts before falling?

Going to the ground is strictly limited to contacting the ground.

As in, if all 3 parts aren't performed in order, then lets look at option B. There is no before involved.

 

[percyhoward]

What Blandino failed to point out is that Thomas turned his body to go up field as he took those steps similar to what Fitz did which is why he established himself as a "runner." This "turning of the body" is something Blandino is starting to point out now to try and make everyone better understand what it means for a receiver to establish themselves as a "runner."

He didn't "fail to point it out," he simply had no reason to point it out because that wasn't a part of the rule. And he didn't get better at explaining the rule, he changed the rule to his liking, making it ambiguous enough that almost any explanation would work.