Fitz catch vs. Dez non-catch

[KJJ]

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.

The problem with you and a few others is you think every single thing a receiver is required to do to establish a legal catch can and has to be "explicitly detailed" in the rulebook which is going to make these calls clear cut and eliminate judgement from them. What was in the rulebook was a player had to make a "football move/act common to the game" which comes down to the judgment of the officials. Every RULE in the rulebook still comes down to the judgment of the officials whether it be establishing if a receiver has become a "runner" or if they did enough to perform an act common to the game. A receiver doesn't always have to make a turn up field to establish themselves as a "runner" there's many different ways but it still comes down to the judgment of the officials if what the receiver did was enough to meet a legal catch under the RULE.

Every damn RULE comes down to some judgment and nothing a player is required to do can be specifically detailed in the rulebook that will make it crystal clear to every official or the Joe FANS that are sitting in the stands booing every call. You and some others try and make it appear Blandino and the league are idiots when it's the FANS that are idiots. If you think all the brain power is sitting in the stands on Sunday and on couches across the country with plates of nachos and a few six packs then would you like to leave replay reviews up to a FAN vote to see whether a call under review should stand as called or be overturned?

Do you think that will please everyone that these calls are being taken out of the hands of the experts and are given to the hot dog venders in the stands and many around the country that don't know their ace from a hole in the ground? If it wasn't for that PI call that was announced to the crowd and picked up vs Detroit in the playoffs last season the Cowboys likely would have never made it to the second round of the playoffs and we would all be sitting here arguing that call. The Cowboys caught a huge break in that game and no technological advancements are going to make officiating NFL games perfect or eliminate controversial calls because JUDGEMENT will always be involved.

 

[Hoofbite]

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


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.

1. A football move was not needed. Just time.

2. How are you defining "going to the ground"? I suspect part of the problem is that we're operating with different definitions just as I came to realize that myself and another poster were. There's no point in going back and forth if we aren't even talking about the same thing.

What is the definition that you are using for "going to the ground", and where are you getting it?

 

[Hoofbite]

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?

Because it's an example of the rule. In this case, it's an example of when going to the ground was in play but should not be applied because a play that appears to 1 continuous process (and would be subject to the rule) is actually a completed process and an additional action thereafter. Why even have a case example?

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?

Because in order to serve as a good example it might want to include all the necessary requirements that would be up for consideration in a real game.

If you want to get technical about it, had the 2nd foot not been mentioned the player wouldn't have completed the process in the correct order which would have made the entirety of the play subject to going to the ground. Without foot 2, it's incomplete because the lunge becomes a part of the process just as in the Calvin video that Percy posted. Yes, he completed the prerequisites for the catch while falling or going to the ground but the key here is that he maintained possession. If the ball comes out at the point at which he braces himself it would be incomplete.

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.

Brace and then lunge. That's the important part. Brace completes the process, control was maintained, and we're getting the 2nd act that Mike Perreira used to talk about.

 

[blindzebra]

Because it's an example of the rule. In this case, it's an example of when going to the ground was in play but should not be applied because a play that appears to 1 continuous process (and would be subject to the rule) is actually a completed process and an additional action thereafter. Why even have a case example?



Because in order to serve as a good example it might want to include all the necessary requirements that would be up for consideration in a real game.

If you want to get technical about it, had the 2nd foot not been mentioned the player wouldn't have completed the process in the correct order which would have made the entirety of the play subject to going to the ground. Without foot 2, it's incomplete because the lunge becomes a part of the process just as in the Calvin video that Percy posted. Yes, he completed the prerequisites for the catch while falling or going to the ground but the key here is that he maintained possession. If the ball comes out at the point at which he braces himself it would be incomplete.



Brace and then lunge. That's the important part. Brace completes the process, control was maintained, and we're getting the 2nd act that Mike Perreira used to talk about.

The casebook play say simultaneous brace and lunge, so keep digging that hole.

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.

It isn't two separate acts, it is one act of a move common to the game. It ends the 3 step process and the player finishes going to the ground as a RUNNER. Which is the point I have been making since that damn game ended.

And in case you missed it the hand bracing does not cause a deadball:

SECTION 2 DEAD BALL
Article 1 Dead Ball Declared. An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended:
a) when a runner is contacted by an opponent and touches the ground with any part of his body other than his hands or feet. The ball is dead the instant the runner touches the ground. A runner touching the ground with his hands or feet while in the grasp of an opponent may continue to advance; or
Note: If, after contact by an opponent, any part of a runner’s leg above the ankle or any part of his arm above the wrist touches the ground, the runner is down.

The funniest part of all of this is based on the BS you are giving Dez was down on contact through the ground because his left knee and right elbow was down before the ball became loose.

 

[percyhoward]

1. A football move was not needed. Just time.

Yes, a football move was needed, because Dez was not in the end zone. That's why Eisen (and later Patrick) made it a point to ask about the move, and that's why Blandino said he looked for the move, and also why both Blandino and Perreira made it a point to say that there wasn't enough of one. That's a lot of talk about the catch process by people who matter, if the catch process supposedly didn't matter.

The pre-2105 rule said "enough time to make a football move" because they didn't want to have two separate rules -- one for the end zone and one for the field of play. In the end zone, where no football move would be necessary because you've already scored, you have to maintain possession for enough time to make a football move. If you look at the pre-2015 rule, it specifically says "whether in the end zone or in the field of play," so the rule covered the whole field.

2. How are you defining "going to the ground"? I suspect part of the problem is that we're operating with different definitions just as I came to realize that myself and another poster were. There's no point in going back and forth if we aren't even talking about the same thing.

What is the definition that you are using for "going to the ground", and where are you getting it?

From the pre-2015 rulebook, and from Blandino's explanations of previous similar calls at nfl.com. The key to this whole thing is to understand how the catch process reigned supreme prior to 2015.

1. Establishing yourself as a runner meant that you could not be deemed to be going to the ground in the catch process, so you didn't have to maintain control when you contacted the ground. The catch had already been made, IOW. You're a runner, not a receiver.

2. Completing all three parts of the catch process (control, two feet, football move) established the player as a runner.

When Blandino says, in 2013, that the three-part catch process must be completed in order for the player to establish himself as a runner, he's not just talking to hear himself talk. The words mean something. He's telling us what defines a receiver going to the ground in the act of catching a pass, and what defines a runner going to the ground having already completed that act..

I have no idea why Blandino says anything he does.

People don't expect you to know, they're really just asking you to think. His explanation of the overturn contradicts yours, and they want you to wonder why. Probably because that's what they themselves do in situations when things don't add up-- they think critically. When you just throw up your hands, it leaves loose ends in your argument that still need to be tied up somehow.

 

[Hoofbite]

The casebook play say simultaneous brace and lunge, so keep digging that hole.

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.

It isn't two separate acts, it is one act of a move common to the game. It ends the 3 step process and the player finishes going to the ground as a RUNNER. Which is the point I have been making since that damn game ended.

"lunging forward after bracing himself"

That's the interpretation of the play and how such a play is to be viewed.

And in case you missed it the hand bracing does not cause a deadball:

SECTION 2 DEAD BALL
Article 1 Dead Ball Declared. An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended:
a) when a runner is contacted by an opponent and touches the ground with any part of his body other than his hands or feet. The ball is dead the instant the runner touches the ground. A runner touching the ground with his hands or feet while in the grasp of an opponent may continue to advance; or
Note: If, after contact by an opponent, any part of a runner’s leg above the ankle or any part of his arm above the wrist touches the ground, the runner is down.

The funniest part of all of this is based on the BS you are giving Dez was down on contact through the ground because his left knee and right elbow was down before the ball became loose.

No, bracing is an act common to the game. Don't believe I said it caused a dead ball.

Define, "going to the ground". Is it when the player lands on the ground or is it the entire sequence from the point in in which the player begins to fall to the ground up until the point at which he lands on the ground?

 

[Hoofbite]

Yes, a football move was needed, because Dez was not in the end zone. That's why Eisen (and later Patrick) made it a point to ask about the move, and that's why Blandino said he looked for the move, and also why both Blandino and Perreira made it a point to say that there wasn't enough of one. That's a lot of talk about the catch process by people who matter, if the catch process supposedly didn't matter.

The pre-2105 rule said "enough time to make a football move" because they didn't want to have two separate rules -- one for the end zone and one for the field of play. In the end zone, where no football move would be necessary because you've already scored, you have to maintain possession for enough time to make a football move. If you look at the pre-2015 rule, it specifically says "whether in the end zone or in the field of play," so the rule covered the whole field.

Read the rule. Watch the video of the NFL's explanation to the public. Only time is needed. If you're arguing this, there's not point in going further because it's clear that you can't even adhere to the written rule at it's most fundamental level. It doesn't matter what Eisen said or what Blandino said, or even what Perriera said. The rule is clear and the video explanation of the rule is even more clear. You do not need to make a football move. You just needed the time to do so.

This cannot be argued.

From the pre-2015 rulebook, and from Blandino's explanations of previous similar calls at nfl.com. The key to this whole thing is to understand how the catch process reigned supreme prior to 2015.

1. Establishing yourself as a runner meant that you could not be deemed to be going to the ground in the catch process, so you didn't have to maintain control when you contacted the ground. The catch had already been made, IOW. You're a runner, not a receiver.

2. Completing all three parts of the catch process (control, two feet, football move) established the player as a runner.

When Blandino says, in 2013, that the three-part catch process must be completed in order for the player to establish himself as a runner, he's not just talking to hear himself talk. The words mean something. He's telling us what defines a receiver going to the ground in the act of catching a pass, and what defines a runner going to the ground having already completed that act..

That's not what I asked. How do you define, "going to the ground"? When does this event or series of events begin, and when does this event or series of events end?

 

[percyhoward]

You do not need to make a football move. You just needed the time to do so.

It took me about four months to understand this myself, so I'll be patient with you.

1. The letter of the rule was that only time was needed.

2. This rule applied to anywhere on the field -- the end zone as well as the field of play. Key point here.

3. A football move was anything that a runner would do to help him advance the ball after catching it. The football move gave officials an observable standard as a requirement for receivers to complete the catch process. Another key point.

4. In the end zone, there is no reason to advance the ball because you've already scored. Since there is no need for a football move, the rule was that you just needed to hold the ball long enough to make a football move. Officials were at a disadvantage in the end zone, because there was no move to look for. No observable standard. They had to use their judgment as to whether the player had held the ball long enough to make a move. (See Calvin Johnson 2010)

5. Here's the big one. Unless you make two separate rules (one for the end zone, and one for the field of play) then the rule for the whole field can't require a football move. As a result, the rule for the end zone (enough time for a move) covered the whole field, but that didn't mean officials had to stop looking for a football move when they could, outside the end zone.

You haven't been able to explain why they were looking for a football move. How would you explain why "the football move" was in the rules in the first place?

This is where some critical thinking comes in. Why was it "enough time for a football move" instead of simply "enough time?" Because the football move was important to them as an observable, measurable requirement for completion of the catch process. Anybody short of the end zone, given the time, is going to make a football move because they want to advance the ball. In non-end zone situations, officials wanted to use every tool in the kit to determine whether the catch process had been completed, so they would not have ignored the football move just because it doesn't apply to the end zone.

That's how it all fits together. The rule at the time, Perreira saying, "he had to have enough time to commit a football act, and do so," Blandino saying, "it wasn't enough of a football move." Your explanation that only time was needed doesn't account for these statements. That should tell you something. It should tell you that you can't simply look at the rule book and leave it at that, ignoring the interpretations of the people who made these calls. If you want to understand a Supreme Court justice's opinion, you don't just read the law. You read his opinion, and the history of the precedents that he based it on.

If you're trying to understand Blandino's overturn, then your first resource is Blandino's explanation of the overturn. That's just common sense.

How do you define, "going to the ground"? When does this event or series of events begin, and when does this event or series of events end?

Before the rule change in 2015, the catch process determined whether a player was going to the ground as a runner or as a receiver. After the rule change, the official's judgment as to whether the player remained upright long enough was the determining factor.

IOW, when a player starts to fall doesn't matter. What matters is whether he hits the ground as a runner or as a receiver.

When you ask "When does 'going to the ground' begin?" you're giving the distinct impression that you don't understand the above.

 

[blindzebra]

"lunging forward after bracing himself"

That's the interpretation of the play and how such a play is to be viewed.



No, bracing is an act common to the game. Don't believe I said it caused a dead ball.

Define, "going to the ground". Is it when the player lands on the ground or is it the entire sequence from the point in in which the player begins to fall to the ground up until the point at which he lands on the ground?

You said bracing was what ended the going to the ground because it was the contact through the ground, I correctly called you on that BS, because the hand is like the foot it does not count, so it can't end the going to the ground process, but it did end the 3 step process as a move common to the game. Going to the ground begins when it begins, but it could end two ways...if all 3 steps of the catch process are met and the receiver becomes a runner, and if not when you maintain possession after something other than hands or feet hit the ground.

I am done discussing this with you because I have proven you wrong on every step of this, so you are either just trolling or too stupid to figure out that you are making yourself look like an idiot.

 

[percyhoward]

Going to the ground...could end...if all 3 steps of the catch process are met and the receiver becomes a runner.

Real world example: Thomas and Dez were both going to the ground. Thomas was awarded the catch because his reach completed the catch process and made him a runner. Since it was ruled a catch on the field, replay would have had to show clear evidence of no reach at all.

Dez was denied the catch because they said his reach wasn't obvious enough. Since it was ruled a catch on the field, replay should have had to show clear evidence of no reach at all.

On top of that, the only difference in the two reaches was that Thomas used two hands, because he wasn't upright long enough to tuck the ball in one hand to run with it. If Dez had been upright for less time (if Shields had tripped him sooner), he wouldn't have had enough time to tuck the ball away. So he would have reached with two hands, or not reached at all, and the ball would not have come loose. Dez was essentially penalized for having enough time to make a football move, and doing so.

 

[Hoofbite]

You said bracing was what ended the going to the ground because it was the contact through the ground, I correctly called you on that BS, because the hand is like the foot it does not count, so it can't end the going to the ground process, but it did end the 3 step process as a move common to the game. Going to the ground begins when it begins, but it could end two ways...if all 3 steps of the catch process are met and the receiver becomes a runner, and if not when you maintain possession after something other than hands or feet hit the ground.

There is no distinction as to whether or not a hand does or does not count in regards to going to the ground. A hand cannot satisfy the 2nd requirement of a completed catch. Two feet or another part of the body other than the hand so a hand doesn't equal a foot in terms of establishing possession as a receiver. You aren't down by contact if your hand touches, but there's no distinction in the rule regarding which body part needs to contact the ground to end the going to the ground aspect. Crabtree had a play this year where he was stumbling to the ground on the sideline, had both feet down at the time the ball came out, and it was ruled incomplete. Contact through the ground is contact through the ground.

I am done discussing this with you because I have proven you wrong on every step of this, so you are either just trolling or too stupid to figure out that you are making yourself look like an idiot.

If that's how you feel, that's fine. We can differ on this issue. Don't work yourself up on my account.

 

[Hoofbite]

It took me about four months to understand this myself, so I'll be patient with you.

1. The letter of the rule was that only time was needed.

2. This rule applied to anywhere on the field -- the end zone as well as the field of play. Key point here.

3. A football move was anything that a runner would do to help him advance the ball after catching it. The football move gave officials an observable standard as a requirement for receivers to complete the catch process. Another key point.

4. In the end zone, there is no reason to advance the ball because you've already scored. Since there is no need for a football move, the rule was that you just needed to hold the ball long enough to make a football move. Officials were at a disadvantage in the end zone, because there was no move to look for. No observable standard. They had to use their judgment as to whether the player had held the ball long enough to make a move. (See Calvin Johnson 2010)

5. Here's the big one. Unless you make two separate rules (one for the end zone, and one for the field of play) then the rule for the whole field can't require a football move. As a result, the rule for the end zone (enough time for a move) covered the whole field, but that didn't mean officials had to stop looking for a football move when they could, outside the end zone.

You haven't been able to explain why they were looking for a football move. How would you explain why "the football move" was in the rules in the first place?

This is where some critical thinking comes in. Why was it "enough time for a football move" instead of simply "enough time?" Because the football move was important to them as an observable, measurable requirement for completion of the catch process. Anybody short of the end zone, given the time, is going to make a football move because they want to advance the ball. In non-end zone situations, officials wanted to use every tool in the kit to determine whether the catch process had been completed, so they would not have ignored the football move just because it doesn't apply to the end zone.

That's how it all fits together. The rule at the time, Perreira saying, "he had to have enough time to commit a football act, and do so," Blandino saying, "it wasn't enough of a football move." Your explanation that only time was needed doesn't account for these statements. That should tell you something. It should tell you that you can't simply look at the rule book and leave it at that, ignoring the interpretations of the people who made these calls. If you want to understand a Supreme Court justice's opinion, you don't just read the law. You read his opinion, and the history of the precedents that he based it on.

If you're trying to understand Blandino's overturn, then your first resource is Blandino's explanation of the overturn. That's just common sense.

And it also doesn't mean that they would or should disregard the aspect of time outside of the endzone. If it did, they could have easily just written that in the rules. A player who doesn't see an incoming hit would likely also not make a football move. That could happen anywhere.

Before the rule change in 2015, the catch process determined whether a player was going to the ground as a runner or as a receiver. After the rule change, the official's judgment as to whether the player remained upright long enough was the determining factor.

IOW, when a player starts to fall doesn't matter. What matters is whether he hits the ground as a runner or as a receiver.

When you ask "When does 'going to the ground' begin?" you're giving the distinct impression that you don't understand the above.

Here's an explanation by Blandino that predates any of the changes.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...s-referees-made-correct-calls-in-playoff-game

Notice the emphasis on when the 2nd foot comes down. Gresham gets the 2nd foot down in bounds 1 more time after contact so there's no point in defining the outcomes based on whether or not his 2nd foot was down prior to the contact unless when a player starts falling does matter. If that step after contact wouldn't have counted, it seems pretty clear the process of the catch must be complete prior to the process of going to the ground or else a player will have to retain possession.

If all that mattered was whether or not a player was a runner or receiver as he hits the ground then the rule would state that. "Going to the ground" wouldn't even be in the rules. It would just say, "makes contact with the ground".

 

[Kevinicus]

And it also doesn't mean that they would or should disregard the aspect of time outside of the endzone. If it did, they could have easily just written that in the rules. A player who doesn't see an incoming hit would likely also not make a football move. That could happen anywhere.



Here's an explanation by Blandino that predates any of the changes.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...s-referees-made-correct-calls-in-playoff-game

Notice the emphasis on when the 2nd foot comes down. Gresham gets the 2nd foot down in bounds 1 more time after contact so there's no point in defining the outcomes based on whether or not his 2nd foot was down prior to the contact unless when a player starts falling does matter. If that step after contact wouldn't have counted, it seems pretty clear the process of the catch must be complete prior to the process of going to the ground or else a player will have to retain possession.

If all that mattered was whether or not a player was a runner or receiver as he hits the ground then the rule would state that. "Going to the ground" wouldn't even be in the rules. It would just say, "makes contact with the ground".

You have the oddest interpretations of things. Why would Blandino's words mean anything except that the catch is complete when there is contact in this case? Why bother going into further analysis of the play if it is clear at that point?

 

[percyhoward]

And it also doesn't mean that they would or should disregard the aspect of time outside of the endzone.

Of course not, but the football move gave them an observable standard for determining completion of the catch process. That's why Blandino was looking for a football move from Bryant and Thomas, even after both had started falling. Why would he have done this without a reason?

Notice the emphasis on when the 2nd foot comes down. Gresham gets the 2nd foot down in bounds 1 more time after contact so there's no point in defining the outcomes based on whether or not his 2nd foot was down prior to the contact unless when a player starts falling does matter.

That's your explanation of the play. Blandino's is in the audio. He says nothing about when Gresham started to fall. He said Gresham completed the catch process because he got the second foot down before he was contacted.

"Is it a catch? The referee will have to make the determination, did the receiver have both feet down prior to him getting contacted, which sent him to the ground. If that's the case, then he doesn't have to hold onto it when he hits the ground. So you're going to see control. Just as the second foot comes down, there's going to be contact, then he goes to the ground. The referee determined that this was not part of the process. He'd completed the catch process, and therefore did not have to hold onto the football."

If all that mattered was whether or not a player was a runner or receiver as he hits the ground then the rule would state that. "Going to the ground" wouldn't even be in the rules. It would just say, "makes contact with 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.

I think a player who goes to the ground makes contact with it, but my interpretation is as meaningless as yours. Based on the fact that Blandino (and Pereira before him) were looking for football moves before players went to the ground, we know how they interpreted it. We also know Blandino didn't like it.

 

[Hoofbite]

You have the oddest interpretations of things. Why would Blandino's words mean anything except that the catch is complete when there is contact in this case? Why bother going into further analysis of the play if it is clear at that point?

Oddest interpretation? People were asking why going to the ground rule didn't apply for this play.

"Is it a catch? The referee will have to make the determination, did the receiver have both feet down prior to him getting contacted, which sent him to the ground," Blandino said during his weekly segment on NFL Network's "NFL Total Access." "If that's the case, then he doesn't have to hold onto it when he hits the ground. So you're going to see control. Just as the second foot comes down, there's going to be contact, the alley goes to the ground. The referee determined that this was not part of the process. He'd completed the catch process, and therefore did not have to hold onto the football.

His reply is he got both feet down prior to the contact that sent him to the ground. Had Gresham been able to get the 2nd foot down (and have it count) after contact, there's no need to draw a line at the point of contact as the determining factor.

 

[Kevinicus]

Oddest interpretation? People were asking why going to the ground rule didn't apply for this play.



His reply is he got both feet down prior to the contact that sent him to the ground. Had Gresham been able to get the 2nd foot down (and have it count) after contact, there's no need to draw a line at the point of contact as the determining factor.

That's the line because that is where the process is complete in that case. There is no need to look at additional feet down. It's a catch prior to that point.

 

[percyhoward]

Oddest interpretation? People were asking why going to the ground rule didn't apply for this play. His reply is he got both feet down prior to the contact that sent him to the ground. Had Gresham been able to get the 2nd foot down (and have it count) after contact, there's no need to draw a line at the point of contact as the determining factor.

What if the ball had come loose after Gresham had two feet down and was contacted, but before he hit the ground?

 

[blindzebra]

The thing is Blandino is not interpreting it correctly anyway. There is nothing in the rules that says both feet need to be down before contact with an opponent.

 

[percyhoward]

Whatever completed the catch process, it happened between the 2nd foot coming down and Gresham touching the ball to the ground.. Gresham had control and two feet down, which satisfied parts 1 and 2 of the catch process. I think the catch process was completed when Gresham held onto the ball after the defender's contact. If holding onto the ball after contact isn't an act common to the game, I don't know what is. If he drops the ball after the contact, I'm sure it's incomplete.

But that's just my interpretation. We know the process had already been completed when he touched the ball to the ground and it came loose, and we know the defender's contact alone wouldn't have completed the process.

 

[loublue22]

Because it's an example of the rule. In this case, it's an example of when going to the ground was in play but should not be applied because a play that appears to 1 continuous process (and would be subject to the rule) is actually a completed process and an additional action thereafter. Why even have a case example?



Because in order to serve as a good example it might want to include all the necessary requirements that would be up for consideration in a real game.

If you want to get technical about it, had the 2nd foot not been mentioned the player wouldn't have completed the process in the correct order which would have made the entirety of the play subject to going to the ground. Without foot 2, it's incomplete because the lunge becomes a part of the process just as in the Calvin video that Percy posted. Yes, he completed the prerequisites for the catch while falling or going to the ground but the key here is that he maintained possession. If the ball comes out at the point at which he braces himself it would be incomplete.



Brace and then lunge. That's the important part. Brace completes the process, control was maintained, and we're getting the 2nd act that Mike Perreira used to talk about.

That was always what was so frustrating about the Dez play, that he clearly ONLY fumbled because he reached out for the goal line, which is a football move all day long