Fitz catch vs. Dez non-catch

[jwitten82]

Im not even mad about it, even if Blandino admits he was wrong, then so what? We'll never get that game back, so it is pointless.

 

[cowboyblue22]

the reason the rule is the way it is so they can change the outcome of games to get the results that they want.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

They had the right rules in place. The problem is (and I've said this a million times and will continue to say it) is that Blandino doesn't understand the rule. He kept thinking that the 'Calvin Johnson Rule' applied with Dez. But, it doesn't. The rulebook clearly states that once the ball is caught and the player *advances* the ball, the ball is deemed to be caught and can no longer be incomplete. The Calvin Johnson Rule didn't apply to Dez's catch because CJ was already in the end zone and could not possibly advanced the football. It would be similar to a player that catches a sideline pass and manages to get both feet in, but the ball pops the ball loose. The receiver in that case didn't advance the football, so it's not a catch.

Dez caught it and advanced it. You don't even have to worry about how many steps because falling forward is 'advancing the football' and should be a catch. Dez caught the ball, took three steps and stretch out forward. That's every bit of 'advancing the football.' And Blandino agreed that Dez 'advanced the football', but claimed that he 'didn't advance it far enough.' There was absolutely nothing in the rule book pertaining to 'advancing the ball far enough' or what that entails. Blandino simply made that up.

I actually question Fitzgerald's catch even more because it appeared that he bobbled it a little before he got to the sideline.

But either way, it's a real shame because the rule in the rule book was a sound rule and clearly defined. But because one idiot manages to screw that up, it's turned into a complete fiasco.







YR

 

[rynochop]

NFL really brought this catch confusion on themselves.

Should have just ruled Calvin's TD a TD. I feel like it was better before this ruling and thus them overthinking everything.

Exactly right. It's football, it's a game, if it looks like a catch it's a catch. We don't need freaking lawyers defining what a catch is

 

[TwoDeep3]

Do you see the point where Dez and the defender touched before Dez went to the ground?

1. This is continually ignored as contact on this board.
2. Regardless of the number of steps Dez took, he appeared to be falling because of this contact.
3. Thus the rule of maintaining the catch throughout the movement to the ground applies.
4. Dez landed with the ball touching the ground.
5. The ball popped loose from his grip, DUE TO TOUCHING THE GROUND.
6. Dez caught the ball in the endzone.

But...the ground caused him to lose control of the ball and made the ball move to the point he no longer held the ball, thus it was not a catch.

I am a homer, but I am not blind. All the rhetoric about this by the refs, league, and this board means nothing since the criteria for a catch met certain needs to make this a non-catch.

He made contact (no matter who initiated it)
He went to the ground because of said contact. (No matter if the contact forced him to the ground and no matter how many steps)
He landed with the ball touching the ground
The ball moved to the point he no longer had control

NO CATCH

Back in the day, I was a bartender, and the Lynn Swann catch was argued at my bar for an entire off season. That argument did not change the outcome of that Super Bowl, and this argument about it being a catch will not change this.

The only difference is the internet and people making graphics to illustrate a point they will ultimately lose because it was not interference then and it was not a catch in regard to the Dez play.

The rules may be inconsistent, but the rule was applied to this play in a consistent manner with the way the rules are interpreted.

 

[rynochop]

The difference is the whole "going to the ground" explanation ... which is never explained or defined in the rule book.

Yeah..even the Dez catch the refs had to assume the ball bounced off the ground, to rule it incomplete, which wasn't conclusive. It probably did, but may have just bounced off his forearm

 

[percyhoward]

That's a fine piece of art by whoever put it together, but the rule was different in 2014. Back then, you only needed control, two feet, and a football move. People forget that Blandino said Dez's catch would have stood if he'd extended his arm toward the goal line or reached with two hands.

Not only was Dez's play a catch, it was a catch under the rule that existed at the time -- a much stricter and more specific rule.

 

[rynochop]

Do you see the point where Dez and the defender touched before Dez went to the ground?

1. This is continually ignored as contact on this board.
2. Regardless of the number of steps Dez took, he appeared to be falling because of this contact.
3. Thus the rule of maintaining the catch throughout the movement to the ground applies.
4. Dez landed with the ball touching the ground.
5. The ball popped loose from his grip, DUE TO TOUCHING THE GROUND.
6. Dez caught the ball in the endzone.

But...the ground caused him to lose control of the ball and made the ball move to the point he no longer held the ball, thus it was not a catch.

I am a homer, but I am not blind. All the rhetoric about this by the refs, league, and this board means nothing since the criteria for a catch met certain needs to make this a non-catch.

He made contact (no matter who initiated it)
He went to the ground because of said contact. (No matter if the contact forced him to the ground and no matter how many steps)
He landed with the ball touching the ground
The ball moved to the point he no longer had control

NO CATCH

Back in the day, I was a bartender, and the Lynn Swann catch was argued at my bar for an entire off season. That argument did not change the outcome of that Super Bowl, and this argument about it being a catch will not change this.

The only difference is the internet and people making graphics to illustrate a point they will ultimately lose because it was not interference then and it was not a catch in regard to the Dez play.

The rules may be inconsistent, but the rule was applied to this play in a consistent manner with the way the rules are interpreted.

Show me a screen shot of the ball 100 percent hitting the ground...I'll save you the effort, there isn't one. It was assumed it did, it could have just as easily bounced off his forearm hitting the ground

 

[TwoDeep3]

Show me a screen shot of the ball 100 percent hitting the ground...I'll save you the effort, there isn't one. It was assumed it did, it could have just as easily bounced off his forearm hitting the ground

It's not a catch times two.

Undisputed evidence.at the 40 second mark. And at an opposite angle at the 1:28 second mark.

You may choose to dismiss it, but you would be wrong and that is the reason why you cannot see this was not a catch.

 

[Frozen700]

When did the Lions get interfered with? The Lion's receiver clearly grabbed Hitchen's face mask. Hitchens never made contact with the Lion's receiver. Face guarding is NOT a penalty in the NFL.

You and I both know that was PI to the fullest.

Since when do refs pick up a flag minutes later? We all would have lost our **** if it happened to us.

Fans on here sat back and mocked other lions fans when they complained.

Now we have the right to get upset? Lol

 

[TwoDeep3]

That's a fine piece of art by whoever put it together, but the rule was different in 2014. Back then, you only needed control, two feet, and a football move. People forget that Blandino said Dez's catch would have stood if he'd extended his arm toward the goal line or reached with two hands.

Not only was Dez's play a catch, it was a catch under the rule that existed at the time -- a much stricter and more specific rule.

Contact and stumbling toward the ground negates your two feet comments. Always has. You interpret him making a football move. But clearly they interpret him stumbling and falling. Regardless of how many times his feet hit the ground.

Since they see it as contact/falling, all the football moves and jargon used to label what Dez did in his going for the endzone were construed as contact forcing the player to the ground.

Still isn't a catch.

 

[percyhoward]

"Cause one was a jumpball, then tripped over Sam Shields, and then lost control of the ball. The other made the catch, turned and ran, and then put the ball on the ground. Two way different plays."

"A. No Dez didn't catch it. B. Fitz was different as there was no going to the ground cause it wasn't a jump ball"

People are looking at the two plays to find what's different so they can use it as an explanation, when all they have to do is read the NFL's explanation.

 

[percyhoward]

Contact and stumbling toward the ground negates your two feet comments. Always has. You interpret him making a football move. But clearly they interpret him stumbling and falling.

The rule in place at the time allowed a player to make a football move while falling. Their problem with the play -- according to them -- was that he didn't make enough of one -- according to them.

 

[sbark]

Do you see the point where Dez and the defender touched before Dez went to the ground?

1. This is continually ignored as contact on this board.
2. Regardless of the number of steps Dez took, he appeared to be falling because of this contact.
3. Thus the rule of maintaining the catch throughout the movement to the ground applies.
4. Dez landed with the ball touching the ground.
5. The ball popped loose from his grip, DUE TO TOUCHING THE GROUND.
6. Dez caught the ball in the endzone.

But...the ground caused him to lose control of the ball and made the ball move to the point he no longer held the ball, thus it was not a catch.

I am a homer, but I am not blind. All the rhetoric about this by the refs, league, and this board means nothing since the criteria for a catch met certain needs to make this a non-catch.

He made contact (no matter who initiated it)
He went to the ground because of said contact. (No matter if the contact forced him to the ground and no matter how many steps)
He landed with the ball touching the ground
The ball moved to the point he no longer had control

NO CATCH

Back in the day, I was a bartender, and the Lynn Swann catch was argued at my bar for an entire off season. That argument did not change the outcome of that Super Bowl, and this argument about it being a catch will not change this.

The only difference is the internet and people making graphics to illustrate a point they will ultimately lose because it was not interference then and it was not a catch in regard to the Dez play.

The rules may be inconsistent, but the rule was applied to this play in a consistent manner with the way the rules are interpreted.

That's where I was headed also...............Dez down by contact, Fitz none whatsoever. Ironic that G.Bay was the beneficiary and also the "victim" of both sides of this call confusion.

At Least here, they learned to lean toward the call on the field, which was the full intent of instant replay in the admirable beginning................only to be overturned by irrefutable evidence

 

[hornitosmonster]

The NFL is a joke

 

[TwoDeep3]

Sorry, left the link off.

@ 40 seconds in and @ 1:38 toward the end.

Two angles. Both show the ball rolling over the top of his arm. The one @ 1:38 is the reverse angle and shows the ball touching the ground.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000456759/Did-Dez-catch-it

 

[tyke1doe]

I've argued that based on the rules, Dez's call was correctly a No Catch.

But Fitz was a no catch also. Even though he turns after catching the ball, the impetus of the catch is forcing him to the ground. The Packers defender doesn't push him to the ground. He's going down on his own. Then, the ball touches the ground.

It should have been a no catch by the same definition applied to Dez's no catch.

 

[percyhoward]

Blandino agreed that Dez 'advanced the football', but claimed that he 'didn't advance it far enough.' There was absolutely nothing in the rule book pertaining to 'advancing the ball far enough' or what that entails. Blandino simply made that up.

And he obviously made up the "two-handed reach" requirement. No group of football people would sit around and come up a rule that said putting the ball in two hands shows you've become a runner. It's counterintuitive. You secure the ball with two hands, you advance it with one.

 

[SultanOfSix]

What's ironic is Fitz's catch was a non-catch according to the rules as they are now, and it was ruled wrong by not being overturned.

Dez's non-catch was a catch according to the rules as they were then, and it was ruled wrong by being overturned.

 

[percyhoward]

What's ironic is Fitz's catch was a non-catch according to the rules as they are now.

Under the "reworded" rule, we can't argue with the officials' judgment that he'd established himself as a runner, so it's a catch. They purposely made the rule ambiguous so they could avoid the messy explanations that were needed back when there was actually a set of criteria for establishing oneself as a runner.

We went from having the observable checklist of a) control, b) two feet, and c) a football move all being needed to establish a player as a runner to simply "establish yourself as a runner."