News: Goodell is now worried about the catch rule

[percyhoward]

What Blandino actually stated was that, in his judgment, there wasn't "enough" of a football move which, to me, implies that there was at least some of a football move (in his opinion). He was/is just an idiot trying to cover his ***...but I digress.

What's funny is, you'll get some people who say, "Dez should have just made sure he held onto the ball instead of trying to score." They don't realize that the fact that they could tell he was trying to score proves he had already caught it. That's what the football move is for.

Blandino was asked in a radio interview what advice he would give Dez the next time he was in that situation. Blandino said, "I would tell him 'Just make sure you maintain possession and don't try to...'" He had to stop in mid-sentence so that he wouldn't let it slip that he had seen a football move.

 

[MarcusRock]

You clearly have an inflated sense of confidence and importance. I admire that given your lack of ability to understand simple text which is clearly a symptom of larger problems that you have.

Explain to me your first and thens idea. Where and how did you come up with that? I’ve never said any of those things that you pulled from your ***. That was dumb.

I’m assuming you’re confusing this discussion with some other. Let’s just stick to what we’ve discussed.

The rule as written in 2014 states the catch process is compete after(I’ll say it again even though it’s been said) Control, 2 feet down, and time to make a football move have been competed. This is what I’ve always said.

Once those 3 steps have been completed the player is a runner. These supercedes the “going to the ground” rule. Which applies to those that haven’t met the 3 step process.

Now I’m your ringleader. Your orders are to read more carefully, listen to others that are trying to help you, learn to see football plays clearly, and don’t listen to what you tell yourself because you lack credibility.

If your feelings from my posts are that I have an inflated sense of confidence and importance you might want to take a look inward because I haven't claimed to have anything other than just wanting to debate controversial plays, etc. and doing so. So if you're "offended" by how I go about it then that's way more to do with you than me because people choose how they will feel about "simple text" they read on a screen. No one can make you feel anything. It's drummed up by what's already inside (or lacking inside).

I'm sorry but you don't qualify as a ring leader. In that other thread whose link I provided, I was actually debating with you first and in the back and forth you called for backup from stuff percy had written. So when he showed up I took the debate in that direction. His posts were easier reads and actually had substantiated material too vs. emotion-fed opinions so double bonus.

As for credibility, you'll remember that in that thread you were whining about bias against the Cowboys with the same shadowy accusations that somehow never require proof when there's something someone doesn't want to accept. When talking about that streak of opponents not being called for holds, I asked simple clarifying questions to you that would shed light on any bias, and actually strengthen your case depending on the answers. Those questions had to do with whether that streak was out of the ordinary or just another streak that's a regular occurrence in the NFL. You said you'd compile the stats and bring them back. You never returned after that. Sure, you were probably trying to be smart alecky or something but those questions essentially shut that argument down because you have no answers. That's why bias and conspiracy accusations are so popular (and funny to me) because they exist solely in the minds of the accusers and when you call them out for not providing evidence they just repeat them more intensely. But you want to talk about another's lack of credibility?

 

[percyhoward]

Exactly. Stop holding the ball like it's a loaf of bread.

He already had two feet down, so the fact that he was "holding the ball like a loaf of bread" makes him a runner, by definition. That's how it was ruled on the field too. We can criticize the overturn and criticize Dez's fundamentals at the same time. Don't have to choose one or the other.

 

[jsb357]

the easiest way to make the call not subject to interpretation is to remove the
allowance of ground contact at any time for any forward pass.

 

[percyhoward]

so they will most likely screw it up even more..im taking a wait and see attitude..the only way to make it correct is do away with the ambiguous going to ground rule..

They can keep the part about "when a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass." That's been in the book forever. What they have to stop doing is "invoking" that rule at their whim. An official is not supposed to apply that rule unless the player goes to the ground (read: "hits the ground") before he completes all 3 parts of the catch process: Control + 2 feet + the football move that satisfies the time requirement (to avoid "bang-bang" plays).

Blandino misinterpreted "When a player goes to the ground" as "when a player is falling." Officials' decisions must be based on observable acts. Hitting the ground is an observable act, as there is a clear line between being on the ground and not. A football move is an observable act, as there is a clear line between "performing any act" and not. But falling?

"Upright long enough" was put in after the Dez play, and it's been there for three years. When they make changes to the catch rule this off-season, they will either have to remove "upright long enough" or just start ignoring it. One thing is for sure -- it has no practical use.

 

[MarcusRock]

The modus operandi you’re trying to earn:
1. Cry over and over that someone won’t answer what you think is a very important question.
2. Criticize them over and over for not answering it.
3. Receive answer then whine it took too long
4. Use that as an excuse to be a hippocrit and not answer a question that will clearly hurt your not well thought out debate
5. Wrongly think you have the ability to shame someone with a post.

These are characteristics that possibly put your last forum of debate out of business.

Again, not sure why you direct venom in my direction like you've been triggered or something. When people are debating and one refuses to answer a question, possibly because it defeats their argument or greatly weakens it, is it not a big deal when someone has placed a good deal of emphasis on that point being questioned? So why would anyone pick up a debate again knowing that another does this? I thought it was cool that I kept going in the initial debate because it could have just ended there. As I mentioned above you should know personally about avoiding questions in a debate since you did it in that same thread I linked.

Anyways, I will address your points (because I do that):
1. If someone's debate stance is based on a point that the person avoids questions on, it's an important question. If not, there'd be no problem in just answering it.
2. If it's an important question in the debate, how can a fair debate continue onwards if not answered?
3. In this thread, I never even asked for the answer. I merely pointed out that the question hadn't been answered.
4. From the start, I said I was not going to re-hash the debate since it had already been done. Multiple times. See #3. (Also, "hypocrite" is the word you meant)
5. Did I get an answer or didn't I?

Not sure what you mean by "put your last forum of debate out of business." Do you mean the old DC Forums? These forums have every bit the number of emotional bias/conspiracy criers with zero proof as those forums did.

 

[MarcusRock]

Try watching in regular speed. He was clearly falling to the ground. On his own. If he was taking steps to be established as a runner as you say, why didn't he just keep taking steps and run into the end zone?
Answer: He was falling to the ground.

LOL. You are way more concise than I have been. Same effectiveness though if not better.

 

[percyhoward]

the easiest way to make the call not subject to interpretation is to remove the
allowance of ground contact at any time for any forward pass.

Most times the player will put the ball in one hand to run with it, so that falls under "perform any act." The catch committee was specific when they put the football move back into the book in 2016. "Turn up field, tuck the ball, take additional steps." It's like they were watching the Dez play and taking notes because they knew it was a catch and wanted to spell out why.

Unless you're talking about diving catches, the problem with not letting a player go to the ground is that it would have nothing to do with determining whether or not he caught the ball. On diving catches, you do need to make sure he survives the ground, because there's no time for a football move. On any other kind of catch, he's got time to "perform any act," so that's what you look for. Be it extra steps, putting the ball in one hand, or whatever. Basically anything besides still trying to catch it.

That's a lot easier to see than trying to pinpoint when a player began to fall, or if he was upright long enough. What do you do, count one-mississippi, two-mississippi?

 

[percyhoward]

Try watching in regular speed. He was clearly falling to the ground. On his own. If he was taking steps to be established as a runner as you say, why didn't he just keep taking steps and run into the end zone?
Answer: He was falling to the ground.

You can complete the catch process while falling.

 

[MarcusRock]

Boooo. They moved this thread to NFL Zone. Way to go Mr_C.

 

[CCBoy]

As long as you maintain possession.

After establishing the ball, on a running move the ground can NOT create a fumble. Sidelines and the endzone are different creatures.
Two steps and a football move don't already establish possession?

 

[G2]

You can complete the catch process while falling.

Why was it overturned? Because it was ruled he didn't maintain possession. Result: Not completing a catch.

 

[G2]

After establishing the ball, on a running move the ground can NOT create a fumble. Sidelines and the endzone are different creatures.
Two steps and a football move don't already establish possession?

Falling to the ground is a football move? Or are they steps?

 

[CCBoy]

Falling to the ground is a football move? Or are they steps?

Christ, Dez Bryant fully extended his body and extended his hand with the ball fully controlled...I tell you what, you tell ME.

 

[G2]

Christ, Dez Bryant fully extended his body and extended his hand with the ball fully controlled...I tell you what, you tell ME.

Yep, it was a nice try. His greatest attribute is what he does after a catch. If it was a catch that is.

 

[CCBoy]

Yep, it was a nice try. His greatest attribute is what he does after a catch. If it was a catch that is.

Definitely not right on...purely straight ahead here.

 

[MarcusRock]

Yep, it was a nice try. His greatest attribute is what he does after a catch. If it was a catch that is.

And that's the hangup honestly. It wasn't a nice try. It appears as if he intended to reach but was falling so fast that he was too low to the ground to extend the ball. Plus, the way he was holding it made it ripe for coming out once he and the ball hit the ground. As soon as that happened and the ball came loose, it was an easy overturn. If the official on the field didn't apply the correct rule then in replay you apply the correct rule. Going to the ground and no catch.

 

[G2]

And that's the hangup honestly. It wasn't a nice try. It appears as if he intended to reach but was falling so fast that he was too low to the ground to extend the ball. Plus, the way he was holding it made it ripe for coming out once he and the ball hit the ground. As soon as that happened and the ball came loose, it was an easy overturn. If the official on the field didn't apply the correct rule then in replay you apply the correct rule. Going to the ground and no catch.

Right because it's much easier to see the ball movement in slow motion. Which might be why initially it was ruled a TD. However, difficult to see that he jumped, came down and fell to the ground. Some make it seem like he was simply running and taking steps, but I'm just not convinced of that.

 

[Aviano90]

Enjoying my popcorn reading the debate.

Interesting information regarding holding penalties and Dallas not getting holding calls in their favor for a stretch of games in a row. While I don't know how this stacks up against other teams, I do know Dallas had 21 holding penalties called in their favor (18 accepted and 3 dismissed). I was surprised to see Denver was so low at 15 total offensive holding penalties called to their benefit.

http://www.nflpenalties.com/penalty/offensive-holding?year=2017

 

[percyhoward]

Why was it overturned? Because it was ruled he didn't maintain possession. Result: Not completing a catch.

Why was the Jesse James catch overturned, for that matter? It was overturned erroneously. The replay official overstepped his bounds and applied a rule that shouldn't be applied after the catch process has already been completed.

That's why Pereira said a few weeks ago that the replay official shouldn't be allowed to review the third part of the catch process when the player goes to the ground, and why he said both catches should have stood. It's also why Goodell says the catch rule needs to be revisited in the offseason. Replay officials have made a mess of it.