News: Goodell is now worried about the catch rule

[Melonfeud]

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

Bro! This generated 'debate' has officially veered down the boulevard of weirdness with this footballish inquiry,,, granted the fact weirdness was immediately detected, your asinine post verified it,,,,
Just what the hell do you think " falling to the ground is a football move" ,,,er,,,while conducting the game of football,,,,means to you?,,,,SHEESE!

 

[G2]

Bro! This generated 'debate' has officially veered down the boulevard of weirdness with this footballish inquiry,,, granted the fact weirdness was immediately detected, your asinine post verified it,,,,
Just what the hell do you think " falling to the ground is a football move" ,,,er,,,while conducting the game of football,,,,means to you?,,,,SHEESE!

Ok bro,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[percyhoward]

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.

"The way he was holding it?" How was he holding it if he was still trying to catch it?

If he was holding the ball in one hand, that falls under "performing any act" that a runner commonly performs.

2014 rule: To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground in bounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game.

The official on the field did apply the correct rule, which was Pereira's point in this article. That the replay official should not have questioned anything past the point of control and two feet down. That if the field official thought the fact that Dez was holding the ball in one hand proved he was a runner, then he was right.

 

[DogFace]

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?

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?

Someone like you could not offend me. I’m not sure I’ve ever been offended in real life or the nearly insignificant internet debate forum. It is I interesting that you chose such a term then, ironically, go on to expalin how I may be projecting my feelings on you

I quoted “my ring leader” because he explained the catch in such clear and simple terms even a moron could understand it. Apparently, I was off on that one and for that I apologize. I do like how you’re praising him now. It’s shows you’re capable of learning. Which is exactly what I wanted you to do. Although, I still don’t remember you answering his questions.

Oh yeah, you have all these wonderful answers in some other thread. I’ll look them up right after I look up all the holding stats for all nfl teams and I’ll go back 30 years to provide proof to you that no holds for 9 games(?)Is unusual.

The no holds is simply a topic I find interesting. I wanted to debate it and possibly learn more facts and find out if it is more common than I realize. You provided nothing.

Though I accuse that there may be a bias understand there’s no way to absolutely prove there is a bias if one existed. Just as there’s no way to prove there is a bias. It’s simply a topic to debate and get others opinions on the subject. Again, you offered nearly nothing besides the obvious statement that it could not be proven and therefore, I assume, never spoken of.

Do you feel there is bias, at all, in this world? Judging from your personality, and my world view may need adjustment of I’m wrong, I’d guess you believe in a media bias against one political party. Prove it. Or prove any other bias that you know of. Is your view bias or prejudice, for that matter, should never be discussed since it’s nearly impossible to prove?

 

[Ghost12]

There is no way to draft the rule to eliminate threads like this. No matter what they do, there will always be a close play in a big game which generates endless disagreement.

 

[Nightman]

If a legal catch was made and ruled that way on the field..... the maintaining control going to the ground part should not be reviewable

So if he gets two feet or one knee down and has control just like every other catch then a ref cannot overturn a call based on a ball moving later in the process

 

[percyhoward]

There is no way to draft the rule to eliminate threads like this. No matter what they do, there will always be a close play in a big game which generates endless disagreement.

You can't totally eliminate the amount of judgment that goes into every call, but you can sure reduce it from what it is now.

Pereira says to treat a falling player the same as an upright player, and don't make the football move reviewable. He basically wants to take "upright long enough" out of the rule book, and go back to the football move. He's 100% right.

 

[percyhoward]

If a legal catch was made and ruled that way on the field..... the maintaining control going to the ground part should not be reviewable

So if he gets two feet or one knee down and has control just like every other catch then a ref cannot overturn a call based on a ball moving later in the process

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass, he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground."

Until Blandino came along, the highlighted part was never taken to mean "falling." It was always interpreted as "hits the ground."

 

[MarcusRock]

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

This is interesting. If I'm reading this right, Green Bay only had 10 offensive holding penalties called against them this season. I remember on the old DC boards, one of the conspiracy theorists was asking how Green Bay didn't have any offensive holding penalties called against them in the 2 games we played them, therefore something crooked's going on, lol. Meanwhile, they went at least 6 games this year not getting a holding call. Carolina also had 6 games like that. Maybe some teams are just disciplined.

 

[MarcusRock]

Someone like you could not offend me. I’m not sure I’ve ever been offended in real life or the nearly insignificant internet debate forum. It is I interesting that you chose such a term then, ironically, go on to expalin how I may be projecting my feelings on you

I quoted “my ring leader” because he explained the catch in such clear and simple terms even a moron could understand it. Apparently, I was off on that one and for that I apologize. I do like how you’re praising him now. It’s shows you’re capable of learning. Which is exactly what I wanted you to do. Although, I still don’t remember you answering his questions.

Oh yeah, you have all these wonderful answers in some other thread. I’ll look them up right after I look up all the holding stats for all nfl teams and I’ll go back 30 years to provide proof to you that no holds for 9 games(?)Is unusual.

The no holds is simply a topic I find interesting. I wanted to debate it and possibly learn more facts and find out if it is more common than I realize. You provided nothing.

Though I accuse that there may be a bias understand there’s no way to absolutely prove there is a bias if one existed. Just as there’s no way to prove there is a bias. It’s simply a topic to debate and get others opinions on the subject. Again, you offered nearly nothing besides the obvious statement that it could not be proven and therefore, I assume, never spoken of.

Do you feel there is bias, at all, in this world? Judging from your personality, and my world view may need adjustment of I’m wrong, I’d guess you believe in a media bias against one political party. Prove it. Or prove any other bias that you know of. Is your view bias or prejudice, for that matter, should never be discussed since it’s nearly impossible to prove?

No. Just that people shouldn't be shocked when it's called for what it is when used in response to the Cowboys losing: whining

 

[MarcusRock]

"The way he was holding it?" How was he holding it if he was still trying to catch it?

If he was holding the ball in one hand, that falls under "performing any act" that a runner commonly performs.

2014 rule: To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground in bounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game.

The official on the field did apply the correct rule, which was Pereira's point in this article. That the replay official should not have questioned anything past the point of control and two feet down. That if the field official thought the fact that Dez was holding the ball in one hand proved he was a runner, then he was right.

Was wondering which phantom football move you'd "switch" to after you admitted the reach was not a reach after all. See what I did there? You need to go back to the quote from Blandino you posted in the other thread that answered the reach question at that point. The things Dez did (or didn't do) after highpointing the ball were "all part of his momentum in going to the ground and he lost the ball when he hit the ground." Then you have Steratore and Pereira who each said no football move happened. You and every other catch supporter are seeing things none of these guys saw? Riiiiiight.

You're being misleading about the Pereira article. Nowhere in that article does he imply that the on-field official applied the correct rule on the Dez play. Nowhere. After proposing going to the ground catch process should be the same as the upright Article 3 three-part catch process, he says if his proposal were made into the rule that a football move would not be reviewable in addition to control and 2 feet. He doesn't say review shouldn't have taken place back then. It was and still is reviewable. He says if his proposal were the rule all along that it wouldn't have been reviewed and all those controversial catches in the past wouldn't have been reviewed either, not that the field officials were right. Remember, on game day Pereira himself said Dez was going to the ground.

Nice slanted try though. See what I mean about being an honest debater? This sort of stuff isn't necessary if the argument can stand on its own. This is more proof it doesn't.

 

[DogFace]

No. Just that people shouldn't be shocked when it's called for what it is when used in response to the Cowboys losing: whining

So, do you admit to whining about the bias in the media towards one political party?

I can admit to whining about calls, bias, your annoying personality, and whatever else. I realize it’s whining. I realize others are going to try to put others down for complaining.

I just don’t care very much. I’m confident that I have a good point and if anyone wants to analyze/dissect the things I’m complaining about then they will lose the debate or least see that I have a point. Which is that the calls/no calls are odd and somewhat unique.

I stand by my position that the no holds was a very rare, if not unprecedented, occurrence and it will not be seen again. Same goes for the pretend fake illegal substitution vs the Packers, the blatant tackle hold on Irving, and others.

Do you feel the same about what you perceive as a bias or unfairness? Honesty is a virtue and speaks of high character.

 

[DogFace]

Was wondering which phantom football move you'd "switch" to after you admitted the reach was not a reach after all. See what I did there? You need to go back to the quote from Blandino you posted in the other thread that answered the reach question at that point. The things Dez did (or didn't do) after highpointing the ball were "all part of his momentum in going to the ground and he lost the ball when he hit the ground." Then you have Steratore and Pereira who each said no football move happened. You and every other catch supporter are seeing things none of these guys saw? Riiiiiight.

You're being misleading about the Pereira article. Nowhere in that article does he imply that the on-field official applied the correct rule on the Dez play. Nowhere. After proposing going to the ground catch process should be the same as the upright Article 3 three-part catch process, he says if his proposal were made into the rule that a football move would not be reviewable in addition to control and 2 feet. He doesn't say review shouldn't have taken place back then. It was and still is reviewable. He says if his proposal were the rule all along that it wouldn't have been reviewed and all those controversial catches in the past wouldn't have been reviewed either, not that the field officials were right. Remember, on game day Pereira himself said Dez was going to the ground.

Nice slanted try though. See what I mean about being an honest debater? This sort of stuff isn't necessary if the argument can stand on its own. This is more proof it doesn't.

No. No one sees what you did there. Because you didn’t do anything and certainly not what you claim.

There were more than one act that demonstrates Dez “had time” (which is what the rule calls for) to make a move common to ten game.

You said he was “holding the ball in one hand”. Which is an act common to the game. So everyone sees what he did to you.

I feel you’re being ridiculous and making up things now and this may put off many. Including my Ringleader, but I’m petty. I’ll keep up this **** with you until the season starts if you’d like.

Even if you’re making up **** now it’s still entertaining.

 

[percyhoward]

Was wondering which phantom football move you'd "switch" to after you admitted the reach was not a reach after all. See what I did there? You need to go back to the quote from Blandino you posted in the other thread that answered the reach question at that point. The things Dez did (or didn't do) after highpointing the ball were "all part of his momentum in going to the ground and he lost the ball when he hit the ground." Then you have Steratore and Pereira who each said no football move happened. You and every other catch supporter are seeing things none of these guys saw? Riiiiiight.

You're being misleading about the Pereira article. Nowhere in that article does he imply that the on-field official applied the correct rule on the Dez play. Nowhere. After proposing going to the ground catch process should be the same as the upright Article 3 three-part catch process, he says if his proposal were made into the rule that a football move would not be reviewable in addition to control and 2 feet. He doesn't say review shouldn't have taken place back then. It was and still is reviewable. He says if his proposal were the rule all along that it wouldn't have been reviewed and all those controversial catches in the past wouldn't have been reviewed either, not that the field officials were right. Remember, on game day Pereira himself said Dez was going to the ground.

Nice slanted try though. See what I mean about being an honest debater? This sort of stuff isn't necessary if the argument can stand on its own. This is more proof it doesn't.

Let's simply try to address each other's arguments. It makes for better debate, and it's faster not to have to wade through the personal stuff to find the substance or the point that someone is trying to make.

The reach is only one of the acts common to the game performed by Bryant after he had control and two feet down. That's why I asked you if you thought he didn't make ANY football moves, and you responded "not before he hit the ground." If you believe that the things Dez did after control and two feet down were indeed "all part of his momentum in going to the ground," then you have to explain why you think "momentum" would make a player tuck the ball in one hand, as if he'd caught it and was now trying to advance it.

To your other point, Pereira didn't write that whole article merely to ask us to imagine "what if?" He was calling for a change in the way replay handles the catch rule, and specifically the part about a player who goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass.

Why do you think he says the football move shouldn't be reviewable?

 

[MarcusRock]

Let's simply try to address each other's arguments. It makes for better debate, and it's faster not to have to wade through the personal stuff to find the substance or the point that someone is trying to make.

The reach is only one of the acts common to the game performed by Bryant after he had control and two feet down. That's why I asked you if you thought he didn't make ANY football moves, and you responded "not before he hit the ground." If you believe that the things Dez did after control and two feet down were indeed "all part of his momentum in going to the ground," then you have to explain why you think "momentum" would make a player tuck the ball in one hand, as if he'd caught it and was now trying to advance it.

To your other point, Pereira didn't write that whole article merely to ask us to imagine "what if?" He was calling for a change in the way replay handles the catch rule, and specifically the part about a player who goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass.

Why do you think he says the football move shouldn't be reviewable?

It’s done at this point percy. From avoiding a question to TMZ-esque suppositions about Blandino being forced out and his unfinished sentence on a radio interview implicating guilt to now being misleading about an article. Don’t know if this is what you meant about “personal stuff” but to me these are big indicators that someone doesn’t want to deal with substance and will avoid and twist things to keep from admitting to a flawed stance. When you first presented a Blandino video you took offense to my saying you “conveniently” left out parts and I actually thought that maybe I was indeed being too harsh. Now I see it was only the beginning of a pattern.

We know the basic stances. I believe going to the ground applied and it’s cut and dry if it does. You believe that Dez performed a football move (actually several) to negate going to the ground despite the fact that none of the 3 major players of rules and officiating say that he did, even when they were asked and had the benefit of multiple replays to explain why he didn’t (I’m guessing that Steratore did). Pereira analyzed it on live TV and he has not been shy about saying when he thought a call was wrong, including just the week prior when he criticized the officials for the picked up flag against Detroit. He said we got away with a call. Again, he said that on live TV. So either all 3 are incompetent in that you and other catch theorists were able to see things they weren’t (with a vested interest in seeing it, mind you) or all 3 of them in different places at the time quickly orchestrated a conspiracy to cover up a goof. Good luck proving that. But catch theorists don’t require proof. They just need to hear “we wuz robbed” and then go with it while sneering at anyone who dares to ask for even a shred of proof. It’s an emotional circle that never ends and will probably be part of Cowboys victimhood lore forever. I'm sure it'll continue to be fun.

 

[percyhoward]

We know the basic stances. I believe going to the ground applied and it’s cut and dry if it does. You believe that Dez performed a football move (actually several) to negate going to the ground despite the fact that none of the 3 major players of rules and officiating say that he did, even when they were asked and had the benefit of multiple replays to explain why he didn’t (I’m guessing that Steratore did). Pereira analyzed it on live TV and he has not been shy about saying when he thought a call was wrong, including just the week prior when he criticized the officials for the picked up flag against Detroit. He said we got away with a call. Again, he said that on live TV. So either all 3 are incompetent in that you and other catch theorists were able to see things they weren’t (with a vested interest in seeing it, mind you) or all 3 of them in different places at the time quickly orchestrated a conspiracy to cover up a goof. Good luck proving that.

No one has to prove conspiracy in order to demonstrate that the overturn was a mistake. The only thing that needs to be proved is that Bryant performed an act common to the game before he contacted the ground. And actually, since the ruling on the field was a catch, the replay official should have had to prove than no act common to the game happened. That fact is not even debatable.

If you're going to debate the call, you have to address the play on which that call was based. So it starts with what happened on the field, then how it was ruled on the field, then moves to how the replay official ruled it, then how they justified it. But your analysis starts near the end, at the part where they justified the call. The problem with using the classic "appeal to authority" is that quite often the competence of those in authority is the very thing that's in question.

We know what Blandino thinks. I'm asking you to think.

Why would a player's "momentum" cause him to tuck the ball in one hand?

 

[Ghost12]

You can't totally eliminate the amount of judgment that goes into every call, but you can sure reduce it from what it is now.

No, you really can't. No matter where you draw the line between catch and non-catch, there are always going to be plays which take place right on that line. Given the sports world's social media obsessed, hot-take environment within which we live, people will argue incessantly about those plays on twitter, forums, ESPN all day, etc.

Pereira says to treat a falling player the same as an upright player, and don't make the football move reviewable. He basically wants to take "upright long enough" out of the rule book, and go back to the football move. He's 100% right.

If they go to that rule, then people will lose their **** the next time a player catches the ball going to the ground, and completely loses it on the ground but the referee says he made a "football move" which, according to the above, you say would not be reviewable.

 

[percyhoward]

No, you really can't. No matter where you draw the line between catch and non-catch, there are always going to be plays which take place right on that line.

Which is what "can't totally eliminate" means.

If they go to that rule, then people will lose their **** the next time a player catches the ball going to the ground, and completely loses it on the ground but the referee says he made a "football move" which, according to the above, you say would not be reviewable.

Pereira's point was that the field officials have a better grasp of what constitutes a football move than the replay officials do, so you'd see fewer bad overturns, and fewer misapplications of rules.

 

[Ghost12]

Which is what "can't totally eliminate" means.

And what does "you can sure reduce it from what it is now" mean?

Saying you can't eliminate it is correct.
Saying "you can sure reduce it from what it is now" is laughably wrong.

If you try to solve one problem, you just create another. If you tailor the rule to address the Dez Bryant play or the Jesse James play, you'll just create other problems in different situations. No matter where you draw the line, there will always be plays right on that line which everyone spends weeks/months/years arguing about.

Pereira's point was that the field officials have a better grasp of what constitutes a football move than the replay officials do, so you'd see fewer bad overturns, and fewer misapplications of rules.

LOL!! When you're whole point rests on the ability of the field officials to do their job, then you've failed.

It is a cycle we have been in for about 20 years now:
1) A controversial pass is complete (or incomplete) based on the rules
2) People say "wow that rule sucks, because that pass really should have been ruled the other way."
3) NFL tweeks the rule so that the above situation will never be a controversy again
4) The new rule leads to a controversial ruling.
5) Go to step (2)

 

[percyhoward]

And what does "you can sure reduce it from what it is now" mean?

I'm going to try to give you some idea of how big a mess the catch rule is right now.

You currently have, in the rule book, at the same time, two different standards for determining completion of the catch process. One of them has been around for many years, and is popularly known as the football move. So that's what most of the current field officials have been using for most of their time in the league. In 2015, the football move was taken out of the rule book, and a new standard was instituted, stating that a player must "remain upright long enough" to become a runner. This resulted in so much confusion, that the commissioner appointed a "catch committee" to "streamline and improve" the catch rule. The catch committee decided that it had been a mistake to remove the football move, so in 2016, it was put back in, with specific examples.

But the 2015 standard was not removed.

So when Riveron said that James needed to maintain possession throughout the process of going to the ground, he was going by the 2015 standard of "upright long enough." The official who made the call on the field was probably using the standard of the football move (which has been around since 1942, with the exception of that one year). On the Dez play, there is no doubt that field judge Terry Brown was going by the football move, because that was the only standard at the time.

Which standard is better?

After a receiver has control of the ball and two feet down, there's a time requirement that must be met in order to avoid the scenario in which an immediate hit that knocked the ball loose resulted in a fumble. Both standards attempt to address this time requirement. The player had to maintain control of the ball long enough to perform a football move. The football move is a clear, observable act that is either performed or not. The problem with 2015's "upright long enough" was that officials no longer had an observable act that they could look for in order to determine completion of the catch process. They had to use their own judgment in deciding on the point at which the player was no longer "upright, " and how long was long enough.

After the year without the football move, Goodell said, "We want to be able to understand better how we actually define how long they have to keep possession of the ball."

I'd say that was an understatement, and I'd venture to guess that at least some field officials simply continued to use the standard of the football move that year. In any case, the catch committee put the football move back in, specifying that "tucking the ball, turning upfield, or taking additional steps" were all things that established a player as a runner.

Take out "upright long enough" and it immediately reduces the amount of judgment that goes into these calls.