News: Goodell is now worried about the catch rule

[CCBoy]

Like Dez in Green Bay, James was already a runner by the time he went to the ground. He became a runner by virtue of having completed the 3-part catch process of 1)control, 2)two feet, and 3)a football move. "Going to the ground" only comes into play if those 3 things haven't been done, so it doesn't apply to runners.

In reality, a "runner" is just a player in possession of a live ball. Blandino (intentionally or otherwise) got people thinking that a "runner" had to be a player who was upright and running. To make the rule fit his overturn of Dez's catch retroactively, he tried to make the catch process subordinate to "going to the ground" by adding this phrase to the rule book in 2015:

"A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner."

So you then had (and still have) two contradictory statements, both in the rule book, about what defines a "runner."

This created all kinds of confusion in the 2015 season, and so the commissioner appointed a "catch committee" in 2016 to define what a catch was. The catch committee clarified what a football move was by giving some examples (turning up field, taking additional steps, tucking the ball away) to add to the rule, but at that time Blandino was still head of officiating, and his "upright long enough" remained in the book.

Pereira has already admitted that he was wrong to defend Blandino's overturn of Dez's catch. Blandino has been gone for a year. Time for "upright long enough" to be stricken from the book. It was only put in as an attempt to save face by a guy who'd made a mistake.

It's also time for Riveron to step down or learn once and for all that the football move is the "clear and bright line" that provides the time element after control and two feet down to determine completion of the catch process, so that he doesn't have to wonder how long is "long enough," or worry about how upright is upright.

A hand off, lateral, or pass...the ball is advanced by running it. Not, by a stop watch or perceived body tilt...

 

[Shinaoi]

Screw him!! That dez catch fiasco cost romo a chance at the championship. And that’s what bothers me the most. Romo was as talented as many of the greats and it will always bother me he never got the stage he deserved.

 

[percyhoward]

A hand off, lateral, or pass...the ball is advanced by running it. Not, by a stop watch or perceived body tilt...

Exactly. If you're an NFL official trying to teach a new official how to determine completion of the catch process, you're going to point to the football move and say, "There. Now he's a runner." It's an observable standard on which to base the call. Remove the football move from the picture and now it's pure guesswork about whether he was upright enough, long enough. No field official would ever have come up with such a rule.

 

[Whyjerry]

Classic modern liberal, elitist, globalist. Stink at your job no worries as long as you tow the line and are part of the crowd.

 

[Jake]

Funny how ESPN fails to mention that the NFL refused to air a Veteran's Association commercial because it was 'too political.'

It costs $5 million for a 30 second SB ad. Maybe they should use that money to, you know, help veterans?

 

[SlammedZero]

The Maras and Rooneys are in laws.

So, not surprised at all.

Shouldn't that be a conflict of interest? I mean, I know it's not, but should it be?

 

[Jake]

Shouldn't that be a conflict of interest? I mean, I know it's not, but should it be?

The Maras and Rooneys have been owners since the 30s. Not sure how members of their families getting married is an issue, unless you're burdened by a paranoid conspiracy to elevate their teams at the Cowboys expense.

Stop looking for excuses. The Cowboys playoff success drought is of their own creation.

 

[SlammedZero]

The Maras and Rooneys have been owners since the 30s. Not sure how members of their families getting married is an issue, unless you're burdened by a paranoid conspiracy to elevate their teams at the Cowboys expense.

Stop looking for excuses. The Cowboys playoff success drought is of their own creation.

Oh I wasn't blaming them at all on the Cowboys success (or lack thereof). I was merely stating it seems there could be some intense favoritism directed at those franchises, because you know, family.

 

[Bobhaze]

Here’s anecdotal evidence of a big worry for “Good ol boy” and the NFL owners- I have three adult sons aged 34, 32 and 29. They all grew up Cowboys and NFL fans. My sons were 12, 10, and 7 the last time the ‘Boys played in the SB.

Despite loving Cowboys games as they grew up, today, all three emphatically say they find the Cowboys and the NFL “boring”. My youngest told me recently he hasn’t watched a Cowboys game since 2007. All 3 of my sons say that Jerry’s dominance of their once favorite team just wore them down. They just think Jerry is a cancer on the team. They also say almost all of their friends are no longer Cowboys fans.

While their old man still watches the Cowboys and always will, it saddens me that my sons want nothing to do with the DC. Goodell and the owners should be mindful of how many young people are leaving the NFL. The future of the NFL may depend on these arrogant men running it to do some soul searching.

 

[Bobhaze]

Shouldn't that be a conflict of interest? I mean, I know it's not, but should it be?

The NFL constantly looks the other way with “conflicts of interest” and nepotism. Jerry and his kids garner all the big front office jobs despite originally having zero experience.

Nepotism is bad for the league, not to mention inequitable. The NFL is one of the few big businesses that smiles at nepotism.

 

[lurkercowboy]

That Dez play still makes me sick. Now that they are admitting what we knew all along it just makes it worse.

 

[Beaker42]

Do not take this as me defending ESPN. They did however have an article about it and I recall seeing talking heads on one of their shows discussing it as well.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22191008/nfl-rejects-veterans-group-amvets-ad-super-bowl-program

Not a thing wrong with it. The NFL is a joke.

 

[Beaker42]

That Dez play still makes me sick. Now that they are admitting what we knew all along it just makes it worse.

Only person I despise more than Satan? Dean Blandino. Wait, now that I think about it ...... one and the same?

 

[big dog cowboy]

The Steelers lost a game, time to change the rule

Funny how that works isn't it?

 

[SlammedZero]

The NFL constantly looks the other way with “conflicts of interest” and nepotism. Jerry and his kids garner all the big front office jobs despite originally having zero experience.

Nepotism is bad for the league, not to mention inequitable. The NFL is one of the few big businesses that smiles at nepotism.

Thank you! That was the word I was looking for. You explained it much better than I did.

 

[ESisback]

Here’s anecdotal evidence of a big worry for “Good ol boy” and the NFL owners- I have three adult sons aged 34, 32 and 29. They all grew up Cowboys and NFL fans. My sons were 12, 10, and 7 the last time the ‘Boys played in the SB.

Despite loving Cowboys games as they grew up, today, all three emphatically say they find the Cowboys and the NFL “boring”. My youngest told me recently he hasn’t watched a Cowboys game since 2007. All 3 of my sons say that Jerry’s dominance of their once favorite team just wore them down. They just think Jerry is a cancer on the team. They also say almost all of their friends are no longer Cowboys fans.

While their old man still watches the Cowboys and always will, it saddens me that my sons want nothing to do with the DC. Goodell and the owners should be mindful of how many young people are leaving the NFL. The future of the NFL may depend on these arrogant men running it to do some soul searching.

So true, Hazey! It makes me sad. The once Grand old sport is becoming the WWE.

 

[MarcusRock]

Like Dez in Green Bay, James was already a runner by the time he went to the ground. He became a runner by virtue of having completed the 3-part catch process of 1)control, 2)two feet, and 3)a football move. "Going to the ground" only comes into play if those 3 things haven't been done, so it doesn't apply to runners.

In reality, a "runner" is just a player in possession of a live ball. Blandino (intentionally or otherwise) got people thinking that a "runner" had to be a player who was upright and running. To make the rule fit his overturn of Dez's catch retroactively, he tried to make the catch process subordinate to "going to the ground" by adding this phrase to the rule book in 2015:

"A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner."

So you then had (and still have) two contradictory statements, both in the rule book, about what defines a "runner."

This created all kinds of confusion in the 2015 season, and so the commissioner appointed a "catch committee" in 2016 to define what a catch was. The catch committee clarified what a football move was by giving some examples (turning up field, taking additional steps, tucking the ball away) to add to the rule, but at that time Blandino was still head of officiating, and his "upright long enough" remained in the book.

Pereira has already admitted that he was wrong to defend Blandino's overturn of Dez's catch. Blandino has been gone for a year. Time for "upright long enough" to be stricken from the book. It was only put in as an attempt to save face by a guy who'd made a mistake.

It's also time for Riveron to step down or learn once and for all that the football move is the "clear and bright line" that provides the time element after control and two feet down to determine completion of the catch process, so that he doesn't have to wonder how long is "long enough," or worry about how upright is upright.

We already went over this percy and you're wrong. Nobody did anything retroactively to cover anything. We established that Blandino was consistent throughout and we used videos and articles YOU provided to show it. Going to the ground applied because "those 3 things" didn't happen, most notably the football move, which when compared to other demonstrative ball reaches (which again, YOU showed examples of), you refused to answer direct questioning about it 4 times. Nails in the coffin if you're actually attempting to debate. Yet you continue spewing this incorrect "conspiracy" angle to rile up the emotional people who can't let it go and would rather play victim than actually read the rules.

 

[DogFace]

We already went over this percy and you're wrong. Nobody did anything retroactively to cover anything. We established that Blandino was consistent throughout and we used videos and articles YOU provided to show it. Going to the ground applied because "those 3 things" didn't happen, most notably the football move, which when compared to other demonstrative ball reaches (which again, YOU showed examples of), you refused to answer direct questioning about it 4 times. Nails in the coffin if you're actually attempting to debate. Yet you continue spewing this incorrect "conspiracy" angle to rile up the emotional people who can't let it go and would rather play victim than actually read the rules.

He grabs the ball with two hands, brings it down to get shoulder pad/chest and is cradling it with both arms, THEN switches the ball to the other side of his body and only his left hand. Moving the ball from two hands to one is a football move.

I’ll add that your post seems emotional.

 

[HanD]

He grabs the ball with two hands, brings it down to get shoulder pad/chest and is cradling it with both arms, THEN switches the ball to the other side of his body and only his left hand. Moving the ball from two hands to one is a football move.

I’ll add that your post seems emotional.

my question always has been, whatever the rule application or interpretation is, was the replay clear and irrefutable? we are still debating this years later. if not, the play should stand and not be overturned. if it was ruled fumble, i'm fine with the call standing.

 

[HanD]

Here’s anecdotal evidence of a big worry for “Good ol boy” and the NFL owners- I have three adult sons aged 34, 32 and 29. They all grew up Cowboys and NFL fans. My sons were 12, 10, and 7 the last time the ‘Boys played in the SB.

Despite loving Cowboys games as they grew up, today, all three emphatically say they find the Cowboys and the NFL “boring”. My youngest told me recently he hasn’t watched a Cowboys game since 2007. All 3 of my sons say that Jerry’s dominance of their once favorite team just wore them down. They just think Jerry is a cancer on the team. They also say almost all of their friends are no longer Cowboys fans.

While their old man still watches the Cowboys and always will, it saddens me that my sons want nothing to do with the DC. Goodell and the owners should be mindful of how many young people are leaving the NFL. The future of the NFL may depend on these arrogant men running it to do some soul searching.

on point. the nfl has no idea that huge numbers of kid don't care about the nfl and it is going to be too late. kids used to wear all sorts of nfl gear when i grew up. i barely see it in my son's school or around the neighborhood. many parents don't let their kids play anymore, instead i see more kids playing soccer and basketball. i'm even seeing an uptick in ice hockey. it'll be sad for me to see it decline drastically in 15 years but i definitely see it coming.