News: Goodell is now worried about the catch rule

[G2]

They didn't bobble the ball...... the ball moved when they slammed it against the ground... big difference

Dez was down by contact and James had TD the instant it broke the plane with control and his knee down

Not according to the rule. They weren't established as a runner, fell to the ground and did not maintain possession.
Bobbled, ball moved - whatever.

 

[Nightman]

Not according to the rule. They weren't established as a runner, fell to the ground and did not maintain possession.
Bobbled, ball moved - whatever.

The Rule doesn't state anything definitely .....that is the whole debate......it is all subjective with conflicting subsections....... and it isn't ruled on the same way ........ever

 

[G2]

The Rule doesn't state anything definitely .....that is the whole debate......it is all subjective with conflicting subsections....... and it isn't ruled on the same way ........ever

Yep. the rule blows.

 

[MarcusRock]

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/packers-cb-sam-shields-on-dez-bryant-call-it-was-a-catch

And you're ignoring my questions.

Wait, now you want questions answered? Lol. I already told you that I'm not going to re-hash this debate with you. We debated already and I answered all the questions you had. All of them. Heck, I even acknowledged something you pointed out about the rules. An actual researcher does this. But when I asked you a question to be acknowledged, you avoided it no less than 4 times. We all know why.

So when someone proves that they are a dishonest debater, they are not worth debating with because they are not interested in exchange, they just don't want to be shown they're wrong; even if they're wrong. Even when you "forgot" that you avoided my question multiple times, you asked me to show you at the top of page 3 of this very thread. I did that (HERE if you need that reference again) and you ignored that entire post to quote one sentence to use to accuse me of avoiding things, again not even acknowledging that you avoided things as you asked me to show you which I did. If Freud were alive, he would be proud of this as a textbook example of projection when not wanting to face something. Too bad he's dead though.

 

[dogunwo]

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/packers-cb-sam-shields-on-dez-bryant-call-it-was-a-catch

And you're ignoring my questions.

Pwned

 

[khiladi]

Upright means that you catch the ball while on your feet or while running. Dez did not do that. He skied high and his momentum clearly carried him to the ground as a result. Additional steps does not matter when the going to the ground rule applies. If you are on the way to the ground, you can take 5 steps if that's where you're going. There was no reach. It was addressed by Blandino, Steratore, and Pereira during the broadcast.

The rule claims nothing of the sort, as of when Dez made the catch. It is:

A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass iscomplete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off anopponent, etc.).

There is nothing about being upright or having steps and advancing it. All that qualified is ANY ACT COMMON TO THE GAME including even pitching it or advancing it.

You can't go back an apply a rule that hasn't yet existed and apply it to Dez back then, and said Dez didn't qualify according to the new rule.

And even then, THE CHANGE in the off-season with Dez was:

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. 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 until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

And the qualification is not "while you catch the ball while on your feet or while running" as per your words. It simply says "to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner", of which leads to the fundamental issue of what constituTES CLEARLY BEING A RUNNER?

And even then it's still even more in Dez's favor, because as Percy Howard said multiple times, that 'being a runner' is associated with time, not advancement of the ball.

1. maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

So here, becoming a runner isn't defined as taking additional steps, that is ONE of the definitions. Others include acts such as tucking the ball away and turning up field provided he caught it with both feet on the ground or his body and had control when that action took place.

 

[khiladi]

They didn't bobble the ball...... the ball moved when they slammed it against the ground... big difference

Dez was down by contact and James had TD the instant it broke the plane with control and his knee down

Great point, regarding the knee being down. I changed my mind last night when I said the TE of Pittsburgh didn't have both feet down, when he established possession before reaching. I was going by both feet and not 'any part of his body'. The point being, both feet technically don't even have to be down.

1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
2. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
3. maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

So he established possession with one foot down and then his knee and then reached.

There is no way they should have over-turned that.

 

[Melonfeud]

Hate the commish but this is a start. Look hard at yourself and the league. Things being more uniform help

Hey,was it you in search of a single word to describe headache inducing anger& rage with the N.F.L. the other day over in a different thread?,,,if so,,,I've got the word
" Flummoxed " as another likely candidate ( I'd prefer
" flummoxation" personally)

 

[percyhoward]

You can attempt to get under the skin of fans by being condescending all you want. I couldn't possibly care less.
Dez didn't maintain control. Same with James. I think the rule sucks, but it's the rule. Has they not have bobbled the football it would have been a catch.

You've been shown that the rule applies only to players who go to the ground in the act of catching a pass. You say that it applies to all players who go to the ground, regardless of whether they are in the act of catching a pass.

Why should I believe you and not the rule itself?

If that question "gets under your skin," maybe there's a reason.

 

[percyhoward]

The Rule doesn't state anything definitely .....that is the whole debate......it is all subjective with conflicting subsections....... and it isn't ruled on the same way ........ever

Yep. Two definitions of "runner" that contradict each other.

BUT, the second one wasn't added until 2015, after Dez's catch was overturned.

 

[MarcusRock]

The rule claims nothing of the sort, as of when Dez made the catch. It is:

There is nothing about being upright or having steps and advancing it. All that qualified is ANY ACT COMMON TO THE GAME including even pitching it or advancing it.

You can't go back an apply a rule that hasn't yet existed and apply it to Dez back then, and said Dez didn't qualify according to the new rule.

And even then, THE CHANGE in the off-season with Dez was:

And the qualification is not "while you catch the ball while on your feet or while running" as per your words. It simply says "to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner", of which leads to the fundamental issue of what constituTES CLEARLY BEING A RUNNER?

And even then it's still even more in Dez's favor, because as Percy Howard said multiple times, that 'being a runner' is associated with time, not advancement of the ball.
So here, becoming a runner isn't defined as taking additional steps, that is ONE of the definitions. Others include acts such as tucking the ball away and turning up field provided he caught it with both feet on the ground or his body and had control when that action took place.

This is where I think a lot of you are just not getting it. Some intentionally, I know. I realize you were talking about the 2017 rules vs. the 2014 rules but their essence is the same. Nothing changed except adding wording so people who couldn't understand (that actually wanted to) would get that the 3-part process of a catch applies to receivers on their feet who catch a ball (i.e., "upright"). So it is an "upright rule" as you put it because if you're not upright then you're going to the ground. In 2014, Item 1 begins: "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass..." It begins that way because you are either upright or going to the ground. It's yes or no. Why else do you word it that way? You are either going to the ground or you aren't. This was always true so they added the wording to explain it so people would get it. I don't think they needed to personally but maybe they were placating the conspiracy criers, lol.

So you saying that Dez was upright when he had 2 feet down is just plain wrong. He high pointed a ball and was on his way down to the ground. He's done that before. He could have gotten one foot and a knee, one foot and his elbow, but he came down to the ground while catching that ball. Y'all can try to legislate in football moves, acts common to the game all you want. He was going to the ground even if Shields doesn't touch him. This is why the catch crazies explain everything except when "going to the ground" applies because it's the end of the argument on the spot.

 

[percyhoward]

Wait, now you want questions answered? Lol. I already told you that I'm not going to re-hash this debate with you. We debated already and I answered all the questions you had. All of them. Heck, I even acknowledged something you pointed out about the rules. An actual researcher does this. But when I asked you a question to be acknowledged, you avoided it no less than 4 times. We all know why.

So when someone proves that they are a dishonest debater, they are not worth debating with because they are not interested in exchange, they just don't want to be shown they're wrong; even if they're wrong. Even when you "forgot" that you avoided my question multiple times, you asked me to show you at the top of page 3 of this very thread. I did that (HERE if you need that reference again) and you ignored that entire post to quote one sentence to use to accuse me of avoiding things, again not even acknowledging that you avoided things as you asked me to show you which I did. If Freud were alive, he would be proud of this as a textbook example of projection when not wanting to face something. Too bad he's dead though.

Quoted the entire post, the way you like it. I assume this is the question you keep talking about.

Q:"3rd time asking you percy: How did Dez' "reach" compare to Johnson's and Thomas' in the video examples you referenced?"
A: Dez's reach was with one hand, not two. They extended their arms and Dez didn't. More generally, what you said is true: Dez's reach was less demonstrative.

Again, I'm giving you the full benefit of the doubt. Now that you know I'm an honest debater and that I'm interested in exchange, you can address the questions I've already asked. In your words, "When someone repeatedly avoids a question in a debate, you know what it means."

You seem to be saying both 1) that "going to the ground" negates application of the catch process, and 2) that Blandino addressed the catch process and concluded that there was no football move. So is it 1, 2, or both? And if both, why would 2 have been necessary if 1 were the case?

 

[ESisback]

This is where I think a lot of you are just not getting it. Some intentionally, I know. I realize you were talking about the 2017 rules vs. the 2014 rules but their essence is the same. Nothing changed except adding wording so people who couldn't understand (that actually wanted to) would get that the 3-part process of a catch applies to receivers on their feet who catch a ball (i.e., "upright"). So it is an "upright rule" as you put it because if you're not upright then you're going to the ground. In 2014, Item 1 begins: "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass..." It begins that way because you are either upright or going to the ground. It's yes or no. Why else do you word it that way? You are either going to the ground or you aren't. This was always true so they added the wording to explain it so people would get it. I don't think they needed to personally but maybe they were placating the conspiracy criers, lol.

So you saying that Dez was upright when he had 2 feet down is just plain wrong. He high pointed a ball and was on his way down to the ground. He's done that before. He could have gotten one foot and a knee, one foot and his elbow, but he came down to the ground while catching that ball. Y'all can try to legislate in football moves, acts common to the game all you want. He was going to the ground even if Shields doesn't touch him. This is why the catch crazies explain everything except when "going to the ground" applies because it's the end of the argument on the spot.

End of the argument according to you! Nothing personal bro, I just trust my own eyes over a supposed impartial "judge" watching the game in New York.✌

 

[percyhoward]

This is where I think a lot of you are just not getting it. Some intentionally, I know. I realize you were talking about the 2017 rules vs. the 2014 rules but their essence is the same. Nothing changed except adding wording so people who couldn't understand (that actually wanted to) would get that the 3-part process of a catch applies to receivers on their feet who catch a ball (i.e., "upright"). So it is an "upright rule" as you put it because if you're not upright then you're going to the ground. In 2014, Item 1 begins: "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass..." It begins that way because you are either upright or going to the ground. It's yes or no. Why else do you word it that way? You are either going to the ground or you aren't. This was always true so they added the wording to explain it so people would get it. I don't think they needed to personally but maybe they were placating the conspiracy criers, lol.

So you saying that Dez was upright when he had 2 feet down is just plain wrong. He high pointed a ball and was on his way down to the ground. He's done that before. He could have gotten one foot and a knee, one foot and his elbow, but he came down to the ground while catching that ball. Y'all can try to legislate in football moves, acts common to the game all you want. He was going to the ground even if Shields doesn't touch him. This is why the catch crazies explain everything except when "going to the ground" applies because it's the end of the argument on the spot.

No one is a "catch crazy" and no one is a "reversal crazy." It's on each one of us to decide whether it's a civilized debate.

"In 2014, Item 1 begins: "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass..." It begins that way because you are either upright or going to the ground. It's yes or no. Why else do you word it that way?"​

Good question. You word it that way because on a diving catch, even with control and two feet down, there is no time element that can allow the receiver to complete the catch process. So he's still in the act of catching the pass, and the only possible football act is to maintain possession after he goes to the ground. You are either in the act of catching a pass or you aren't.

"I realize you were talking about the 2017 rules vs. the 2014 rules but their essence is the same. Nothing changed except adding wording so people who couldn't understand (that actually wanted to) would get that the 3-part process of a catch applies to receivers on their feet who catch a ball (i.e., "upright")."​

This is really shaky ground you're on here. A field official's decisions need to be driven by things he can physically observe happening or not happening. There's no clear line between upright and falling, so there never was a rule about the receiver having to be upright. Then when "upright long enough" was put in, it predictably caused widespread confusion. The things that officials always looked for was control, two feet, and a football move. You can see those things.

2014 rule: A Runner is the offensive player who is in possession of a live ball, i.e., holding the ball or carrying it in any direction.

So in order to become a runner, all a receiver has to do is gain possession of a live ball. How does a receiver go about gaining possession of a live ball?

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.

Prior to 2015, is there anything, anywhere that suggests a player had to be upright in order to be a runner?

 

[CCBoy]

Upright means that you catch the ball while on your feet or while running. Dez did not do that. He skied high and his momentum clearly carried him to the ground as a result. Additional steps does not matter when the going to the ground rule applies. If you are on the way to the ground, you can take 5 steps if that's where you're going. There was no reach. It was addressed by Blandino, Steratore, and Pereira during the broadcast.

Just for the record...and steps don't matter at which point...two or three?

 

[CCBoy]

Wait, now you want questions answered? Lol. I already told you that I'm not going to re-hash this debate with you. We debated already and I answered all the questions you had. All of them. Heck, I even acknowledged something you pointed out about the rules. An actual researcher does this. But when I asked you a question to be acknowledged, you avoided it no less than 4 times. We all know why.

So when someone proves that they are a dishonest debater, they are not worth debating with because they are not interested in exchange, they just don't want to be shown they're wrong; even if they're wrong. Even when you "forgot" that you avoided my question multiple times, you asked me to show you at the top of page 3 of this very thread. I did that (HERE if you need that reference again) and you ignored that entire post to quote one sentence to use to accuse me of avoiding things, again not even acknowledging that you avoided things as you asked me to show you which I did. If Freud were alive, he would be proud of this as a textbook example of projection when not wanting to face something. Too bad he's dead though.

Easy fella' you were already on thin ice about five posts of all you's ago...

 

[Miller]

Hey,was it you in search of a single word to describe headache inducing anger& rage with the N.F.L. the other day over in a different thread?,,,if so,,,I've got the word
" Flummoxed " as another likely candidate ( I'd prefer
" flummoxation" personally)

Yes it was and that is a GREAT word for it! Nice work! Thanks

 

[Melonfeud]

Yes it was and that is a GREAT word for it! Nice work! Thanks

if I think long enough on things ,I can still usually pull them into focus,,,what did this one take?,,,3 days?

 

[MarcusRock]

Quoted the entire post, the way you like it. I assume this is the question you keep talking about.

Q:"3rd time asking you percy: How did Dez' "reach" compare to Johnson's and Thomas' in the video examples you referenced?"
A: Dez's reach was with one hand, not two. They extended their arms and Dez didn't. More generally, what you said is true: Dez's reach was less demonstrative.

Again, I'm giving you the full benefit of the doubt. Now that you know I'm an honest debater and that I'm interested in exchange, you can address the questions I've already asked. In your words, "When someone repeatedly avoids a question in a debate, you know what it means."

You seem to be saying both 1) that "going to the ground" negates application of the catch process, and 2) that Blandino addressed the catch process and concluded that there was no football move. So is it 1, 2, or both? And if both, why would 2 have been necessary if 1 were the case?

Again, as I've said, we've had this debate already, including your questions. Go back to the old thread. The only thing that was missing was the unanswered question. Don't know that the issue of being an honest debater is settled when it took nearly 3 weeks and shaming posts to finally get that answer. I mean, it's not like the answer was a mystery given what it took.

 

[adbutcher]

He has made failing upward an art form.