I do not see any difference between that play and the Dez play in 2014 *merged*

[Big_D]

And in that video he is facing the QB, in the GB game he already turned up field toward the end zone. Similar, but not the same.

 

[G2]

That's exactly the point. You can go either way with these calls. Did you think it was a catch when you were watching the game? I didn't then and I still don't. There's no clear rule on any off these scenarios. Just vague wording so the ref can call it how he wants.

There's no conspiracy. The ref called it wrong on the field and it was reviewed and reversed. You would maybe have a point if the play stood.

 

[Big_D]

You can maybe go either way once in a while with these calls, but that doesn't apply to all of these calls. This play didn't mirror the Dez play, and neither did the Ertz play, which was the idea behind this entire thread.

there's plenty of scenarios that can go either way. And usually do during a challenge type situation. It's why you got 115 pages of the same back and forth argument. Catches are not clearly defined. But they are loosely translated and that is the problem.

 

[OmerV]

there's plenty of scenarios that can go either way. And usually do during a challenge type situation. It's why you got 115 pages of the same back and forth argument. Catches are not clearly defined. But they are loosely translated and that is the problem.

I don't think there really are many. I think there is an occasional, but rare calls that get attention because they were in high profile games or moments, and even then a lot of the debate is fueled by the emotion of the fans that feel their team got screwed.

 

[Big_D]

There's no conspiracy. The ref called it wrong on the field and it was reviewed and reversed. You would maybe have a point if the play stood.

It was called a TD. You can't say the player needs to have possession and then say it's OK if the ball moves?? Any time the ball moves there is no possession.

The wording of the rule officially makes it a judgement call.

 

[MarcusRock]

Was that a TD?? So he goes to the ground because he was tripped up and for some odd treason the same rules don't apply? He had full possession and was brought down as a runner. But now were pretending like the defender had nothing to do with it.

If you're going to the ground, it DOESN'T MATTER if the defender had anything to do with it. That's why the rule states:

(with or without contact by an opponent)

 

[MarcusRock]

By the way, where are KJ and bz? Did they get a timeout?

 

[Big_D]

If you're going to the ground, it DOESN'T MATTER if the defender had anything to do with it. That's why the rule states:

(with or without contact by an opponent)

Then what makes the Ertz play a TD? He becomes a runner???? lol Like I said, vague wording that creates a judgement call for the refs. That ball clearly hits the ground and goes flying! But TD. Dez incomplete.

 

[nathanlt]

If you're going to the ground, it DOESN'T MATTER if the defender had anything to do with it. That's why the rule states:

(with or without contact by an opponent)

The falling portion began on the third step. So, two feet were on the ground before going to the ground began, with full control of the ball, and multiple football moves.

Lacking a specific definition of what going to the ground means, the broadest sense of the word applies. Any body part touching the ground completes the process.

Going to the ground either has been met, or is irrelevant, since that falling portion occurred after two steps were complete. It is baseless to take away that catch, it always has been baseless to call it a noncatch despite what NFL shills say to the contrary.

 

[OmerV]

It was called a TD. You can't say the player needs to have possession and then say it's OK if the ball moves?? Any time the ball moves there is no possession.

The wording of the rule officially makes it a judgement call.

Think of it this way. It's the difference between your wife hugging you tightly and you merely moving slightly to make it a comfortable fit, and you breaking away from her arms and her having to pull you back. That's the difference between a ball "slightly moving" and losing possession.

 

[OmerV]

Then what makes the Ertz play a TD? He becomes a runner???? lol Like I said, vague wording that creates a judgement call for the refs. That ball clearly hits the ground and goes flying! But TD. Dez incomplete.

Ertz didn't leap for the ball, he caught the ball in stride and he took three hard steps in a fully upright position before being hit, and starting to go to the ground.

 

[OmerV]

The falling portion began on the third step. So, two feet were on the ground before going to the ground began, with full control of the ball, and multiple football moves.

Lacking a specific definition of what going to the ground means, the broadest sense of the word applies. Any body part touching the ground completes the process.

Going to the ground either has been met, or is irrelevant, since that falling portion occurred after two steps were complete. It is baseless to take away that catch, it always has been baseless to call it a noncatch despite what NFL shills say to the contrary.

Again, that's your perception, but not all of us agree with that. And the NFL didn't agree with that. The ruling, and my belief, is that he was off balance and starting his fall to the ground from the instant his first foot came down after leaping for the ball.

As for your assertion that any part of the body touching the ground would complete the process of going to the ground, not even the people who are adamantly defending the idea that Dez made the catch buy into that - nobody with any foundation in reason thinks the mere act of standing, or running in an upright position constitutes "going to the ground". Plus, there is zero basis for that thought in how games are officiated. Everyone accepts that "going to the ground" means the body is falling the ground, the only dispute is how to determine when that process begins and if possession can be established while in the act of going to the ground.

 

[Kevinicus]

And what's amusing to me is that somehow those who understand how it was ruled a non catch are being destroyed? It has been ruled on and the ultimate powers to decide have stated how this is not a catch. You can not like the decision, just like you can argue against any decision the supreme court has made. But it doesn't matter. Your understanding is still wrong in the eyes of those that matter.

Nobody is suggesting that what we think or prove will matter to the league.

 

[Kevinicus]

It absolutely matters if he possession under the rules wasn't prior to that point, because in that case by the ball contacting the ground and him losing his grasp, even if only for a second, the pass is incomplete. If he had established possession prior to that point then loss of control of the ball would have been a fumble that Dez recovered himself.

He lost and regained control prior to getting his 2nd foot down. It's not pertinent.

 

[Kevinicus]

You're trying to talk about shifting arguments? I've chronicled the catch theorists arguments. Currently, y'all are back to version 2.

1. “The ball never hit the ground”
Check the reverse angle

2. “No, no, Dez was running upright and got tripped”
Contact from a defender is irrelevant in going to the ground

3. “No, no, Dez reached or lunged or something”
He intended to lunge but did not execute

4. “No, no, Dez performed a bajillion football moves before that though”
Going to the ground trumps the 3-part process (unless they do something other than fall per A.R. 8.12 & 15.95)

5. “No, no, the replay wasn’t conclusive. The call should have stood.”
Replay confirmed that going to the ground should have been applied instead

6. “No, no, they took away the A.R. rule enabling an act on the way to the ground after the fact”
The rule was there in 2014 and 2015.

7. “No, no, they changed the catch rule in 2015 so refs can’t look for football moves”
A ref can judge that one has performed acts or had time to “clearly become a runner.” Same as before. Same rule, different wording.

8. "Oh yeah? Well, CONSPIRACY!"
Of course! How did we miss that?

More of your nonsense. You have no point here. Your conspiracy crap is delusion in your head. And only one person (that I recall went with #1, and he has almost as much issue with facts as you guys). The rest (except your idiotic strawman number 8) are not chaning positions, they are things that have been consistently said from the beginning and are all true (though on number 2, nobody said he was "running"). There is no "no no." Why do you like to make things up?

 

[Kevinicus]

There is no "First it was ..." and "and then it was .... " I've always said the going to the ground rule set out in Item 1 applied - I've never changed from that.

And I've consistently said you guys are cherry picking.

You do realize those are two different points, and that saying one doesn't somehow negate or contradict the other, right? Because that would be an amazingly ridiculous failure in logic.

Then explain the case play if you saying going to the ground always applies. Your deflection of "but the case play says contact" will not work, because you say it ALWAYS applies.

You keep crying cherry picking, but you can't actually cite something that is cherry picked. You try to say people go back and forth between the rule and case play because you're incapable of grasping that they go together, hand in hand.

 

[MarcusRock]

... they are things that have been consistently said from the beginning ...

LOL. That's exactly what this list is. 8 different versions of what's been said by catch theorists over the 3 years concerning this play in the order I've heard them, although 8's kinda been a constant alongside each one. Tuck the vein back into your forehead to allow normal blood flow up there.

 

[Gator88]

You're trying to talk about shifting arguments? I've chronicled the catch theorists arguments. Currently, y'all are back to version 2.

1. “The ball never hit the ground”
Check the reverse angle

2. “No, no, Dez was running upright and got tripped”
Contact from a defender is irrelevant in going to the ground

3. “No, no, Dez reached or lunged or something”
He intended to lunge but did not execute

4. “No, no, Dez performed a bajillion football moves before that though”
Going to the ground trumps the 3-part process (unless they do something other than fall per A.R. 8.12 & 15.95)

5. “No, no, the replay wasn’t conclusive. The call should have stood.”
Replay confirmed that going to the ground should have been applied instead

6. “No, no, they took away the A.R. rule enabling an act on the way to the ground after the fact”
The rule was there in 2014 and 2015.

7. “No, no, they changed the catch rule in 2015 so refs can’t look for football moves”
A ref can judge that one has performed acts or had time to “clearly become a runner.” Same as before. Same rule, different wording.

8. "Oh yeah? Well, CONSPIRACY!"
Of course! How did we miss that?

So, if you agree with your own words on #4, you agree that the Dez play should have been a catch, right? Other than that: 3,5, and 7 are all wrong, and 8 is a straw man, so nice job.

 

[percyhoward]

Throwing a pass isn't something anyone would do while still trying to catch a ball either. But the fact remains Item one addresses the rule as it applies when a player is going to the ground. You may not like the rule, and I'm not thrilled with it either, but it is what it is.

Ultimately the disagreement between us is two fold - first, what constitutes a receiver going to the ground, and second, whether a receiver going to the ground has a different standard for establishing possession than one that is not. I think any player that cannot prevent himself from going to the ground is subject to Item 1, and that he does have a different standard for establishing possession. You apparently have a different viewpoint on both, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

You seem like someone who's honestly trying to understand this. Before moving on to the two disagreements, I hope I've helped you with the football move part of it.

There can be no disagreeing about what constitutes a player going to the ground in the act of catching a pass, because it's not open to interpretation. Your opinion and my opinion don't matter. A player who has not established himself as a runner, and who goes to the ground, goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass. Rules that apply to receivers (like Item 1) apply to him. A player who has established himself as a runner, and who goes to the ground, goes to the ground as a runner. Rules that apply to runners apply to him. Item 1 does not apply to runners.

To your other point, since 2015, a receiver judged not to be upright long enough cannot go to the ground as a runner. However, prior to 2015, there was no such rule. If you've been trying to tie up the loose ends, and you don't know what to do when you get to Blandino saying the reach needed to be more obvious, well, now you know. He had to address the reach. Because at that time, you could complete the catch process and become a runner, even while falling.

No one who defends the overturn has ever been able to answer this question: If the football move didn't matter, why did he say he looked for a football move?
That's the loose end. Understanding the rule change and why it happened ties up that loose end.

The role that the 2015 rule change plays in all of this can't be overemphasized. The football move was completely eliminated from the rule book as a direct result of the overturn of Dez's catch, making it impossible to question an official's decree that a player was "going to the ground." And because there was no longer any football move to look for, the replay official's job of explaining his decisions became much easier and the field official's job of determining what a catch was became much harder. The rule change effectively meant the field official no longer had a say in this kind of play.

 

[percyhoward]

Throwing a pass while falling by no rational, objective judgement would deem a player to be a runner.

I think your confusion is 100% sincere, so I'll try to explain as best I can.

The confusion is in the terms "runner" and "receiver." These terms have nothing to do with the position you play, or whether you're running down the field or dropping back to pass. The NFL uses these terms only when it comes to questions of possession. A "runner" is simply a player in possession of a live ball -- a ball that's in play, between the snap and the whistle. That's it.

At the snap of the ball, the QB is the runner. Whoever he hands it, pitches it, or passes it to...that player then becomes the runner.

BUT...the player at the other end of the pass (the receiver) doesn't become a runner simply by gaining control of the ball.

First, he has to 1) get control of the ball, then (or simultaneously) 2) get two feet down, then 3) maintain control long enough.

Then, and only then, does he establish himself as a runner.

The part in bold is called the "catch process." Without it, there would be no way to determine how a receiver becomes a runner. If a player is in the middle of the catch process -- let's say he has control and one foot, or control and just got the second foot down but hasn't maintained control long enough yet -- then he is in the act of catching a pass. He's still a receiver. He's not a runner yet. He's not in possession of a live ball yet.

Item 1 says that a player going to the ground in the act of catching a pass (a receiver going to the ground) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. Item 1 exists because when a player dives for a ball, or goes up for a ball and only manages to get two feet down before his body hits the ground, he doesn't have time to complete part 3 (maintain control long enough). There's no time for him to become a runner. So he has to maintain control of the ball after his body hits the ground.

How does an official know when the player has had enough time to become a runner, after control and two feet down? This is where it forks off into two very different directions.

Prior to 2015, the official knew the time requirement had been met as soon as the player did something that only runners do. It's common sense, after all, that the thing that would determine that a receiver had maintained control long enough to become a runner would be to do something that only runners do. This is the football move, and since players routinely make football moves while falling, it didn't occur to anyone to make a rule that stipulated that a player must be upright in order to make a football move. Again, common sense.

Then something happened in Green Bay in the playoffs following the 2014 season.

And in 2015, the standard for meeting the time requirement to complete the catch process and become a runner was changed. The football move was completely removed from the rule book, and the standard for becoming a runner was now that a player must remain "upright long enough." How upright? For how long? Nobody knew. The call would depend on the field official's judgement, and could be overturned based on the replay official's judgment, with no regard for what used to be the catch process.

After one year of this, the commissioner appointed a catch committee to "clarify and streamline" the catch rule. Their recommendation was to put the football move back into the rule book, and this time with specific examples. Unfortunately, the standard for becoming a runner remained (and still remains) the same. A player must be "upright long enough." How upright? For how long? Still, nobody knows. The call still depends on the field official's judgement, and can still be overturned based on the replay official's judgment, with no regard for what used to be the catch process.