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

[OmerV]

For every one person you could show me that says it was within the rules, I can show you one that says it wasn't. That's how controversial that ruling was. Bottom line is we need a better rule.

Certainly need some clarification. I think there likely will always be some controversy because their likely will always be some judgment involved,

 

[MarcusRock]

For every one person you could show me that says it was within the rules, I can show you one that says it wasn't. That's how controversial that ruling was.

Well, I can show you where those who administer the rules said it wasn't a catch with video proof to boot. Whose word do you think carries more weight?

And to be honest, I don't even know what your official stance is as to why you think it was a catch. There are only 1 or 2 catch theorists who even attempt to discuss the actual rule book and the ringleader of such just got busted lying to shoehorn a point to support a CONSPIRACY! by the NFL. The rest just chime in to his posts with a "yeah, that's right, you tell 'em" like that thing beside Jabba the Hut in Return of the Jedi.

 

[BlindFaith]

For every one person you could show me that says it was within the rules, I can show you one that says it wasn't. That's how controversial that ruling was. Bottom line is we need a better rule.

A bunch of fans don't count. A GM of the team who it directly effected does. As well as him being on the committee that, you know, writes the rules.

But your opinion is equal to his? Or Periera's opinion is equal to that of Percy? Blandino and blindzebra?

And your overall assumption I don't believe is correct anyway. I think the majority don't think it was a catch. I do think the majority want the rule to change and have no idea on how it will impact the game.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

Well, I can show you where those who administer the rules said it wasn't a catch with video proof to boot. Whose word do you think carries more weight?

And to be honest, I don't even know what your official stance is as to why you think it was a catch. There are only 1 or 2 catch theorists who even attempt to discuss the actual rule book and the ringleader of such just got busted lying to shoehorn a point to support a CONSPIRACY! by the NFL. The rest just chime in to his posts with a "yeah, that's right, you tell 'em" like that thing beside Jabba the Hut in Return of the Jedi.

My official stance is, that it should be a catch going forward. When a player makes a spectacular play, by high pointing the ball and getting two feet down, with control, why take that away?

It should be rewarded, not penalized. It would be better for the game. Do you remember how good football was without all these controversial plays? I do.

 

[OmerV]

My official stance is, that should be a catch going forward. When a player makes a spectacular play, by high pointing the ball and getting two feet down, with control, why take that away? It should be rewarded, not penalized. It would be better for the game. Do you remember how good football was without all these controversial plays? I do.

Of course part of the reason there being so much controversy these days is slow motion from every angle, challenges, and continued access to commentary and video on the internet for days, months, years after the fact. We are in a new world. I also think the tabloid nature of today's sports journalism contributes to it. The media fuels the fire because that's how they reel in viewers/readers.

 

[G2]

My official stance is, that should be a catch going forward. When a player makes a spectacular play, by high pointing the ball and getting two feet down, with control, why take that away? It should be rewarded, not penalized. It would be better for the game. Do you remember how good football was without all these controversial plays? I do.

Because he lost control. Just like the ruling. "Wr did not maintain possession."

We now have instant replay to show more information.

 

[G2]

Of course part of the reason there being so much controversy these days is slow motion from every angle, challenges, and continued access to commentary and video on the internet for days, months, years after the fact. We are in a new world. I also think the tabloid nature of today's sports journalism contributes to it. The media fuels the fire because that's how they reel in viewers/readers.

I'll add that the media (not all) doesn't fully understand the rule. I remember listening to Dan Patrick butcher the actual rule.

 

[MarcusRock]

My official stance is, that should be a catch going forward. When a player makes a spectacular play, by high pointing the ball and getting two feet down, with control, why take that away? It should be rewarded, not penalized. It would be better for the game. Do you remember how good football was without all these controversial plays? I do.

So you agree that it was not a catch by the rules, then. The catch rule is indeed convoluted but I don't want it changed because people can't understand it (because I do understand it), I want it changed because changes will do a better job of covering all possible catches in as simple a fashion possible so that a quick determination can be made.

 

[kskboys]

For every one person you could show me that says it was within the rules, I can show you one that says it wasn't. That's how controversial the ruling was.

Bottom line is we need a better rule. Even if it leads to more fumbles, so be it. I don't remember many controversial "fumbles" prior to the grey being written into what defines a catch.

I don't think a better rule is the answer. No matter what you do, you are going to have difficult calls to make. Many calls are quite simply not black and white. There's not always a clear answer.

That's why this thread is still going. Because it was a play w/ no clear correct call.

 

[OmerV]

My official stance is, that it should be a catch going forward. When a player makes a spectacular play, by high pointing the ball and getting two feet down, with control, why take that away?

It should be rewarded, not penalized. It would be better for the game. Do you remember how good football was without all these controversial plays? I do.

Because he lost control. Just like the ruling. "Wr did not maintain possession."

We now have instant replay to show more information.

I think the biggest thing is to clarify what "going to the ground" means. Some take it as if it only applies to a receiver diving for a ball. Others as if it applies to a receiver who is tackled to the ground soon after catching the ball. Others take it as anytime a receiver is going to the ground on his own, and doesn't have the ability to stop himself from going to the ground. That's my camp.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

Because he lost control. Just like the ruling. "Wr did not maintain possession."

We now have instant replay to show more information.

What about bringing back the old catch rules? Catch, control + 2 feet, ground cannot cause fumble. It's simple, and would reward spectacular plays. Yes, more fumbles may occur, so receivers should wrap that puppy up high and tight after the catch, and brace for impact.

 

[MarcusRock]

I think the biggest thing is to clarify what "going to the ground" means. Some take it as if it only applies to a receiver diving for a ball. Others as if it applies to a receiver who is tackled to the ground soon after catching the ball. Others take it as anytime a receiver is going to the ground on his own, and doesn't have the ability to stop himself from going to the ground. That's my camp.

According to my understanding of the rule, it is all of those things, particularly with the description of a receiver who "doesn't have the ability to stop himself from going to the ground." That is where the case plays say you can save yourself from the GTG tag by executing a move that does stop one from going to the ground in the form of a lunge.

 

[G2]

What about bringing back the old catch rules? Catch, control + 2 feet, ground cannot cause fumble. It's simple, and would reward spectacular plays. Yes, more fumbles may occur, so receivers should wrap that puppy up high and tight after the catch.

But you just said they should wrap it up, how about that? A catch is when they maintain control throughout.

 

[percyhoward]

I think the biggest thing is to clarify what "going to the ground" means.

It means the player's body hit the ground before he established himself as a runner.

So...
not just a receiver diving for a ball, although that describes what most of those plays would look like.
not necessarily a receiver who is tackled to the ground soon after catching the ball, because Item 1 clearly says "with or without contact by a defender"

Since 2015, that last definition (anytime a receiver is going to the ground on his own, and doesn't have the ability to stop himself from going to the ground) would probably fit, assuming you mean that he wasn't upright long enough.

Before 2015, not even that last definition would fit. At that time, players could gain possession whether upright or not, as long as they completed the catch process.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

But you just said they should wrap it up, how about that? A catch is when they maintain control throughout.

Yeah, but that makes the ground their enemy, and more less the defender. I honestly like to see the hits that come, trying to cause a fumble, immediately after a reciever makes the catch with two feet planted. I'm old school. We've had it before, it's a better brand of football. Lol

 

[G2]

Yeah, but that makes the ground their enemy, and more less the defender.

No, I get it. Imagine all the fumbles? You have to have a way to determine a length of time after the catch or every time a WR catches it and the gets hit and drops it it would be a fumble. Fumble Royal! I wouldn't be against trying a game like that to see, lol

 

[percyhoward]

What about bringing back the old catch rules? Catch, control + 2 feet, ground cannot cause fumble.

I think "control + 2 feet + time" is the way to go. But bring back the football move as the way to determine if the time requirement has been met. If a player has had control long enough to become a runner, he'll do something runners do.

Get rid of "upright long enough" because nobody's measuring degrees of uprightness, and nobody knows how long is long enough anyway. And after all, we're trying to define what a catch is -- not what going to the ground is.

 

[OmerV]

According to my understanding of the rule, it is all of those things, particularly with the description of a receiver who "doesn't have the ability to stop himself from going to the ground." That is where the case plays say you can save yourself from the GTG tag by executing a move that does stop one from going to the ground in the form of a lunge.

I should have said I'm in the camp of both the dive and the going to the ground without ability to stop the fall. The thing that causes me pause about the receiver who is tackled soon after catching the ball is A.R. 8.12 in the casebook.

 

[OmerV]

According to my understanding of the rule, it is all of those things, particularly with the description of a receiver who "doesn't have the ability to stop himself from going to the ground." That is where the case plays say you can save yourself from the GTG tag by executing a move that does stop one from going to the ground in the form of a lunge.

I should have said I'm in the camp of both the dive and the going to the ground without ability to stop the fall. The thing that causes me pause about the receiver who is tackled soon after catching the ball is A.R. 8.12 in the casebook. That seems to indicate that a pass

It means the player's body hit the ground before he established himself as a runner.

So...
not just a receiver diving for a ball, although that describes what most of those plays would look like.
not necessarily a receiver who is tackled to the ground soon after catching the ball, because Item 1 clearly says "with or without contact by a defender"

Since 2015, that last definition (anytime a receiver is going to the ground on his own, and doesn't have the ability to stop himself from going to the ground) would probably fit, assuming you mean that he wasn't upright long enough.

Before 2015, not even that last definition would fit. At that time, players could gain possession whether upright or not, as long as they completed the catch process.

I think that's an oversimplification because there are questions that go along with it, and really doesn't make sense because what you have described actually constitutes being "on the ground" rather than "going to the ground". Item one refers to going to the ground and essentially says that if you are going to the ground you have to maintain control of the ball once you actually are on the ground.

Some of the questions are whether a player is automatically "going to the ground" if he is falling and has no ability to regain his balance, and if it's possible for a player to establish himself as a runner when he has no ability to stay on his feet and actually be a runner. The rules aren't as clear as they could be on these things, but my belief is a player going to the ground without the ability to regain his balance and remain upright cannot establish himself as a runner. That's essentially what Blandino said as well.

 

[MarcusRock]

I should have said I'm in the camp of both the dive and the going to the ground without ability to stop the fall. The thing that causes me pause about the receiver who is tackled soon after catching the ball is A.R. 8.12 in the casebook. That seems to indicate that a pass

I think something got cut off here, lol. But I think the "without ability to stop the fall" applies to all cases where Item 1 is applied.

I think that's an oversimplification because there are questions that go along with it, and really doesn't make sense because what you have described actually constitutes being "on the ground" rather than "going to the ground". Item one refers to going to the ground and essentially says that if you are going to the ground you have to maintain control of the ball once you actually are on the ground.

Some of the questions are whether a player is automatically "going to the ground" if he is falling and has no ability to regain his balance, and if it's possible for a player to establish himself as a runner when he has no ability to stay on his feet and actually be a runner. The rules aren't as clear as they could be on these things, but my belief is a player going to the ground without the ability to regain his balance and remain upright cannot establish himself as a runner. That's essentially what Blandino said as well.

You are correct from where I sit. I have said that the GTTG rule is a "substitute" for a receiver who did not complete the 3-part process before falling. Surviving the ground checks off everything a receiver didn't do in those 3 parts: for part (a) he can bobble all the way to the ground as long as control is established before the ball hits the ground; for part (b) if he dives to make the catch, his body hitting the ground takes the place of 2 feet; for part (c) surviving the ground takes the place of having control "long enough" (time) for a football move he didn't perform (which is the same as "clearly becoming a runner" in 2015). So when this is backed by Blandino, then you have to look into his past to see if he ever stole a candy bar from a convenience store as a kid which would invalidate any opinion he ever gave from that point forward, and most certainly make him capable of a CONSPIRACY!