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

[OmerV]

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.



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. 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!

I actually cut myself off - was going to add to a comment, then changed my mind and didn't delete the start of the comment I was going to make. I agree that going to the ground without the ability to stop the fall is a big key, and what Item 1 applies to. I just don't see the argument that a player who doesn't at any point have the ability to actually be a runner can establish himself as a runner. That situation is one where the "going to the ground" standard in Item 1 comes into play.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

You're paraphrasing it, but I agree with the bolded part -- and it tells us that Item 1 is only concerned with what happens when a receiver's body hits the ground. How could a player maintain control of the ball after making contact with the ground, if he never made contact with the ground? So it only applies to players whose body hit the ground before they established themselves as a runner.

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.

Well, they're questions now. They weren't before. All these questions about falling and balance don't enter into the rules until 2015. A "runner" in 2014 was just a player in possession of a live ball, and there was no reason to consider whether he was upright at the time. Back then, the focus was on defining the catch itself. Now the focus is on defining what it is to go to the ground, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the catch itself. As Pereira says, "It's not logic."

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.

Semantics play a huge role. I can ask the same question two different ways:

"Should a player have to be upright in order to be a runner?"

Sounds like a stupid question. Most people would say yes. Then inform them that a "runner" is just a player in possession of a live ball, and they realize the question is really this:

"Should a player have to be upright in order to catch a football?"

 

[percyhoward]

I just don't see the argument that a player who doesn't at any point have the ability to actually be a runner can establish himself as a runner.

That's what they accomplished when they redefined "runner" in 2015. It makes the overturn make sense to you and any other rational person.

But it has nothing to do with determining whether a player has caught a football, and it's the reason we're in the current mess with respect to these types of plays.

 

[BlindFaith]

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

One big argument against this is for exactly the reason you said. The NFL has been in the habit of trying to protect players. Opening up the rule as you suggest would incentivize players trying to make more big hits on players who can not protect themselves. And even more big hits on players going to the ground. Not really the direction I'd like to go in.

Players just need to hang onto the ball. Stop all the other nonsense on the way down.

 

[OmerV]

You're paraphrasing it, but I agree with the bolded part -- and it tells us that Item 1 is only concerned with what happens when a receiver's body hits the ground. How could a player maintain control of the ball after making contact with the ground, if he never made contact with the ground? So it only applies to players whose body hit the ground before they established themselves as a runner.


Well, they're questions now. They weren't before. All these questions about falling and balance don't enter into the rules until 2015. A "runner" in 2014 was just a player in possession of a live ball, and there was no reason to consider whether he was upright at the time. Back then, the focus was on defining the catch itself. Now the focus is on defining what it is to go to the ground, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the catch itself. As Pereira says, "It's not logic."


Semantics play a huge role. I can ask the same question two different ways:

"Should a player have to be upright in order to be a runner?"

Sounds like a stupid question. Most people would say yes. Then inform them that a "runner" is just a player in possession of a live ball, and they realize the question is really this:

"Should a player have to be upright in order to catch a football?"

Item one isn't ONLY concerned with what happens once a player's body hits the ground, it is also concerned why that player is going to the ground. I believe "going to the ground" refers to any receiver who is going to the ground involuntarily as he is making the catch and without the necessity of a hit being the cause of him going to the ground.

I also don't believe issues with falling are unique to 2015 and after. Item 1 existed in 2014. I don't agree that merely having possession of the ball without regard for whether a player is "going to the ground" was the standard in 2014. If you do, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[BlindFaith]

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.

So, in the Dez non catch, how much time is enough? Or, do you make it a catch when he gets his third foot down? Or is some other "football" move that you would try to enforce? Sounds like a lot of extra judgement going on. If they are going to change the rule, then just make it two feet down and possession. What you are proposing is already in the rules. You just don't like how they are defining what becoming a runner is. Or don't understand it more likely.

 

[BlindFaith]

Well, they're questions now. They weren't before. All these questions about falling and balance don't enter into the rules until 2015. A "runner" in 2014 was just a player in possession of a live ball, and there was no reason to consider whether he was upright at the time. Back then, the focus was on defining the catch itself. Now the focus is on defining what it is to go to the ground, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the catch itself. As Pereira says, "It's not logic."

Wrong. Or did you check with Stephan and the rules committee and they admitted to the cover up?

 

[percyhoward]

Item one isn't ONLY concerned with what happens once a player's body hits the ground, it is also concerned why that player is going to the ground. I believe "going to the ground" refers to any receiver who is going to the ground involuntarily as he is making the catch and without the necessity of a hit being the cause of him going to the ground.

In any case, "going to the ground" ONLY applies to a player whose body has hit the ground before he established himself as a runner. You'd agree that the only way to know whether a player had lost the ball when he hit the ground was if he actually hit the ground, right?

I also don't believe issues with falling are unique to 2015 and after. Item 1 existed in 2014.

Item 1 has existed for a long time, but as a necessary part of defining a catch when a player didn't complete the catch process before hitting the ground. The catch process is control + 2 feet + time. If that player only had control and two feet down, and then just fell (without doing anything that runners do), then he must not have met the time requirement. (He'd have made a football move if there was time). That's what Item 1 is for.

You can have Item 1 in a world that doesn't consider being upright as a prerequisite for catching a football.

I don't agree that merely having possession of the ball without regard for whether a player is "going to the ground" was the standard in 2014.

Then I have to ask why Blandino would say that Dez's reach needed to be with two hands.

If a player couldn't gain possession while going to the ground, that is. Why would a reach matter?

 

[Bleedblue1111]

One big argument against this is for exactly the reason you said. The NFL has been in the habit of trying to protect players. Opening up the rule as you suggest would incentivize players trying to make more big hits on players who can not protect themselves. And even more big hits on players going to the ground. Not really the direction I'd like to go in.

Players just need to hang onto the ball. Stop all the other nonsense on the way down.

C'mon now. A reciever taking a hit from tiny corners after getting two feet on the ground is tackle football. It's already too much like flag football as it is. I miss watching the game I used to play as a teen. "Sigh"

 

[Kevinicus]

So you are saying Stephen Jones is wrong too? I guess he doesn't understand? Or the officials?

Stephen is toeing the company line. They do that a lot. I'm sure he understands though. And I'm sure the officials do too. I guess PR is lost on some people (including the NFL as it has backfired on them quite a bit with this and they are trying to clean up the mess).

 

[MarcusRock]

Stephen is toeing the company line. They do that a lot. I'm sure he understands though. And I'm sure the officials do too. I guess PR is lost on some people (including the NFL as it has backfired on them quite a bit with this and they are trying to clean up the mess).

CONSPIRACY! to the lay person.

 

[Kevinicus]

lol - what did I cherry pick in this post? Seems claims without commentary to back it up are your norm.

As for your last sentence, apparently you haven't even read the case play you are referring to. How in the world can you claim to make an argument based on something you haven't even bothered to read. The case play specifically refers to a player coming down with one foot and then afterward going to the ground as a result of being hit by an opponent.

Take the time to actually read the rules, including Item 1, and including the case plays, then come back and try to have an intelligent conversation. As it is you are making claims based on things in print you haven't even bothered to read.

I didn't read the case play? I know it well. You haven't made a single coherent argument concerning it yet. You're right, the case play does specifically reference a player getting one foot down and subsequently going to the ground. You don't have any grasp of the meaning that goes with it, however. You don't apply the rule and case play together. You go back and forth from one to the other as if they are separate things with no relation. I don't have the patience to explain things over and over and over x 100 like Percy and zebra did. The case play clearly shows that once a player starts falling, what you believe is "going to the ground," (remember, item 1 says "with or without contact" so the application is the same EITHER WAY), they can still establish themselves as a runner and item 1 will not apply. You're creating some fantasy world in your head that for some reason getting one foot down and then being contacted is the only thing that can possibly negate your false assumption that once a player begins to fall they have to maintain control after they hit the ground.

 

[Kevinicus]

CONSPIRACY! to the lay person.

Uh, no. That's making a mistake and then taking steps to mediate bad PR. Businesses do it all the time. It's called marketing. Only an idiot would call it a conspiracy.

The NFL just did a poor job in this instance. They followed one mistake for another.

 

[MarcusRock]

Uh, no. That's making a mistake and then taking steps to mediate bad PR. Businesses do it all the time. It's called marketing. Only an idiot would call it a conspiracy.

The NFL just did a poor job in this instance. They followed one mistake for another.

How did C-3PO's eye taste and where is Jabba buried now?

 

[OmerV]

In any case, "going to the ground" ONLY applies to a player whose body has hit the ground before he established himself as a runner. You'd agree that the only way to know whether a player had lost the ball when he hit the ground was if he actually hit the ground, right?


Item 1 has existed for a long time, but as a necessary part of defining a catch when a player didn't complete the catch process before hitting the ground. The catch process is control + 2 feet + time. If that player only had control and two feet down, and then just fell (without doing anything that runners do), then he must not have met the time requirement. (He'd have made a football move if there was time). That's what Item 1 is for.

You can have Item 1 in a world that doesn't consider being upright as a prerequisite for catching a football.


Then I have to ask why Blandino would say that Dez's reach needed to be with two hands.

If a player couldn't gain possession while going to the ground, that is. Why would a reach matter?

Of course the only way to know if he loses the ball when he hits the ground is when he actually hits the ground, but it's the determination of whether he was a runner or a player going to the ground that dictates if it is a fumble or an incomplete pass.

I think a lot of our disagreement is rooted in how we see Item 1. You see it as a secondary/subordinate rule, whereas I see it as the guiding rule for a player who is going to ground while attempting to catch a ball. I believe Item 1 is in place to indicate that a player going to the ground has a different standard for establishing possession than one who is not. Ultimately there isn't a way for us to settle that issue other than to go with what the officials, and Blandino, have said.

As for what Blandino said about reaching, I believe his comment about reaching with both hands was simply to say he would have to have done more than he did to show he was in control of his balance rather than just falling, and that's why Blandino went on to say "This is all part of in our view, all part of his momentum in going to the ground and he lost the ball when he hit the ground. That in our view made it incomplete and we feel like it’s a consistent application of the rule as it has been written over the last couple of years.”

Blandino also said “This is very similar to the Calvin Johnson play where Bryant is going to the ground to make the catch and the rule is pretty clear that when you go to the ground to make the catch you have to hold on to it throughout that entire process. When Dez hits the ground with his left arm the ball hits the ground it pops loose into the air and that is all part of the catch process that makes it an incomplete pass.”

 

[MarcusRock]

Of course the only way to know if he loses the ball when he hits the ground is when he actually hits the ground, but it's the determination of whether he was a runner or a player going to the ground that dictates if it is a fumble or an incomplete pass.

I think a lot of our disagreement is rooted in how we see Item 1. You see it as a secondary/subordinate rule, whereas I see it as the guiding rule for a player who is going to ground while attempting to catch a ball. I believe Item 1 is in place to indicate that a player going to the ground has a different standard for establishing possession than one who is not. Ultimately there isn't a way for us to settle that issue other than to go with what the officials, and Blandino, have said.

And Pereira.

 

[OmerV]

I didn't read the case play? I know it well. You haven't made a single coherent argument concerning it yet. You're right, the case play does specifically reference a player getting one foot down and subsequently going to the ground. You don't have any grasp of the meaning that goes with it, however. You don't apply the rule and case play together. You go back and forth from one to the other as if they are separate things with no relation. I don't have the patience to explain things over and over and over x 100 like Percy and zebra did. The case play clearly shows that once a player starts falling, what you believe is "going to the ground," (remember, item 1 says "with or without contact" so the application is the same EITHER WAY), they can still establish themselves as a runner and item 1 will not apply. You're creating some fantasy world in your head that for some reason getting one foot down and then being contacted is the only thing that can possibly negate your false assumption that once a player begins to fall they have to maintain control after they hit the ground.

If you know it so well, why did you first say there is nothing at all about a player coming down with one foot and then being hit, and now you are having to acknowledge that the case rule actually does say that?

As for the rest of your post, it's just a lot of "you don't know what your talking about", again, like a kid on the playground, without any actual commentary or facts to back it up. That's really all your argument is based on - you just say "uh uh", you're wrong and I'm right" over and over without even a token effort at logic or reason. For you to explain things over and over you would have to do it the first time.

 

[Kevinicus]

If you know it so well, why did you first say there is nothing at all about a player coming down with one foot and then being hit, and now you are having to acknowledge that the case rule actually does say that?

I never said that.

You just proved that you don't know what you're talking about. THAT, I did say.

And no, the rest of my post is not that, I described what you were doing wrong with the rules. I've done it before, Percy has done it, Zebra has done it. I'm sure other people on other forums have done it as well. There is no evidence or arguments left to be laid out. It's conclusion time. YOU ARE WRONG. All the evidence has been presented and you have ignored and distorted it. Period.

 

[OmerV]

I never said that.

You just proved that you don't know what you're talking about. THAT, I did say.

And no, the rest of my post is not that, I described what you were doing wrong with the rules. I've done it before, Percy has done it, Zebra has done it. I'm sure other people on other forums have done it as well. There is no evidence or arguments left to be laid out. It's conclusion time. YOU ARE WRONG. All the evidence has been presented and you have ignored and distorted it. Period.

Lol - it's on the site. Check your post at 10:13 am (Texas time - not sure where you are). You even called me a troll for talking about 1 foot down and then getting hit to the ground being a catch, and now that you apparently have actually read the case play you are telling me I'm right about that. It's in print - but as usual, your response is "uh, uh - you're wrong".

As for there being no arguments to lay out, I never expected that of you anyway. You've yet to lay one out. You just say "you're wrong, I'm right" in your best 11 year old boy imitation. But don't despair - I'm sure you would make a great 11 year old boy.

 

[BlindFaith]

Uh, no. That's making a mistake and then taking steps to mediate bad PR. Businesses do it all the time. It's called marketing. Only an idiot would call it a conspiracy.

The NFL just did a poor job in this instance. They followed one mistake for another.

How nice of him to put his reputation on the line and take part in the cover up.

Or maybe he's just right and you're not?

Ohh who to believe?