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

[OmerV]

That’s where I am at too!

Too bad - you missed an entertaining and competitive Super Bowl. I'm not a fan because of the league office, I'm a fan because of the game itself.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Too bad - you missed an entertaining and competitive Super Bowl. I'm not a fan because of the league office, I'm a fan because of the game itself.

Myself also. Players still run, throw, block, tackle. I live in a city where the local university is in the same conference as the college I graduated from, not a fan of the hometown team, for obvious reasons. However, I go to a lot of the games where I live, because I like good football games.

Now if the local team is playing a much-lesser division team, I usually don't go, watching a team I don't root for win 49-6 against an outclassed opponent isn't a good football game..

 

[MarcusRock]

Too bad - you missed an entertaining and competitive Super Bowl. I'm not a fan because of the league office, I'm a fan because of the game itself.

Exactly. I love the game of football, not just the Cowboys. The Super Bowl was entertaining but I'm also fine watching a defensive battle like that Sunday Night Seattle-Arizona game last season that ended in a 6-6 tie.

 

[Hostile]

 

[percyhoward]

The point is, and we've been over this an ungodly number of times and will never agree, is that once they decided he was going to the ground there was no "act common to the game" to look for, and Item 1 applied. I know your instinct will be to tell me that it wrong, but, again, we've been through that over and over, and we are going to have to accept that we don't agree.

Opinion has got nothing to do with this.

Sep 2013 (video tutorial)
Blandino: "The process of the catch is a three-part process: control, two feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all three parts in that order, you have a catch. If not, and you're going to the ground, you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground. The ball comes loose. He did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line, so this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass."

1/11/15
"In order for it to be a football move, it's got to be more obvious than that. Reaching with two hands, extending the ball for the goal line."

1/12/15
“We thought it was indisputable that he didn’t perform an act common to the game on the play yesterday.”

On the middle one, you explained that he was nervous. How do you explain the other two? One of them was 24 hours later, after he'd had all day to prepare a presentation on it. The other one was from the previous season. They're all about the football move, and none of them indicate in any way that going to the ground trumped the football move.

Also how do you explain why the NFL's own website would say this? Were they nervous?

1/17/15
"The issue: whether Bryant performed an “act common to the game.” Under the rules, that could have made the play qualify as a catch, and the key question was whether Bryant was doing so by clearly reaching for the goal line."

That's four different sources, all in agreement that a football move would have completed the catch process even while the player was falling, and all prior to the 2015 "re-wording" that changed the rule.

 

[percyhoward]

If they get rid of "upright long enough," and go back to the catch process as the standard for deciding whether a player is going to the ground in the act of catching a pass, then they're going back to 2014 rules.

It will be very interesting to follow this.

 

[MarcusRock]

If they get rid of "upright long enough," and go back to the catch process as the standard for deciding whether a player is going to the ground in the act of catching a pass, then they're going back to 2014 rules.

It will be very interesting to follow this.

Lol.

 

[DogFace]

Again, it's interesting that you completely ignore everything else Blandino said in the same interview.

What I'm saying is Blandino determined that the reach wasn't sufficient to change his mind that Dez was going to the ground the whole way. He didn't say Dez was a runner going to the ground and then was still looking for a football move, he was merely saying that he considered all aspects of the play for something that would change his mind that Dez was going to the ground the whole way. The rest of his comments that you refuse to acknowledge also support this. And he didn't misapply the rule - Item one is consistent with his comments, and Blandino said the way the play was called was consistent with how the play has been ruled in the past.

Why would the reach, whether enough or not, have anything to do with whether he would decide if he was going to ground the whole way or not?

Going to ground, in your eyes, makes anything he did automatically not part of any process. Why not just say he was going to the ground and I don’t need to look at any other part of the play to try to determine whether it was a catch.

No process was possible because he was going to the ground. He says Dez needed to make a more obvious move. Why would that have changed the fact he was going to the ground? How would a two hand reach, as he said, changed the fact that he was going to the ground? How would anything change the fact that he was going to the ground?

 

[DogFace]

@MarcusRock @BlindFaith @OmerV

What are your thoughts on this “committee” and John Mara? Is it a CONSPIRACY in the making?

 

[percyhoward]

Why not just say he was going to the ground and I don’t need to look at any other part of the play to try to determine whether it was a catch.

Exactly. If that was the rule, why not just say that was the rule -- instead of saying the exact opposite, which was "it was indisputable that there was no football move."

And you can apply this same question not just to the interview on the day of the game, it's also for the Total Access segment the day after the game, and in his TA segment a year earlier where the purpose was specifically to explain "going to the ground." Every time Blandino opened his mouth about it, it was always all about the catch process.

Anybody who thinks you couldn't complete the catch process while falling prior to 2015 has a lot of explaining to do, and "He was nervous" or "He butchered it" doesn't cut it. The fact is that the catch process ruled.

 

[OmerV]

Opinion has got nothing to do with this.

Sep 2013 (video tutorial)
Blandino: "The process of the catch is a three-part process: control, two feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all three parts in that order, you have a catch. If not, and you're going to the ground, you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground. The ball comes loose. He did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line, so this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass."

1/11/15
"In order for it to be a football move, it's got to be more obvious than that. Reaching with two hands, extending the ball for the goal line." 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.”

1/12/15
“We thought it was indisputable that he didn’t perform an act common to the game on the play yesterday.”

On the middle one, you explained that he was nervous. How do you explain the other two? One of them was 24 hours later, after he'd had all day to prepare a presentation on it. The other one was from the previous season. They're all about the football move, and none of them indicate in any way that going to the ground trumped the football move.

Also how do you explain why the NFL's own website would say this? Were they nervous?

1/17/15
"The issue: whether Bryant performed an “act common to the game.” Under the rules, that could have made the play qualify as a catch, and the key question was whether Bryant was doing so by clearly reaching for the goal line."

That's four different sources, all in agreement that a football move would have completed the catch process even while the player was falling, and all prior to the 2015 "re-wording" that changed the rule.

First, at least with the source I'm familiar with (1/11/15), you again have pulled an individual line out of context to make it appear Blandino was saying something he was not. I put the rest of the Blandino's thought in bold, underline print after the out of context quote you provided. You also, as always, ignore everything else in the very same interview, including where Blandino talks about Dez going to the ground and therefore having to maintain possession all the way.

I can't comment much on the others because I'm not sure of the context of any of it, but I will say that what I think you are missing is that when Blandino is talking about acts common to the game he is talking about something that would establish the receiver as a runner rather than someone who is going to the ground the whole way, regardless of whether he is contacted by a defender or not. That's why he discounted Dez's reach - he said it was all just part of his momentum carrying him to the ground. Accordingly, when a player cannot stop his fall to the ground, whetever else he does is regarded as part of his momentum carrying him to the ground, and therefore he is required to maintain control all the way to complete the pass.

Look at the quote from 1/17/15 - this quote says nothing other than the officials looked at all aspects of the play, including whether there was any football move. What you avoid talking about is that the idea of a football move was rejected because it was part of his momentum carrying him to the ground. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the idea that he looked for this was not to say that a person can make a "football move" and be "going to the ground" at the same time, it was to look and see if there was any indication he wasn't actually going to the ground, and that he only went to the ground because he reached. And, again, that was rejected.

As for him being nervous, I never said that. What I said was when asked questions and giving spur of the moment responses not every word is as clear and eloquent as a person might like. Yes, he said something about reaching for the goal line, but as I pointed out above, he immediately in the next sentence said that it was done as part of his momentum carrying him to the ground, and therefore did not have an application as a "football move". You always conveniently forget that very next sentence when you talk about it.

 

[DallasEast]

John Mara.

The irony will be as thick as molasses if Mara ultimately sides with popular opinion about the flawed nature of the current rule.

 

[OmerV]

Why would the reach, whether enough or not, have anything to do with whether he would decide if he was going to ground the whole way or not?

Going to ground, in your eyes, makes anything he did automatically not part of any process. Why not just say he was going to the ground and I don’t need to look at any other part of the play to try to determine whether it was a catch.

No process was possible because he was going to the ground. He says Dez needed to make a more obvious move. Why would that have changed the fact he was going to the ground? How would a two hand reach, as he said, changed the fact that he was going to the ground? How would anything change the fact that he was going to the ground?

It wouldn't, unless he wasn't going to the ground otherwise and it was only reaching that caused him to the ground. That's what I'm telling you. Again (and again and again) Blandino did not say the determination was that Dez was going to the ground the whole way, but they still looked for a reach. What they did was look at the reach (and his feet and the whole play) to see if there was evidence that he was not going to the ground the whole way.

A simple concept you are missing is that an official (nor Blandino) just looks at a play to a point and makes the call without watching the play all the way through. In other words, they didn't make the call immediately after Dez's first step alone and everything else be damned. The didn't look at the first step and simply assuming he was going to the ground they whole way. They looked at the play it in its entirety to determine if anything in Dez's actions indicated he wasn't going to the ground the whole way, and, again, they decided that was not the case.

 

[BlindFaith]

@MarcusRock @BlindFaith @OmerV

What are your thoughts on this “committee” and John Mara? Is it a CONSPIRACY in the making?

You don't read so well, do you.

"So the committee is working on changing the rule to relax the "going to the ground" requirement."

You guys crack me up.

 

[BlindFaith]

Exactly. If that was the rule, why not just say that was the rule -- instead of saying the exact opposite, which was "it was indisputable that there was no football move."

Anybody who thinks you couldn't complete the catch process while falling prior to 2015 has a lot of explaining to do, and "He was nervous" or "He butchered it" doesn't cut it. The fact is that the catch process ruled.

Give one example from 2014 where this was the case. And no, don't post the Dez non catch. Give just one example where someone falling to the ground simply reached out the ball while falling, hit the ground, ball comes loose and they ruled it a fumble. Just one.

 

[Hostile]

John Mara.

The irony will be as thick as molasses if Mara ultimately sides with popular opinion about the flawed nature of the current rule.

I hate Mara, but in fairness to him, when this play happened he disagreed with it and had a problem with it.

 

[BlindFaith]

I hate Mara, but in fairness to him, when this play happened he disagreed with it and had a problem with it.

There's disagreeing with it from a "it looked like a catch" to disagreeing that the correct rule was applied.

There is a reason we went from this definition of a catch

A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble in flight (See 3-20; 8-1-7-S.N. 5).

Note 1: It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground and that control is maintained after the ball has touched the ground.

Note 2: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, and there is contact by a defender causing the ball to come loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.

To what we have now. That was from the 2008 rule book. Now I can't find the 2008 casebook to look up the references, but see how vague that is. And it even says you have to maintain possession while contacting the ground.

So yeah, lets go back to that and live through all the same issues we had that lead to where we are now.

 

[BlindFaith]

@MarcusRock @BlindFaith @OmerV

What are your thoughts on this “committee” and John Mara? Is it a CONSPIRACY in the making?

Here is the actual statement.

The NFL competition committee appears to have unanimous agreement that controversial catch rulings involving Dez Bryant and Calvin Johnson should have been ruled complete, according to Giants owner John Mara. So the committee is working on changing the rule to relax the "going to the ground" requirement.

If he thought that the Dez catch should have been ruled a catch, then why do they need to change the rule to do so?

He, like others, thought it looked like a catch. Not that it was per the rule.

I will be very interested to see what this rule change will be.

 

[percyhoward]

Give one example from 2014 where this was the case. And no, don't post the Dez non catch. Give just one example where someone falling to the ground simply reached out the ball while falling, hit the ground, ball comes loose and they ruled it a fumble. Just one.

It would only be a fumble if it happened outside the end zone and the player hadn't been contacted.

Watch Blandino's video tutorial, "Explaining the Calvin Johnson Rule" from 2013. He shows two plays in which a player is going to the ground. If the scenario you described happens in the end zone it's a touchdown if the player had control + 2 feet + football move (Thomas), and it's incomplete if he did not (Johnson).

But again, the tutorial is just one example. In every explanation of this kind of play prior to 2015, Blandino focused on the catch process and the act common to the game. Without fail.

 

[percyhoward]

If he thought that the Dez catch should have been ruled a catch, then why do they need to change the rule to do so?

Because they changed the standard for becoming a runner in 2015, from "long enough to perform an act common to the game" to "upright long enough."

If you changed the standard back to the football move, then yes, Dez's catch would have stood as ruled on the field. As it should have at the time anyway.