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

[BlindFaith]

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.

So no examples. Either fumbles with no contact or ball comes loose after contacting the ground yet they still ruled it a catch.

 

[BlindFaith]

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.

Honestly, that's not the issue. It means the same thing per the case plays. You don't see, but that's ok.

I think what is more curious is when did they start trying to define what actions could be done while going to the ground and how were they originally stated in the case plays.

2012 casebook has the case plays about bracing and balancing, the ones you always ignore, but no mention of time being an act common.

And I can't find any casebook prior to that. I did find the 2008 rule book and I posted that above. But the casebook references aren't there.

Going to the ground and maintaining possession all the way through has been there, I believe since 98.

I wish we could see the rule books and case books from 98 on to see just how they have changed.

 

[percyhoward]

So no examples. Either fumbles with no contact or ball comes loose after contacting the ground yet they still ruled it a catch.

The tutorial was specifically made to educate fans on going to the ground and gives two examples: one that's a catch and another that is incomplete.

 

[percyhoward]

Honestly, that's not the issue. It means the same thing per the case plays. You don't see, but that's ok.

A.R. 15.95 in its 2015 version is almost unrecognizable compared to 2014.

2014
A.R. 15.95
Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.
In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not
have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

2015
A.R. 15.95
Does not become runner prior to going to ground
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then, still in control of the ball, he reached out for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A20.
In this situation, the receiver had not clearly become a runner before going to the ground. In order to complete the catch, he must maintain control until after his
initial contact with the ground. The act of reaching out with the ball does not trump the requirement to maintain control of the ball when he lands.

 

[BlindFaith]

A.R. 15.95 in its 2015 version is almost unrecognizable compared to 2014.

2014
A.R. 15.95
Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.
In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not
have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

2015
A.R. 15.95
Does not become runner prior to going to ground
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then, still in control of the ball, he reached out for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A20.
In this situation, the receiver had not clearly become a runner before going to the ground. In order to complete the catch, he must maintain control until after his
initial contact with the ground. The act of reaching out with the ball does not trump the requirement to maintain control of the ball when he lands.

This is what's so frustrating with you. Copy and paste. That's all you do. It's not even remotely what I asked.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

We ALL know Blandino said Dez was going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. That is not in dispute.

The question is, "How did he make that determination?" You're saying he just sort of decreed it, which makes no sense. In 2014, you didn't know a player was going to the ground in the act of catching the pass until it was first determined that he hadn't already completed the act of catching a pass.

I can't comment much on the others because I'm not sure of the context of any of it,

So familiarize yourself and inform yourself. Watch the tutorial.

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.

That is a mix of his words and yours. Don't put words in the guy's mouth. Yes, he is talking about something that would establish the receiver as a runner. All that means is he's talking about something that would complete the catch process. Do you realize that's exactly the same thing? Becoming a runner in 2014 simply meant completing the catch process. Upright or falling, it did not matter. Dez was obviously falling, and they were obviously looking at the lunge and the reach. How do you explain this?

You're thinking that the nature or appearance of the reach itself or the lunge itself is secondary to the fact that it happened when Dez was falling. That's what makes it impossible for you to explain why he he said the reach needed to be with two hands. That statement doesn't fit with your idea of how these plays are ruled. But instead of stopping at that point and wondering why he said it, you just say he was nervous, or that he was talking about something other than what made him overturn the catch.

I'm keeping it short, so maybe you'll read it.

 

[percyhoward]

This is what's so frustrating with you. Copy and paste. That's all you do. It's not even remotely what I asked.

I was addressing what you said in the first line, that the case plays didn't reflect any change in the rules.

Here you have the very play that most resembles the Dez play. It was changed from complete to incomplete.

 

[percyhoward]

I think one of the main keys is understanding that Item 1 is not subordinate to the 3 step process, but rather is an exception to it that applies a different standard for a player who is "going to the ground". To me the only thing the refs had to determine was whether Dez was going to the ground regardless of whether he was contacted or not by a defender, and I believe it's pretty clear he was.

Then why, when he appeared on Game Day Final (1/11) and Total Access (1/12) did Blandino not use that explanation?

If this was about contact with a defender, why on earth did Blandino never say one word about contact with a defender?

 

[BlindFaith]

I was addressing what you said in the first line, that the case plays didn't reflect any change in the rules.

Here you have the very play that most resembles the Dez play. It was changed from complete to incomplete.

It's not though. 8.12 is almost the exact play. And I know you don't like talking about those two case plays because they support what Blandino has said about gathering themselves.

I'm done with this until we see the new rule changes.

 

[percyhoward]

I think at the end of the day the key is that going to the ground (meaning a player who has no control over whether he is going to the ground, and cannot demonstrate that he is able to regain balance) falls in a different category than the 3 step process, which is why Item 1 is written separately from the 3 step process, and does not contain any language that ties it to the 3 step process.

Except that Blandino's 2013 video "Explaining the Calvin Johnson rule" is all about the 3-step process, and how that process determines whether the player becomes a runner or is still a receiver and has to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

It's not though. 8.12 is almost the exact play. And I know you don't like talking about those two case plays because they support what Blandino has said about gathering themselves.

I'm done with this until we see the new rule changes.

I don't even know what "those two case plays" refers to, so I'll have to look them up. Thanks for at least giving me the name of one of them.

 

[percyhoward]

These are all from 2014. Of these three, only the last one changed in 2015. Why? How was it different from the other two?

A.R. 8.12
GOING TO THE GROUND
COMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out.
Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A3
The pass is complete. When the receiver hits the ground in the end zone, it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of the catch. Since the ball crossed the goal line, it is a touchdown. If the ball is short of the goal line, it is a catch, and A2 is down by contact.

A.R. 8.13
GOING TO THE GROUND
COMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25.
A1 throws a pass to A2 who is contacted by a defender before he completes the catch at the three-yard line. Despite B2’s contact, A2 keeps his balance, gets both feet down, and lunges over the goal line. The ball comes out as he hits the ground.
Ruling:Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A3
The receiver went to the ground as the result of lunging for the goal line, not in the process of making the catch.

A.R. 15.95
Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.
In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not
have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

 

[percyhoward]

Shouldn't be a shock. The whole point of changing the rule should be so that when it is applied to the Calvin/Dez/James non-catches, they would be considered catches under the new guidelines. If not, then they failed.

If you apply the current catch process to all three of those plays, and simply use Item 1 the way it was used up until 2015 (use it only when the catch process wasn't completed), then the Bryant and James plays are catches. The Johnson play happened in the end zone where there would be no football move, so it would be up to the officials' judgment as to whether the time requirement was met.

All three were originally ruled catches by the field official nearest the play.

 

[MarcusRock]

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

Right. And here's the quote of him saying it was correct by the rules but that the rule needed to be looked at.

"I think it was probably the right call technically, according to the language that was in the rule book, but I really think we need to look at that.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...g-dez-bryant-catch-reversal-article-1.2078178

 

[DogFace]

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.

Why would the reach have anything to do with whether he was going to the ground? Why would the reach mean he wasn’t going to the ground the “whole way,” as you say?

Blandino used the words “more of a football move”. Why would he use those words if any type of move wouldn’t have changed the fact that he was going to the ground?

Or are you saying it would have?As in he could’ve competed the 3 step process on the way to the ground?

Or are you saying he wasn’t going to the ground? I know you’re not and If he was than, as you say, no moves matter.

Why did he say if he would’ve made “a more obvious move” “a reach with two hands” and how would those acts have changed the fact he was going to the ground? Because your stance is that no moves matter on the way to the ground and that the process could’nt be completed. So why was he looking for “a more obvious move”?

 

[DogFace]

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.

To make it easier for some to not misinterpret the rules? Like confusing the fact that the catch process can be completed while going to the ground while the separate going to the ground is for players who haven’t competed the 3 part process before they hit the ground.

 

[DogFace]

A.R. 15.95 in its 2015 version is almost unrecognizable compared to 2014.

2014
A.R. 15.95
Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.
In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not
have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

2015
A.R. 15.95
Does not become runner prior to going to ground
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then, still in control of the ball, he reached out for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A20.
In this situation, the receiver had not clearly become a runner before going to the ground. In order to complete the catch, he must maintain control until after his
initial contact with the ground. The act of reaching out with the ball does not trump the requirement to maintain control of the ball when he lands.

Good call @MarcusRock !!! The rule didn’t change at all. You’re a genius.
I expect you will ignore this fact.

 

[DogFace]

It's not though. 8.12 is almost the exact play. And I know you don't like talking about those two case plays because they support what Blandino has said about gathering themselves.

I'm done with this until we see the new rule changes.

Of course you are. You’ve maintained the rules didn’t change. Now with your far superior reading skills you can see the exact same caseplay from 2014 and 2015 with only one difference. One is a catch and one incomplete.

The new term—clearly become a runner replaced time for a football move.

Can you and @MarcusRock please now, at the very least, admit this means the rule did change?

 

[DogFace]

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.

You’re getting emotional and feisty!! I like it. Now put
your excellent reading skills to use and read it again. Slowly.

The committee admits the Dez catch should have stood. Per John Mara.

 

[Hostile]

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.

Nice to see you BF. I am never, ever going to agree with you or others who think the rule was applied correctly, and I am going to say why up front. To overturn the call on the field there must be irrefutable evidence via replay.

It was never that. This thread is evidence if nothing else is.