MarcusRock
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 15,340
- Reaction score
- 17,972
Why don't you actually go back and read those two case plays and tell me what the difference is.
I do not see any difference between that play and the Dez play in 2014 *merged*
- Thread starter TWOK11
- Start date
Why don't you actually go back and read those two case plays and tell me what the difference is.
DogFace
Carharris2
- Messages
- 13,603
- Reaction score
- 16,115
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.
I know you’re not going to say reached out and lunge means they’re completely different. Are you?
They show a rule change occurred. Why else were they changed?
Last edited:
BlindFaith
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,115
- Reaction score
- 2,624
No, your side assumed that ONLY a reach or lunge was required under the 2014 version. Case plays 8.12 and 8.13, which Percy never read, talk about specific situations where a player going to the ground can compete the catch. Those have not changed.
All they did here was clarify the rule. They could have easily made it say "Completed pass" by changing the rule description to say "Does become a runner prior to going to the ground" and changing the ruling to "In this situation, the receiver had clearly become a runner before going to the ground. In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He had become a runner before going to the ground and does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.
I don't know why they chose to explain the rule as the inverse of the 2014 version. To be consistent, they should have used my version. So folks wouldn't assume conspiracy.
But the essence is that they more clearly defined the "time element" from 2014 to "become a runner" in the 2015 version. And they call that out in the actual rule itself by saying stay upright long enough.
BlindFaith
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,115
- Reaction score
- 2,624
Nice to see you too. I think the part that was irrefutable was that he was going to the ground. If the on field ref thought that he wasn't, which he didn't, then it's clearly something that should have been over turned. Because he was clearly going to the ground.
And that, for the most part, isn't even what this debate is about. Even though some don't think he even was going to the ground. This debate is about what can he or can't he do while falling to establish himself as a runner. The he caught it side think that ONLY the act of lunging or reaching was required. There is a time/regain balance/brace element that has to also be there. AR 8.12 and 8.13 clearly say that. But of course, they don't want to talk about those case plays.
BlindFaith
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,115
- Reaction score
- 2,624
BlindFaith
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,115
- Reaction score
- 2,624
Oh, and that article was shortly after the Dez play. They really did wonders to improve the rule, didn't they. In 2014 it wasn't a catch, 2015 it wouldn't have been a catch. As of today, it wouldn't be a catch.
Maybe this drastic change that some think we need is harder to figure out? Or did he just change his mind immediately after making that comment and decide nothing needed to be done over the course of the last 3 years, but now all of a sudden, thinks it has to be changed again?
DogFace
Carharris2
- Messages
- 13,603
- Reaction score
- 16,115
From Percy
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
Listen carefully to Blandino. You’ll see he says it’s possible to complete the process while going to the ground.
I quoted it for @MarcusRock in the new main thread.
Blandino on the Calvin Johnson play in the video:
“If you can perform all parts-in that order-you have a catch. If —NOT— and you’re going to the ground you have to maintain possession.”
“He did not have both feet down prior to the reach so this is all one process.”
This says very plainly if he would’ve had two feet down it would NOT have been all one process. One process being the control and going to the ground. Rather it would’ve been part 3 of the catch process completed WHILE he was going to the ground.
Hostile
The Duke
- Messages
- 119,565
- Reaction score
- 4,544
I am never going to agree they got the call right. Not even upon how the rules were written and interpreted, and my reason is very simple as I have already stated. He got 3 feet to the ground. His knee and his elbow both hit the ground long before the arm with the ball. Once that 3rd foot hit, he is a runner. Ground cannot cause a fumble for a runner. He is either down by contact where the ball was when his knee and elbow hit, or he scored. All the going to the ground stuff is nonsense and I think Dean Blandino is the dumbest idiot to ever have a say in the NFL. I have told him so in fact. I have said from the word go that Calvin Johnson, Jesse James, and Zach Ertz all caught it the same as Dez.
The only real difference to me is that Dez had enough control of the football to take one hand away, and no one can do that without control. It cannot be done.
Hang the rule. It never passed the smell test and it never will. They made it so subjective that it caused the game problems that they are now admitting are wrong. It was always wrong. It was always going to be wrong.
BlindFaith
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,115
- Reaction score
- 2,624
So what do we go back to? The pre 2007 rules? The 2007-2010 rules? 2011-2013 rules? 2014 rules? There are obvious reasons to the NFL why they have been tinkering with the catch rule and the going to the ground aspect of it going back to at least 1998. And coincidentally, that's around the same time instant replay became a bigger part of the picture. Plus more cameras, camera views, HD. I don't remember every questionable call from the time I started watching football to now. I'm sure there were many. There have always been catch calls that were disputed, questioned, disagreed with. Maybe we have taken it too far. Or maybe the NFL just hasn't done a very good job of explaining to the fans what the rule is and why. Anyway, here is a summary of the catch rule since 1998. I've condensed it some from its source that you can find here. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2639506-how-the-nfls-catch-rule-became-the-worst-rule-in-sports
Over the past handful of years, the rule has been altered and changed and "clarified" in a way that's been—in the eyes of many—about as clear as mud. The "process of the catch" gave way to "making a football move" gave way to "an act common to the game" gave way to "becoming a runner with the ball." With every attempt to eliminate the confusion, fans became that much more confused.
It wasn't Calvin Johnson's grab in 2010 that started the controversy about what is and is not a catch. Nor was it Dez Bryant's non-catch in the 2014 playoffs that had the highest stakes.
No, it was Emanuel's grab (that wasn't) in the 1999 NFC title game where the cacophony about catches began. Replays (instant replay returned to the NFL in 1999 after a seven-year absence) showed that when Emanuel went to the ground, the ball contacted the turf at the Trans World Dome, although at no point did Emanuel appear to lose control.
As referee Bill Carollo told reporters after the game, he saw all he needed to: "It was apparent that the player, as he was catching the ball, he used the ground, and the tip of the ball hit the ground. By rule, you cannot use the ground or have assistance from the ground to make a catch. "Dungy did get one concession at the competition committee sessions. The rule constituting a reception was clarified, so that the league's officials understand that the ball can touch the ground and still be a catch if the receiver has clearly secured possession before he falls to the turf.
For a time, things seemed to be better—at least in that plays like Emanuel's were now being ruled receptions...sometimes. The catch rule still contained a vague requirement—that a player "must have possession, control and make a football move." Longtime referee Jerry Markbreit attempted to define said "football move" in his column for the Chicago Tribune in 2004. “When a catch is made by a receiver who comes down with both feet on the ground, the "football move" would be: stretching for a first down, diving out-of-bounds or running with the ball. If the "football move" is accomplished, and the receiver is then hit and the ball comes out, it is ruled a catch and fumble, instead of an incomplete forward pass.”
However, the catch rule underwent another transformation in 2007, as referee Ed Hochuli explained to the Atlanta Falcons' website (via Footballguys). “Changes for 2007 are light compared to past years, but Hochuli and his team still do their homework to get themselves, and teams, ready for the season. “The one (change) I think is the most dramatic is not really a rule change, it’s just an interpretation change from the competition committee that deals with what is a completed catch,” Hochuli said. Beginning this season, a receiver that gets two feet down and has control of the ball has a reception. Traditionally a player needed to make “a football move” after a catch to have it classified a reception. Now, a quick hit from a defender could result in a fumble. “Sometimes there’s a situation where there were three steps and the ball would come out and it would be correctly ruled an incomplete pass,” Hochuli said. “So, the receiver gets a second foot down, gets hit and the ball comes lose -- we would have a fumble rather than an incomplete pass.”
From the 2007 Rule Book:
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.
(3) A pass is completed or intercepted if the player has both feet or any other part of his body, except his hands, inbounds prior to and after the catch.
A.R. 8.10 While in midair, a receiver firmly takes hold of a pass, but loses possession of the ball when his shoulder lands on the ground with or without being contacted by an opponent. Ruling: Incomplete pass. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights on the ground in order to complete the reception.
The notion of the "football move" was cast aside. The catch rule, as written in the official 2007 NFL rule book, was about as straightforward and streamlined as rules get in the National Football League. There was still the occasional occurrence (usually on a play where the player went to the ground making an attempted catch in the end zone).
2009 Raiders receiver Louis Murphy appeared to score in the second quarter Monday night. But replay officials interpreted the rule correctly and reversed the touchdown. The rule itself, however, violated the time-honored and indispensable “looks funny” standard. The play looked like a touchdown. And it “looked funny” not to call it a touchdown. NFL backed the ruling saying: “Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that ‘if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or in the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.” ‘“The instant replay review determined that Raiders wide receiver Louis Murphy did not maintain possession of the ball after he hit the ground. Thus, the on-field ruling of a touchdown was reversed by referee Carl Cheffers to an incomplete pass.”
For the most part what is or isn't a catch faded to the background on the list of grievances from players and fans.
That is, until the mother of all dustups regarding a player going to the ground in the end zone ripped the lid off Pandora's box. There were still controversial catches after the rule change in 2007. But none of them captured the attention of fans nationwide and dominated the NFL news cycle. They came and went quietly. That is, until a September afternoon in 2010. Calvin Johnson went to the ground and then rolled over (at which point the ball popped out), he was still in the process of making the catch. This is due to the removal of the "football move" concept instituted in the 2007 rule change. Meaning the only determination was maintaining possession through contacting the ground, which still remained in the rule.
After several months of criticism, derision and overall mockery of the catch rule itself and the mythical process of making one, the NFL office knew that action was needed. And when the competition committee met in the spring of 2011, they set about clarifying what is and what is not a catch.
Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).
There was quite a kerfuffle about Johnson's non-catch, and that plus the changes made to the rule brought the catch rule back to the forefront of discussion in the NFL. However, for all the brouhaha, the fact remains that it was a regular-season game in September that had zero impact on that year's playoffs. The play just didn't have the football impact that Emanuel's did.
Neither did the next few dustups, including a wild Week 1 in 2013 where Johnson and Victor Cruz of the New York Giants were involved in nearly identical plays. Cruz's was called a reception. Johnson's was ruled an incomplete pass.
By this point, criticism of what many perceived as an overly complicated and poorly enforced catch rule had become a weekly occurrence on television panel shows and talk radio. The league's tinkering with the rule had become an annual affair as a result of that criticism.
Granted, in the 2014 rule book, the catch rule itself remained essentially the same as in 2011. But addendums galore had been tacked on. There was one regarding the "act common to the game" that read: "It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so." Given all these rules (and addendums for every possibly contestable outcome), the NFL hoped that, while complicated, the catch rule covered all the bases. That the days of grousing about it were done. Not even close. In that year's playoffs, a controversy exploded that rivaled Emanuel's catch both in its impact on the postseason and the level to which it brought about furor over the league's rules.
The Dez Play. By the letter of the law, it can be argued it was the right call. Bryant did go to the ground. The ball did move.
It sent the NFL back to the drawing board. When the 2015 iteration of the NFL rule book was released, the catch rule had once again been overhauled. Gone was any mention of an "act common to the game." What's "becoming a runner," you ask? Well, the NFL attempted to clarify that when announcing the change. The league also tried to clarify exactly when a player is "going to the ground."
BlindFaith
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,115
- Reaction score
- 2,624
You can complete the process while going to the ground. Gather yourself and then lunge. If Johnson would have gotten his other foot down a fraction of a second earlier, so both of them were down before he "lunged", it still would not have been a catch. His momentum was still taking him to the ground and he still would not have regained his balance. Or do you think it would have been ruled a catch?
I'm not going to try and defend how Blandino tried to explain these examples. He did a very poor job of it.
BlindFaith
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,115
- Reaction score
- 2,624
And just to set the record straight, those catches were from 2013. There were case play updates and new emphasis around the going to the ground aspect for 2014. So that may explain why he isn't as clear in these explanations. I'm just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
BlindFaith
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,115
- Reaction score
- 2,624
I think, personally, the idea of trying to fit rules around only a "runner" is where the NFL is failing. They tried to address that recently by saying upright long enough.
They should clearly differentiate what is needed by an upright and remains upright player and then what is required for a player going to the ground. Clearly separating the two in the rules.
One where the upright player becomes a runner.
One where the player going to the ground has options to complete the catch process without becoming a runner. They become a receiver going to the ground. Here you could simply say that two feet plus any other body part makes it a catch.
Trying to explain the rules in a way that a player can transition into a runner, by some gathering act, but yet still ultimately goes to the ground is just confusing to many.
DogFace
Carharris2
- Messages
- 13,603
- Reaction score
- 16,115
Blandino clearly says “he did not have both feet down”
That is the only factor in it not being a catch. It’s very clear. That’s what he says. He never says anything about regaining balance. It’s very clear-two feet down and it would’ve been a catch. I’m not sure how much more clear that could be. Maybe he misspoke again, as you say, but that’s what he said.
So you’re basically saying we are interpreting the rule wrong by not adding the regain could’ve regained balance stuff and that Blandino didn’t explain it correctly several times.
You’re adding that momentum part and whether or not he would’ve regained balance. Which isn’t part of the catch rule or any caseplay dealing with a someone who competed the process while going to the ground. Which is EXACTLY what he said Johnson would’ve accomplished if he had gotten two feet down.
I’m really not sure how you can argue this. It’s very plain English.
Blandino on the Calvin Johnson play in the video:
“If you can perform all parts-in that order-you have a catch. If —NOT— and you’re going to the ground you have to maintain possession.”
“He did not have both feet down prior to the reach so this is all one process.”
He clearly realizes he was going to the ground. It doesn’t matter if he had gotten two feet down. The other parts were there.
OmerV
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 26,165
- Reaction score
- 22,647
He didn't say the reach would have mattered, in fact, he said that because he was going to the ground the whole way he was bound by the obligation to maintain control all the way through. You ignore that over and over and over again.
What you also ignore is that
It's amazing how many times you can ignore the fact that he said then, and has said since, that with Dez going to the ground he was obligated to maintain possession all the way through. It's as if your eyes are wide open when you read a snippet you can pull out of context, then cover your eyes when the text says something you don't want to see or acknowledge.
He was specifically asked about the reach, and he said not only would there have needed to be something more, but that with it being part of his momentum going to the ground it didn't matter anyway and he was obligated to maintain control all the way through. You conveniently neglect to acknowledge that.
I've said many times, and you keep playing "see no evil" that he was specifically asked about the reach, and he specifically rejected it because it was part of his momentum in going to the ground. The going to the ground overrode everything else.
All he was saying was that he looked for signs Dez wasn't going to the ground and found none, therefore Dez had to maintain possession all the way through. The only reason that comment was made in the context of the reach is because that was the question the interviewer asked. He didn't bring up the reach on his own, and it was not mentioned as an illustration of a move that could have overriding the going to the ground rule. I've said all this before as well, but it appears your hands go over your eyes when you start to read it.
DogFace
Carharris2
- Messages
- 13,603
- Reaction score
- 16,115
Wrong. Completely wrong.
He said he needed to see “more of a reach”. A reach with “two hands” is exactly what he said. And that would’ve made it matter.
Here’s another video from percy on Blandino. Listen to it closely so you understand that it didn’t matter that he was going to the ground. He could’ve completed the 3 step process. He says that very clearly.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
Blandino on the Calvin Johnson play in the video:
“If you can perform all parts-in that order-you have a catch. If —NOT— and you’re going to the ground you have to maintain possession.”
“He did not have both feet down prior to the reach so this is all one process.”
Plain English. If you can complete the 3 parts in that order it’s a catch. If NOT you’re going to the ground and THEN you have to maintain possession.
Last edited:
DogFace
Carharris2
- Messages
- 13,603
- Reaction score
- 16,115
He never ever said it wouldn’t matter anyway. You totally made that up. Provide the link and I’ll prove it.
You may have to Move the goal post like the others have done. That part has been disproven.
Hostile
The Duke
- Messages
- 119,565
- Reaction score
- 4,544
My answer BF is common sense. It is really just that simple. Possession of the football in bounds. Discussion over.
Dez got both feet down, shifted the ball from 2 hands to 1 (again, cannot be done without complete control of the football. 100% impossible.), This is possession. It has been since the forward pass cam about. So go all the way back to Red Grange if you need to. He then got another foot down and dove, knee hit the ground, elbow hit the ground. Down by contact or down at the point where the football was when knee and/or elbow hit. And most of all irrefutable proof. Otherwise you CANNOT overturn the call on the field.Al the goofed up language in the world doesn't erase that hard, fast rule. And they ignored it.
Your interpretation of the rules, their interpretation of rules, or mine are all irrelevant. He had possession. This cannot be refuted.
OmerV
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 26,165
- Reaction score
- 22,647
Sorry, but that's not how it was worded - that, again, is just taking a snippet of his words and ignoring what he says immediately after. This is what he said, and I have bolded and underlined the part you are ignoring:
":We looked at that aspect of it and in order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it 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.”
He said the reaching out was all part of his momentum going to the ground, but you ignore that part to make it sound as if he was saying something different. To be fair you have to read the entirety and see the full context.
I'm not even sure why this continues to be something you bring up because regardless of how you want to take Blandino's words, he still has clearly said it was an icomplete pass, and nothing Dez did established him as a runner, and that as a player who was going to the ground he had to maintain possession all the way through. You are trying to fabricate something out of his words that would somehow indicate something different, but Blandino then and now and over the years has consistently said Dez was going to the ground, and as such was obligated to maintain possession all the way through.
OmerV
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 26,165
- Reaction score
- 22,647
You can shift from 2 hands to one while in mid air, so in the event of an all out dive, and this happens, would should he be down if the second the his body hits the ground it bounces out of his hands? What about the split second he catches it with two feet down he gets hit, the ball rolls away, and the defense jumps on it? Fumble and the opposing team gets possession? Suppose Dez did the same stumble but without a defender that touched him - would you have been okay with it if the defense then grabbed the ball away when it briefly popped out of Dez's hands?
LACowboysFan1
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 11,753
- Reaction score
- 7,657
Regardless of whether or not it was a catch, the fact remains that even if the Cowboys had scored, with the point after (Garrett had already signaled for that before the play was reviewed), that would have only put Dallas up 28-26, and does anyone doubt that Rodgers would probably been able to drive the Packers down for at least a field goal after that?
We argue the "catch" or "no catch" endlessly, but it was not the play that determined the game, too much time left on the clock. So it's an interesting discussion, but please, enough with all the "you're wrong I'm right" attitudes, it's over, done with, can't be played over, moot point, or whatever.
As far as the rule goes, they should have never put in the "going to the ground" wording. If a receiver has control of the ball and gets two feet on the ground, or lands on the ground, or crosses the goal line, it's a catch. The NFL has tried to add wording and interpretations that has done nothing, IMO, to make the game better...
We argue the "catch" or "no catch" endlessly, but it was not the play that determined the game, too much time left on the clock. So it's an interesting discussion, but please, enough with all the "you're wrong I'm right" attitudes, it's over, done with, can't be played over, moot point, or whatever.
As far as the rule goes, they should have never put in the "going to the ground" wording. If a receiver has control of the ball and gets two feet on the ground, or lands on the ground, or crosses the goal line, it's a catch. The NFL has tried to add wording and interpretations that has done nothing, IMO, to make the game better...