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

[BlindFaith]

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.

Did you read the info I posted? The history of the catch rule.

I couldn't find a copy of the rulebook/casebook from anytime prior to 2007. But apparently there was language of having to perform an act common to the game. To complete a pass. But nothing really about what that means in regards to going to the ground.

Then in 2007 they removed that to "simplify" things. This is actually the Calving Johnson rule. Removing this language now forced the player to maintain possession through contacting the ground. So do you want to go back to this time? Or back to prior?

Now in 2011, because of catches that looked liked catches weren't being called, they added back in "Become a Runner". But that basically put us where we were prior to 2007.

So our current rule is basically the rule it has been since 2007. They've tried to clarify it, but have failed miserably. At least to those who really don't know what the rule is and why it is.

The real problem is that the NFL has been focused on trying to establish when a player can run with the ball. A runner. In looking through what past rulebooks I could find, they define what a catch is. They define a runner. A passer.

They try to shoehorn in all activities into really, a passer and a runner. The problem is that there really is another piece, the receiver.

The language has changed to try to clarify at what point a player who is attempting to secure control of a pass becomes a runner. When the player is upright, its fairly easy and we all agree, I think, with how that's being officiated today. The real issue is trying to identify how a player who is falling can become a runner. To me, they shouldn't. A player going to the ground does not have the ability to do everything that an upright player can. And the things that they can do are things that put them much more at risk regarding losing the ball. This is the point the NFL as been trying to tightrope on. Fumbles vs catches.

Now, if they clearly distinguished the act of attempting to catch a ball while going to the ground from the act of catching the ball while upright, I think it would help. They have started doing just that. But the rule itself is still not clear. The case plays, at least 2 of the 3 are clear though. Regain balance or brace. The other more vague case play says time. And because they have lumped a runner with a receiver, that opens up the confusion that all a receiver should have to do is anything that a runner has to do. But this is not what the direction is or has been of what the NFL intended the rule to mean.

They could leave the rules exactly as is for an upright player. Just make a new rule for a player going to the ground. Come up with the catch process rules.
1. Possession of the ball
2. Two feet down
3. This is the one for debate and has everyone up in arms about. But all they need to do is clearly state what a player can do to complete the process. Maybe its just as simple as its a catch as soon as another body part touches the ground. That will clearly cause all kinds of fumbles and controversy as well, but all of these catches that look like catches that aren't would be ruled complete. If that's what everyone wants. Then, when contacting the ground and the ball comes loose, its' only a fumble if the player had not been contacted by another player. Another part to have to consider would be boundary catches. You would have to keep in the going to the ground rule as is, unless you just say that all they need to do is get another body part down as well. But now that body part would be out of bounds.

That would be the simple fix. But I guarantee that there will be a call at some point that everyone freaks out about with even this simplification. Thats why this rule has gone back and forth, clarified, amended, refined and...misunderstood.

It would be nice if they really gave long and hard thought to this. Radically change the rules if need be. Be crystal clear on all the scenarios. But get it right and be done with it. At least for a few years until the next outcry.

 

[BlindFaith]

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?

These are the EXACT issues the NFL is trying to balance out. This is exactly why basically the only "move" they allow while going to the ground is a move where the player can defend themselves against those exact issues - to regain balance, brace, gather, interrupt the fall.

As I just posted above, they could do just what Hostile said. Or, hey, let's just make it possess the ball, with one hand or two. That's it. Diving players while in mid air are credited with a catch while in midair. Players could dive for balls that would land them out of bounds, but as long as they gain possession for a milisecond, then its a catch. Or players who just jump straight up and then get drilled and have their legs taken out. Still a catch.

Now I am being somewhat facetious here, but I'm just trying to point out the numerous scenarios that have to be accounted for for any rule change that they do make. And that it's not just "simple" or "common sense".

There is a reason whey they added two feet down.

Just like there is a reason why, they now have, gathering themselves/become a runner/stay upright long enough/make an act common to the game.

 

[BlindFaith]

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...

Maintaining possession while contacting the ground has been in the rules since the dawn of time. They didn't just "put it in".

And thanks for your contribution. In a thread about what a catch is or isn't.

 

[OmerV]

These are the EXACT issues the NFL is trying to balance out. This is exactly why basically the only "move" they allow while going to the ground is a move where the player can defend themselves against those exact issues - to regain balance, brace, gather, interrupt the fall.

As I just posted above, they could do just what Hostile said. Or, hey, let's just make it possess the ball, with one hand or two. That's it. Diving players while in mid air are credited with a catch while in midair. Players could dive for balls that would land them out of bounds, but as long as they gain possession for a milisecond, then its a catch. Or players who just jump straight up and then get drilled and have their legs taken out. Still a catch.

Now I am being somewhat facetious here, but I'm just trying to point out the numerous scenarios that have to be accounted for for any rule change that they do make. And that it's not just "simple" or "common sense".

There is a reason whey they added two feet down.

Just like there is a reason why, they now have, gathering themselves/become a runner/stay upright long enough/make an act common to the game.

I don't think fans realize that these are the issues the league has tried to address in the past (albeit often poorly), and that regardless of the standards there will be problems that won't sit well with fans. And the reality is, fans often react with emotion, and being upset over an unwanted outcome can color their viewpoint. I am convinced that had Dez gone down as he did, but without a defender touching him, then the ball popped free and the defense recovered, the same fans now saying it was a catch would be screaming it was an incompletion. Fandom does that to people.

 

[nathanlt]

I don't think fans realize that these are the issues the league has tried to address in the past (albeit often poorly), and that regardless of the standards there will be problems that won't sit well with fans. And the reality is, fans often react with emotion, and being upset over an unwanted outcome can color their viewpoint. I am convinced that had Dez gone down as he did, but without a defender touching him, then the ball popped free and the defense recovered, the same fans now saying it was a catch would be screaming it was an incompletion. Fandom does that to people.

I wouldn't, because time and time again, if a player controls a pass, falls to the ground without being touched, he is able to advance the ball. We all know that. If he fumbles before someone touches him down, it IS a loose ball. We all know that.

I would not deny the fumble, but rather insist that Dez, a multimillionaire wide receiver, hold onto the ball. That is basic football that has never changed.

 

[DogFace]

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.

Again, why not just say he was going to the ground so any reach was insignificant?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

Explain to me what is different about this play.

 

[OmerV]

Again, why not just say he was going to the ground so any reach was insignificant?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

Explain to me what is different about this play.

He did say that, they just weren't the first words out of his mouth when asked about the reach. Again, I think he only mentioned the reach because that was the context of the question he was asked, and I think he only did then to indicate they didn't overlook any aspect of the play. And, again, he did reject that the reach mattered, saying that it was only done in the process of going to the ground. You can't keep pretending he didn't say that.

As for the clip, it is either not downloading or is painfully slow. If I get it to work Ill respond.

 

[BlindFaith]

I wouldn't, because time and time again, if a player controls a pass, falls to the ground without being touched, he is able to advance the ball. We all know that. If he fumbles before someone touches him down, it IS a loose ball. We all know that.

I would not deny the fumble, but rather insist that Dez, a multimillionaire wide receiver, hold onto the ball. That is basic football that has never changed.

All he needed to do was hold on to the ball then, but he didn't.

 

[DogFace]

He did say that, they just weren't the first words out of his mouth when asked about the reach. Again, I think he only mentioned the reach because that was the context of the question he was asked, and I think he only did then to indicate they didn't overlook any aspect of the play. And, again, he did reject that the reach mattered, saying that it was only done in the process of going to the ground. You can't keep pretending he didn't say that.

As for the clip, it is either not downloading or is painfully slow. If I get it to work Ill respond.

He,in no way, said the reach didn’t matter. Produce one quote. JUST One where he said the reach didn’t matter. He never said anything remotely close to that. He clearly said it had to be more of a reach and in the the context of answering the question he was saying that the reach would’ve mattered and made it a completion.

I can’t get a reasonable response to the clip which clearly shows Johnson going to the ground, the entire catch process, making less of a move- less time, losing the ball when he hit the ground, and Blandino saying it would’ve been a catch had he got two feet down prior to the reach. Yes. The reach. Not the lunge. Not the brace. Not the gathering himself. The reach.

Blind says they altered the rule or put more emaphasis on the process after this ruling. Blandino seems to be putting a lot of emphasis on this catch and what the rules are regarding the catch and going to the ground so I’d like to see what he’s talking about.

 

[DogFace]

All he needed to do was hold on to the ball then, but he didn't.

So you’re maintaining that the reason Johnson didn’t have to hang on to the ball in the video clip is that there was some sort of emphasis on going to the ground that occurred in the 2014 season that wasn’t there when Johnson made that play?

Why was Blandino explaining it on nfln on a special segment dealing with the catch process? Your position is that after the famous Johnson play then this less known Johnson going to the ground catch that the nfl then emphasized the catch rule about going to the ground after the 2013 season where you say this last play took place?

Do you have a link so I can understand exactly what they said and stressed?

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

 

[DogFace]

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.

Can you tell me the caseplay examples and what the new emphasis was?

 

[DogFace]

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.

Blandino said it WOULD HAVE been a catch had he gotten both feet down prior to the lunge.

So I guess you’ll say again caseplays changed and he, again, spoke unclearly.

That play pretty much disqualifies your point of the player going to the ground the entire time.

You’re saying the caseplay changed after that play.

Please provide a link.

 

[BlindFaith]

Blandino said it WOULD HAVE been a catch had he gotten both feet down prior to the lunge.

So I guess you’ll say again caseplays changed and he, again, spoke unclearly.

That play pretty much disqualifies your point of the player going to the ground the entire time.

You’re saying the caseplay changed after that play.

Please provide a link.

I'm not going to try and defend Blandino and his explanations. Talk to him.

And we've explained this enough to you. Accept it or not. I don't care. This debate has already been settled by the NFL. You can choose to understand the rule or continue to fight it. My objective is to understand it so that watching the game is less frustrating. I can say that I do understand it.

If you choose to not, then have fun debating these types of catches in the future. Unless they radically change the rule.

It's combine and draft time now for me. Please let this thread die. No more questions for me. I'm out.

 

[DogFace]

Blindfaith can’t argue Blandino and he’s clearly the best on that side.

Any other takers?


Hello??

 

[Hostile]

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?

You cannot shift a ball you do not have control of. No one can. Here's a simple test. Blindfold yourself, and put your hands up as if to catch something thrown to you. Have someone do exactly that touching one of your hands with the object thrown to you. I 100% guarantee you the other hands moves to try and help catch the ball. That is basic human instinct. If you do not have control of something, both hands automatically try to secure it.

To answer your question, if contact has been made and someone goes to the ground in every other instance that a ball comes loose, if butt, knee or elbow hit the ground before the call is loose is it a fumble? The honest answer is no.

What is going to touch first, left knee or left arm which in this shot is under the football enough to make it a tough call anyway?

What about which arm or elbow here?

From this shot it looks like the ball could touch before the knee, but not before the right elbow. it doesn't touch before either.

Left knee down. Right elbow down. Ball still above the ground. He is either down by contact, right there, or as a runner (he had taken 3 steps and turned and dove towards the goal line, the third step made him a runner) the ground caused the fumble which it cannot do and he recovered it in the end zone.

All of this is moot anyway. As I said, the referee must see incontrovertible evidence that the call on the field was wrong to overturn the play. That did not happen here. No one can tell me that is an easy call to make. If the evidence is not obvious, what is the rule? Was that rule followed? Forget all the mumbo jumbo about the language of the rule and interpretation of that language. Was that simple directive followed in this case? The only honest answer is no, and I say the same thing about the Calvin Johnson catch and the Jessie James one. The only one where it seems to have been followed and rightly is Zach Ertz. He got the benefit of the crossing the goal line to aid the officials who are too confused any more but what is and isn't a catch.

By the way, I have always found it ironic that Cowboys fans talk about this one and not Butch Johnson's Super Bowl XII TD. I have never thought that should have been a catch even though he had two hands on it as he crossed the goal line in air. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Hostile]

Did you read the info I posted? The history of the catch rule.

I couldn't find a copy of the rulebook/casebook from anytime prior to 2007. But apparently there was language of having to perform an act common to the game. To complete a pass. But nothing really about what that means in regards to going to the ground.

Then in 2007 they removed that to "simplify" things. This is actually the Calving Johnson rule. Removing this language now forced the player to maintain possession through contacting the ground. So do you want to go back to this time? Or back to prior?

Now in 2011, because of catches that looked liked catches weren't being called, they added back in "Become a Runner". But that basically put us where we were prior to 2007.

So our current rule is basically the rule it has been since 2007. They've tried to clarify it, but have failed miserably. At least to those who really don't know what the rule is and why it is.

The real problem is that the NFL has been focused on trying to establish when a player can run with the ball. A runner. In looking through what past rulebooks I could find, they define what a catch is. They define a runner. A passer.

They try to shoehorn in all activities into really, a passer and a runner. The problem is that there really is another piece, the receiver.

The language has changed to try to clarify at what point a player who is attempting to secure control of a pass becomes a runner. When the player is upright, its fairly easy and we all agree, I think, with how that's being officiated today. The real issue is trying to identify how a player who is falling can become a runner. To me, they shouldn't. A player going to the ground does not have the ability to do everything that an upright player can. And the things that they can do are things that put them much more at risk regarding losing the ball. This is the point the NFL as been trying to tightrope on. Fumbles vs catches.

Now, if they clearly distinguished the act of attempting to catch a ball while going to the ground from the act of catching the ball while upright, I think it would help. They have started doing just that. But the rule itself is still not clear. The case plays, at least 2 of the 3 are clear though. Regain balance or brace. The other more vague case play says time. And because they have lumped a runner with a receiver, that opens up the confusion that all a receiver should have to do is anything that a runner has to do. But this is not what the direction is or has been of what the NFL intended the rule to mean.

They could leave the rules exactly as is for an upright player. Just make a new rule for a player going to the ground. Come up with the catch process rules.
1. Possession of the ball
2. Two feet down
3. This is the one for debate and has everyone up in arms about. But all they need to do is clearly state what a player can do to complete the process. Maybe its just as simple as its a catch as soon as another body part touches the ground. That will clearly cause all kinds of fumbles and controversy as well, but all of these catches that look like catches that aren't would be ruled complete. If that's what everyone wants. Then, when contacting the ground and the ball comes loose, its' only a fumble if the player had not been contacted by another player. Another part to have to consider would be boundary catches. You would have to keep in the going to the ground rule as is, unless you just say that all they need to do is get another body part down as well. But now that body part would be out of bounds.

That would be the simple fix. But I guarantee that there will be a call at some point that everyone freaks out about with even this simplification. Thats why this rule has gone back and forth, clarified, amended, refined and...misunderstood.

It would be nice if they really gave long and hard thought to this. Radically change the rules if need be. Be crystal clear on all the scenarios. But get it right and be done with it. At least for a few years until the next outcry.

I did read it BF, and it did not in any way alter my answer of common sense. I think Calvin Johnson caught the ball. I always have. I have no vested interest in him. I certainly have no vested interest in a Pittsburgh Steeler and I say Jessie James caught that ball. I really have no vested interest in an Eagle and Zach Ertz did too.

In each case, and Dez's common sense shoudl have been applied. It was, only once IMO. Ertz. It isn't about going back to a season's rules for me, it is about going back to using common sense. And, I cannot emphasize this part enough, for a call on the field of play to be overturned there HAS TO BE "incontrovertible evidence" that the official on the field making that call GOT IT WRONG. Minus that, the directive is, let the call on the field stand. Where was that rule followed in the Dez case? because we both know you cannot show me that football out of his hands before his knee or elbow have already touched the ground. You can't do it. You can go frame by frame, and never see that evidence and we both know it. Is that rule of knee down play is dead clear? Yes. Is that rule of elbow down play is dead clear? Yes.

Regardless of the language of the rule you are citing they got those 3 things wrong. Knee down, elbow down, incontrovertible evidence or play on the field stands as called. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

 

[BlindFaith]

I did read it BF, and it did not in any way alter my answer of common sense. I think Calvin Johnson caught the ball. I always have. I have no vested interest in him. I certainly have no vested interest in a Pittsburgh Steeler and I say Jessie James caught that ball. I really have no vested interest in an Eagle and Zach Ertz did too.

In each case, and Dez's common sense shoudl have been applied. It was, only once IMO. Ertz. It isn't about going back to a season's rules for me, it is about going back to using common sense. And, I cannot emphasize this part enough, for a call on the field of play to be overturned there HAS TO BE "incontrovertible evidence" that the official on the field making that call GOT IT WRONG. Minus that, the directive is, let the call on the field stand. Where was that rule followed in the Dez case? because we both know you cannot show me that football out of his hands before his knee or elbow have already touched the ground. You can't do it. You can go frame by frame, and never see that evidence and we both know it. Is that rule of knee down play is dead clear? Yes. Is that rule of elbow down play is dead clear? Yes.

Regardless of the language of the rule you are citing they got those 3 things wrong. Knee down, elbow down, incontrovertible evidence or play on the field stands as called. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Wanting it to be a catch and having be a catch per the rules are two different things.

Per the rules, they were all called correctly.

Should they be catches is exactly what they are discussing now and if so, how do they change the rule to allow them.

 

[Hostile]

Wanting it to be a catch and having be a catch per the rules are two different things.

Per the rules, they were all called correctly.

Should they be catches is exactly what they are discussing now and if so, how do they change the rule to allow them.

No sir. With all due respect, I do not agree, because of the incontrovertible evidence rule. That trumps every bit of ambiguous language in the abortion they now have as a rule of what a catch is. For that call to be overturned there should be no doubt. That is the language of that rule. Three years later there is still doubt. That call on the field was a catch. It should have stood.

I want to make this very clear too. I would feel EXACTLY the same way if the Official on the field had ruled no catch. If the evidence is not clear the call on the field stands as called. Period.

All the minutiae and interpretations from there are moot. Was it incontrovertible? The answer is a resounding "No." Common sense would have had them begin from there. They arrived at a predetermined solution that still does not hold up. Knee down. Elbow down. Play is dead. Ball loose after play is already dead.

 

[OmerV]

You cannot shift a ball you do not have control of. No one can. Here's a simple test. Blindfold yourself, and put your hands up as if to catch something thrown to you. Have someone do exactly that touching one of your hands with the object thrown to you. I 100% guarantee you the other hands moves to try and help catch the ball. That is basic human instinct. If you do not have control of something, both hands automatically try to secure it.

To answer your question, if contact has been made and someone goes to the ground in every other instance that a ball comes loose, if butt, knee or elbow hit the ground before the call is loose is it a fumble? The honest answer is no.

What is going to touch first, left knee or left arm which in this shot is under the football enough to make it a tough call anyway?

What about which arm or elbow here?

From this shot it looks like the ball could touch before the knee, but not before the right elbow. it doesn't touch before either.

Left knee down. Right elbow down. Ball still above the ground. He is either down by contact, right there, or as a runner (he had taken 3 steps and turned and dove towards the goal line, the third step made him a runner) the ground caused the fumble which it cannot do and he recovered it in the end zone.

All of this is moot anyway. As I said, the referee must see incontrovertible evidence that the call on the field was wrong to overturn the play. That did not happen here. No one can tell me that is an easy call to make. If the evidence is not obvious, what is the rule? Was that rule followed? Forget all the mumbo jumbo about the language of the rule and interpretation of that language. Was that simple directive followed in this case? The only honest answer is no, and I say the same thing about the Calvin Johnson catch and the Jessie James one. The only one where it seems to have been followed and rightly is Zach Ertz. He got the benefit of the crossing the goal line to aid the officials who are too confused any more but what is and isn't a catch.

By the way, I have always found it ironic that Cowboys fans talk about this one and not Butch Johnson's Super Bowl XII TD. I have never thought that should have been a catch even though he had two hands on it as he crossed the goal line in air. Just my 2 cents.

What if contact isn't made? That's the scenario I put out there. If an airborn player could establish possession, and the ball popped free immediately upon hitting the ground, and he hadn't been touched, it would be a fumble. I also put out the scenario of a player jumping for the ball and the split second his feet contact the ground he either loses the ball or gets hit and the ball pops away - that would be a fumble again under your scenario.

 

[BlindFaith]

No sir. With all due respect, I do not agree, because of the incontrovertible evidence rule. That trumps every bit of ambiguous language in the abortion they now have as a rule of what a catch is. For that call to be overturned there should be no doubt. That is the language of that rule. Three years later there is still doubt. That call on the field was a catch. It should have stood.

I want to make this very clear too. I would feel EXACTLY the same way if the Official on the field had ruled no catch. If the evidence is not clear the call on the field stands as called. Period.

All the minutiae and interpretations from there are moot. Was it incontrovertible? The answer is a resounding "No." Common sense would have had them begin from there. They arrived at a predetermined solution that still does not hold up. Knee down. Elbow down. Play is dead. Ball loose after play is already dead.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. If the ref making the initial call didn't see the ball hit the ground, then there was indisputable evidence that it did and it moved. Exactly why replay is there.

If the ref didn't think Dez was going to the ground, then again, it was indisputable that he was. Exactly why replay is there.

The only thing that can, and is, being argued is Dez regain his balance at any time before the lunge. He clearly never did.

It's really that simple.