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

[CPanther95]

You can quote inept refs and officials all day. Catching, switching arms, diving for the end zone, is a move common to the game. He layed out completely for that td how on earth was that not enough?

Because he was going to the ground at the time. Thats all that matters. Have to maintain control after hitting the ground. Very simple.

 

[percyhoward]

If it only applied to diving catches where there was no time to complete the catch process before hitting the ground...it wouldn't say that it applies when the act of catching the pass occurs while going to the ground.

A diving catch is a perfect example of a player who was still in the act of catching a pass when he went to the ground. That's why Item 1 says what it does. He's got to hold on throughout contact with the ground in order to meet the time requirement that couldn't otherwise be met because he was diving.

No dive, on the other hand, means enough time for a football move.

The clause was interpreted since 2010 in a way that justified the ridiculous Calvin Johnson ruling. Your interpretation would mean that the "Calvin Johnson Rule" doesn't apply to the play it was named after.

How do you figure that? Johnson was in the end zone where no football move would be made, which left it up to the official's judgment as to whether he had control long enough to make a football move.

 

[OmerV]

Catch, three steps, dives and the ball pops out.

2 differences. One is that Ertz made a cut toward the goal line (the "football move"), and Ertz likely would have stayed on his feet going into the end zone had the tackler not come over. Dez, on the other hand, showed no ability to make a cut, and it didn't appear that he could have stayed on his feet going into the end zone even if there had been no defender there. That said, Dez obviously didn't need to change directions (make a cut) to head toward the end zone, so there wasn't even an opportunity for that, but the fact he seemed to be going to the ground from the time he caught the ball is what hurt his case.

 

[nathanlt]

I’ve spent more time on this topic the past three years than any topic that’s ever been posted on this board and I’m not going to continue wasting my time with it. I haven’t made any mistakes some of you just want to keep arguing this topic.

The NFL claimed there wasn’t any evidence. There were other issues with Zeke that I believe played a part in his suspension. I’m certainly not going to spend time on this. If you think there’s a bias against the Cowboys don’t watch the game.

We’re into the fourth offseason arguing it. That’s how sad this fan base is.

You’re still at it.

Ever since everyone became aware of the rule in 2010 with the Calvin Johnson play it’s been called the same way. It wasn’t a catch. Period. End of story.

This is where some of you are completely lost on the rule. When a receiver is ruled “going to the ground” they still have to complete the catch process. A football move goes out the window if they're ruled going to the ground.

This is where some of you are completely lost on the rule. When a receiver is ruled “going to the ground” they still have to complete the catch process. A football move goes out the window if they're ruled going to the ground.

You’re the one with no leg to stand on you think there’s a conspiracy against the Cowboys. Lol Go waste someone else’s time.

Seems like you continue to argue the point, even though you've stated that you're not going to waste your time on it. Hmmmm.

I'm casually observing the phenomenon, where someone tries to defend a falsehood (FALSE:"the catch rule was obvious", - though it's been rewritten multiple times since the debacle). Then, rather than admit that the NFL created the mess, and without basis in the rule book, took away Dez's catch... rather than that, you double down and become emotionally invested in defending a complete falsehood.

It's a human phenomenon to deny what a person knows is true, simply because that person has been mocked for believing it. Every person is susceptible to defending a falsehood, if their pride is wrapped up in defending it. Interesting.

 

[CPanther95]

2 differences. One is that Ertz made a cut toward the goal line (the "football move"), and Ertz likely would have stayed on his feet going into the end zone had the tackler not come over. Dez, on the other hand, showed no ability to make a cut, and it didn't appear that he could have stayed on his feet going into the end zone even if there had been no defender there. That said, Dez obviously didn't need to change directions (make a cut) to head toward the end zone, so there wasn't even an opportunity for that, but the fact he seemed to be going to the ground from the time he caught the ball is what hurt his case.

Exactly. Look at Dez the moment his 2nd foot hit the ground and try to make the case that he's not heading to the ground regardless. That's the futile case you'd have to make.

Unless he has the power to levitate, the rule applies to him.

 

[unionjack8]

The league created this mess to the point NOBODY know what a catch is or isn't. It's a farce.. .

 

[robertfchew]

Both the Calvin Johnson play and the Dez play required replay to get the calls right. No way can you get those two calls right in real time. They had to be analyzed.

then why not replay everything? If the refs cannot be trusted on turnovers and scores then they cannot be trusted at all.

 

[robertfchew]

Seems like you continue to argue the point, even though you've stated that you're not going to waste your time on it. Hmmmm.

I'm casually observing the phenomenon, where someone tries to defend a falsehood (FALSE:"the catch rule was obvious", - though it's been rewritten multiple times since the debacle). Then, rather than admit that the NFL created the mess, and without basis in the rule book, took away Dez's catch... rather than that, you double down and become emotionally invested in defending a complete falsehood.

It's a human phenomenon to deny what a person knows is true, simply because that person has been mocked for believing it. Every person is susceptible to defending a falsehood, if their pride is wrapped up in defending it. Interesting.

He is trying to act as if he's above believing anything anti nfl and he still responds. I would be embarrassed if I was him.

 

[dwreck27]

I thought that clement “catch” was more dez catch like with him switching hands and not being under control with his foot on the line

 

[CT Dal Fan]

An apology from the league wouldn't make me feel better.

A bonus early draft pick as admittance they screwed us over would make me feel.... a little bit better.

 

[KJJ]

That’s not close to the only reason.

How about giving me the reason seeing you want to make this a personal attack?

 

[robertfchew]

Exactly. Look at Dez the moment his 2nd foot hit the ground and try to make the case that he's not heading to the ground regardless. That's the futile case you'd have to make.

Unless he has the power to levitate, the rule applies to him.

every player is headed to the ground. Thats irrelevant. He switched hands and lunged he was making a football move. You only get to have it one way. Either both feet are down with full possession is the only catch or you get to posses the ball through your entire process. Imagine how many amazing catches are gone if we go by your rules. a catch and drag is not a football move all they're doing is going out of bounds.

 

[MarcusRock]

It was ruled a catch and down by contact on the field, so there needed to be clear evidence that no football move happened.

Wrong. As I've said before we don't know if the field official ruled that a football move happened. If the field official didn't see the ball hit the turf from his angle, and who could at real speed, then all that needed to be evident for it to be a catch was that the ball did not touch the turf. Dez didn't need a football move if he had kept the ball off the ground, even if he bobbled it after his body hit the ground. Is this correct? The angles that showed it did touch the turf including the picture I posted in this very thread as did KJJ, were reverse angles that the field official was obstructed from. That's why I say I don't blame the field official. He couldn't see everything. So if he applied the wrong rule, replay is there to make sure the right one is applied. That is what happened.

They simply said they felt it was all a part of the process of going to the ground. They showed no evidence to support that explanation though. When a receiver tucks the ball (takes one hand off the ball and holds it in a way that runners do), that's not a continuation of the process of going to the ground. It's a separate act that shows he's no longer trying to catch it.

You can repeat it but it doesn't make it true. There was no tuck. For one, he had to double clutch just to grasp the ball because Shields hits Dez' forearm and then he took one hand off the ball in preparation for his fall as he was going to the ground. He left the ball away from his body and it hit the ground when his torso did and popped loose. There is no "switching" when you take one hand off the ball while you are on the way to the ground. You either crash down with it in 2 hands or 1 hand. All in the "process of going to the ground," which is what was ruled. So again, was it incompetence that those 3 rules buffs missed that there was a football move or did they all conspire?

The old rule (that was in place at the time of the play) says that, after control and two feet, the catch process is completed and the player becomes a runner by performing any act common to the game. So a better question would be, How is tucking the ball in one hand not something that receivers do when advancing a ball that they've caught?

Because there was no tuck. There was a double-clutch grasp for control, steps on the way to the ground, choosing to take 1 hand off the ball, and a failed lunge as he hit the ground, ball pops out. No catch per going to the ground.

Start by asking yourself what exactly a football move is, and why it matters. It's there because there needs to be a time requirement after control and two feet down. The player must maintain control of the ball long enough to make a football move. Once he performs any act common to the game (or, since 2016, tucking the ball, turning up field, taking additional steps) he's done something to show that he's met the time requirement. He's a runner now.

"Runner" does not mean someone who's upright, it's simply a player in possession of a live ball. Once control, two feet, and the time requirement are met, the player is now a runner.

See above for "no tuck." 2014 rules or 2016 rules, no tuck happened.

You just put the cart squarely before the horse.

Until the player goes to the ground, the official doesn't even know whether to apply even Item 1. In order to apply Item 1, he has to know that the player went to the ground as a receiver. That he did not establish himself as a runner before he hit the ground. Under "upright long enough" it's the official's judgment that makes the player a runner. Under the 2014 rules and also the other current standard (yes, there are two) it's the act common to the game that makes him a runner.

Go way back up to my first response here. Dez could have established himself as a runner after he hit the ground too. That occurs by confirming that the ball didn't touch the ground. In that instance you don't need an act common to the game. Isn't that right?

 

[aria]

How about we create another 10 thread page about it? Only 9 more pages to go!

 

[percyhoward]

Watch the video and watch their legs bump. It clearly looks like a trip, which comes before any alleged football move. His next step was as he was falling to the ground. And that makes the catch susceptible to the catch rule needing to control it throughout the catch to the ground. The ball hit the ground and popped out.

Incomplete per the rules.

Yes, there's a leg whip that trips Dez. That happens after control and two feet down, but long before Dez finally goes to the ground and loses the ball. In the meantime, he tucks the ball, takes a 3rd step, and reaches to try to break the plane. Those are all things runners do.

It sounds like you're trying to apply "upright long enough" to a play that happened before "upright long enough" became a rule.

 

[aria]

How about the coaches and players owe us an apolgy for not being able to beat a crippled Aaron Rodgers limping around on one leg and having to run an extremely elementary offense due to his injury?

 

[aria]

Actually I want to change my goal, the other current thread with this exact same topic is at 15 pages. Let’s over take them and get this one to 20 first.

 

[OmerV]

Seems like you continue to argue the point, even though you've stated that you're not going to waste your time on it. Hmmmm.

I'm casually observing the phenomenon, where someone tries to defend a falsehood (FALSE:"the catch rule was obvious", - though it's been rewritten multiple times since the debacle). Then, rather than admit that the NFL created the mess, and without basis in the rule book, took away Dez's catch... rather than that, you double down and become emotionally invested in defending a complete falsehood.

It's a human phenomenon to deny what a person knows is true, simply because that person has been mocked for believing it. Every person is susceptible to defending a falsehood, if their pride is wrapped up in defending it. Interesting.

I disagree about there being no basis in the rule book. Here is the rule:

1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
2. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
3. maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

The "long enough to clearly become a runner" is what I think is key. I don't think Dez clearly became a runner because he wasn't going to be able to stay on his feet - the steps were merely taken while in the process of an inevitable fall to the ground. Ertz, on the other hand, took the steps, made a cut, and likely would have run into the endzone without going to the ground had a defender not tried to tackle him.

 

[CT Dal Fan]

How about we create another 10 thread page about it? Only 9 more pages to go!

There's really nothing more to say. There is zero consistency with the catch rule. It all depends on the interpretation of the officials watching the replay.

The only fix is to change the rules about what constitutes a catch; one that manages to eliminate all the grey area and move on. Of course, the chances of that happening is about as good as the Cowboys dressing their cheerleaders in burlap sacks next season.

 

[links18]

If you are going to the ground in the act of the catch, you have to maintain control of the ball all the way to ground without it touching the ground. If you catch the ball, possess it, make a football move or establish yourself as a runner and THEN you go to the ground and have the ball pop out it is still a catch (or a TD if its in the End Zone). Of course, when a receiver is "going to the ground in the act of the catch" and when they "make a football move" or "establish themselves as a runner" is often subjective. What can you do about that though?