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

[percyhoward]

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?

Very good question. You can appoint a "catch committee" to "clarify and streamline the catch rule," as the commissioner did in 2016, and they can give some examples of football moves, as they did in 2016 when they added the highlighted parts to the rule book.

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.

The whole idea was to remove as much subjectivity as possible, and give officials something observable that determined completion of the catch process. But for whatever reason (probably politics), the standard which had been put in to replace the football move a year earlier, was left in. "Upright long enough" is still in the rule book, which means there are two standards.

 

[percyhoward]

You don't understand the rule. Most people simply love to say, "By rule..." When, of course, they haven't actually read it. I fully understand the written rule, and how inadequate it is to justify how they are using it. Apparently, Blandino intends to use that rule for things he dares not write down. NFL, put the end of the process in defined terms, or go back to simplicity. Taking away a catch that had 3 steps inbounds, then two elbows, BEFORE THE BALL EVER CONTACTED THE GROUND, IS TAMPERING.

Not to mention, there were SEVEN football moves!

1. Dez secured the ball on his right shoulder with both hands.
2. Dez transferred the ball to his left hand, without wobble!
3. Dez took 3 steps toward the goal line.
4. Dez planked off his right foot.
5. Dez rotated his body more than 90 degrees, to shield off the defender
6. Dez braced and pivoted off his right arm, his right elbow touching the ground. (Play over at this point)
7. Dez stretched his left arm toward the goal line. (Which Blandino mentioned as not being enough of a football move) What????? that's just his inner Giant fan talking.

In addition, before the ball touched the ground, (and it did, i have the freeze frame to prove it) a split second before, his left elbow hit the ground. The football was still secure in his hand, and NEVER WOBBLED from securing it on his right shoulder, through and beyond the time his second elbow hit the ground. After the ball touched the ground, it reacted and came loose from his hand. At that point, though, he had been down by contact. Blandino is so incompetent.

The only one I can completely disagree with there is #1 (that was control, so part one of the catch process).

The left elbow beating the ball is very close. You may be right. Although that part doesn't matter of course, because with the football moves, it's a catch either way, and without the football moves, it's incomplete either way.

 

[percyhoward]

By your definition an all out dive where a player has the ball in his hands in the end zone would be a TD without having to hold on to the ball once he hits the ground.

No it wouldn't. That's precisely what Item 1 is for.

 

[percyhoward]

Then what was ruled on the field? Did they rule that a football move had taken place or did they rule that the ball never touch the ground. It would have been a catch in each of those instances.

Pereira obviously believes the ruling on the field was that a football move had taken place.

Otherwise, why would he say that making the football move "not reviewable" would have prevented the overturn?

"The fix seems simple to me. Treat the receiver who is going to the ground the same as the receiver who is upright and on his feet. It is control, two feet or another body part other than the hand or foot, and time – in this case having the ball long enough after control and two feet to be able to do something with it like turn upfield, lunge, reach, etc.


Also, make that element of time not reviewable in replay. It’s too subjective. Review, control and two feet, but not time.

Make this change and Dez Bryant catches that pass in 2015."​

 

[KJJ]

 

[percyhoward]

You are shortcutting the rule. A player either has to establish himself as a runner, or maintain control all the way through the catch. Dez did neither. You can't establish yourself as a runner while falling to the ground.

You certainly could prior to 2015. And depending on which of the two current standards you apply to the play, you still can.

 

[percyhoward]

The rule clearly says he has to establish himself as a runner, and not a single one of your personal rules (not necessarily NFL rules) indicates he did anything to establish himself as a runner.

Part of the problem is fans get caught up in this "football move" idea, which (A) isn't even how the rule reads, and (B) is misunderstood as to intent anyway. The idea isn't just to do something you see a football player do sometimes, the idea is that a player has to have his feet under him enough that he can maneuver - make a cut, try and avoid a defender etc ... merely changing hands with the ball or twisting your body as you fall to the ground does not establish that kind of control. The alternative to having that kind of control is to maintain possession all the way through the catch.

This is incorrect. Until 2015, there was nothing in the rule book about a player needing to be "upright" in order to be considered a runner. The definition of a runner was simply a player in possession of a live ball. Until 2015, there was nothing in the rules about having to be upright in order to gain possession.

Rules need to be specific. What's "has to have his feet under him enough" supposed to mean, and who determines how much is enough anyway?

 

[percyhoward]

Your interpretation, is exactly that, yours....not the NFL's. From the Calvin catch to the Dez catch, they called multiple plays the same way. If you are heading to the ground in the process of completing the catch, then they don't consider it a catch until you maintain control after hitting the ground.

You're creating a narrow interpretation to make it a catch and ignoring not just the intent of the rule, but how it was actually applied.

If you believe that "goes to the ground" really means "starts to fall" then you need to explain what possible advantage you're giving an official by telling him he has to decide on the point at which a fall begins, rather than simply noting when the player hits the ground. So, just start with that one.

 

[CPanther95]

If you believe that "goes to the ground" really means "starts to fall" then you need to explain what possible advantage you're giving an official by telling him he has to decide on the point at which a fall begins, rather than simply noting when the player hits the ground. So, just start with that one.

Most refs are smart enough to know a receiver was falling to the ground once they see he hit it.

 

[percyhoward]

I looked up the 2014 rule. It actually does not indicate a player can establish himself as a runner while going to the ground, in fact, the shortcoming of the rule is it doesn't go that extra step of even discussing a player establishing himself as a runner. It does, however, contain a rule about a player "going to the ground", and sets out that a player in that situation has to maintain possession all the way through. It just doesn't have a very clear definition of what "going to the ground" means. The difference with the rule now is, again, that it goes that extra step of talking about the receiver establishing himself as a runner.

Item 1 is about establishing yourself as a runner, when you don't have time to make a football move (think "diving catch").

All Item 1 says is that if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass, he must maintain control of the ball after contacting the ground. If he's NOT still in the act of catching a pass (in other words, if he's already completed the catch process and become a runner) then you don't apply Item 1.

 

[percyhoward]

This is not accurate. He was perpendicular to the ground when his 2nd foot landed. Then almost immediately he was tripped. It was this contact that caused him to go to the ground. I think it's very likely he remains upright without that tripping contact.

I do too. And certainly upright long enough to score.

Not that any of that affects the catch or overturn, of course.

 

[percyhoward]

Most refs are smart enough to know a receiver was falling to the ground once they see he hit it.

Bingo.

 

[CPanther95]

Bingo.

Finally we agree.

Unless you are suggesting Dez never hit it.

 

[percyhoward]

You shouldn't expect to see a difference. The rule is written such that any outcome is justified and it's completely up to the interpretation of the official.

The 2015 rule is absolutely written that way.

There are two contradictory standards in the rule book right now.

 

[percyhoward]

Finally we agree.

Unless you are suggesting Dez never hit it.

Like all receivers until 2015, Dez had until he hit the ground (thing most refs are smart enough to see) to become a runner.

 

[Kevinicus]

The going to the ground rule states, "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent)..."

You have demonstrated you don't understand the rulen or how the NFL ruled previous to the Dez play.

 

[Kevinicus]

Watch it again and try to say that with a straight face.

Freeze it the split second his 2nd foot touches... even if you remove the Packer from the equation, there's still zero chance he isn't going to the ground.

Wrong.

 

[CPanther95]

Wrong.

Lol

 

[Kevinicus]

No exceptions. It applies to any catch anywhere on the field.

You're suggesting applying it to Dez's catch shows a lack of understanding of the rule book. Why do you think his catch is some unwritten exception to the rule book?

Reading comprehension is dead.

 

[TwoDeep3]

And that

First of all, I really appreciate your taking the time to put all of that together.

I quoted the part of your post that's causing most of the confusion. The football move doesn't need to happen before the player starts to go to the ground. It only needs to happen before he goes to the ground. The rule has to work like that, or else it doesn't work at all.

If you had 10 people watch that video, and assigned them the task of recording the exact time at which Dez "started to go to the ground," you'd get at least three different answers, probably closer to four or five. If instead, you had them record the time Dez actually "went to the ground," the answers wouldn't vary much, if at all. Think about how impossible it would be for an official to have to decide the point in time at which a player started falling.

Here's Item's 1 wording again: "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass..."

Please think about this also. If Item 1 really meant "If a player starts to go to the ground," then all Blandino would have had to do was say, "Dez started to go to the ground before he reached, so the reach didn't matter." There would never have been any discussion of the reach needing to be "more obvious."

Ask yourself these two questions:

1. Why would an official draw the line at "starts to fall" instead of "goes to the ground?" What advantage would that give him?
2. If "starts to fall" is where officials draw the line, why did Blandino say he "absolutely" looked for a football move that obviously happened after Dez's fall had started?"

Percy, WR runs a route across the middle. The pass comes and the WR grabs the ball with both hands. The ball is under control but no steps taken by WR. Safety hits the receiver almost simultaneously and the receiver falls the the turf. WR does not take another step. No football move has been made. WR hits the turf and the ball pops out.

This is not a catch.

WR crosses the middle. Makes catch same as above. However he takes three steps before the safety hits him. He goes to the ground and the ball pops out.

This is a catch.

The going to the ground is not a factor in the second scenario because the WR has now become a runner.

Goes to the ground, or starts to fall and ends up on the ground are synonymous in this aspect. I don't do much football speak.

Second, Dez did not make a "football move." Taking a step toward the end zone is not enough of a football move to make him a running back. Because he had both feet on the ground and the ball in his hands is the very same scenario as above that is not considered a catch, because the resultant going to the ground.

Ertz took three steps toward the end zone and was contacted during the third step. This was a football move and why his crossing the goal line was enough to score.

The trip by Shields caused Dez to fall. It was helped by Dez planting a foot and attempting to dig in and get to the end zone. In the end the decision maker saw Dez falling to the ground, or going to the ground. And this is the crux of the decision. it all boils down to going to the ground versus making a football move. And Dez did not make a football move convincing enough for the decision maker to come to the conclusion he was under control and leaping versus falling. There was no spot in that sequence that was convincing Dez was under control.

I believe the video supports that. regardless of what the league may be saying now.

I don't think Blandino could find his butt with a road map and a tour guide. The rules of a catch are so convoluted, if you gathered every NFL ref and interviewed them individually and had them explain the catch rule, you might a completely different answer from every one of them.

My real conflict here is the ground cannot cause the fumble, unless you are not a runner but a WR. And your WR status changes depending on what you do after securing the ball.

Either the ground is a factor or is not. Blackie Sherrod once asked in his Sunday article, "Scattershooting..." how can the ground not cause a fumble?

So go back to the day when the ground does cause a fumble, and get rid of the possibility of the fumble negating the possibility of the catch making it a catch.

But then that might not even work..