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

[Clove]

oh stop man, nothing wrong with discussing things from the past

NOthing against the fan base, it's the reality of a losing franchise. They complain about things that wouldn't have mattered anyways. For example, that non catch, even had it been called a catch would not have mattered. Rodgers would have got the ball, moved down field, kicked field goal and won anyways. So, there's that.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

Well, prior to 2015, a "runner" was just a player in possession of a live ball. It didn't matter whether he was upright or falling. If he goes to the ground without contact by an opponent, then of course the ground can cause a fumble, but that wouldn't apply to the Dez play, because as you said, he was contacted.

The upshot is, in 2014 you could become a runner while falling. We know Blandino said he "absolutely" looked for a football move, and you can't just blow that off by saying he's an idiot. Even if he's an idiot, it means he knew it was possible for the football move to happen while Dez was falling, so he had to say he looked for one.

You can actually pinpoint when somebody hits the ground. You can't pinpoint when they start to fall. So it's really all about understanding that there has to be an observable standard, and acknowledging Blandino's awareness of that standard.

 

[blindzebra]

This is from the NFL Casebook that was in use in 2014:

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 A35. 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.

 

[JustChip]

I didn't. The replay official did, Steratore said after the game, Pereira said so during the game, and Blandino when answering questions about the lunge, ruled that it was not demonstrative enough. Blandino said that they looked at the football move/act common to the game aspect of it and stated that it needed "to be more obvious than that" (direct quote). That is what they ruled and all these guys I mentioned stated that no football move took place.

It's their OPINION that it needed to be more obvious, but that's the issue with being subjective - it's based on opinion and not fact. Fact is "did the receiver have 2 feet down before going out of bounds - yes or no? Poll 100 people, including officials and players, in a blind survey about whether what Dez did was a football move and you will not get a unanimous answer, particularly if the official on the field less than 5 yards from the play staring it down that ruled it a catch is one of those. Case in point is that Pereira during a broadcast has disagreed on numerous occasions with the replay official ruling.​

Don't know where you go from there except to say, "nuh uh" and scour the play in slow motion to find another phantom football move to make it so or to say that they organized a lightning quick coverup even though they were all in different places. That's my question. Are they all incompetent or did they all conspire?

They are not incompetent nor did they conspire or collude. But to think that there wasn't a discussion amongst various individuals involved with the decision prior to reaching a decision is naive. Who knows how they ultimately decide. Does it have to be unanimous or a simply majority?

You can't take subjectivity completely out of anything which is why replay is there to help. As I said earlier, judgment is needed to determine whether a football move was made or not and they judged that it didn't take place. These guys' job is to know the rules. The replay showed he didn't make a football move and it also showed that the ball touched the ground.

Again, it's not an issue with knowing or not knowing the rule, it's an issue with an opinion of what a football move is. If it was so black and white, why is there so much controversy to the point that Roger Goodell said they need to work on it because it is creating controversy and nobody is happy with it. IMO, replay should not rule on opinion, only absolute facts. Otherwise, everything should be reviewable.

So when they determine going to the ground applied, the ball touching the ground set in motion that Dez needed to maintain continuous control of the ball. He didn't and that was an easy call. So when the field official rules there's a catch and video evidence suggests that he applied the wrong catch rule, you apply the right one.

No, the wrong rule wasn't applied, the correct rule was applied incorrectly. Do you think the official standing less than 5 yards from the play staring down the play, not blocked out or anything, didn't know the rule? If not, he shouldn't be officiating.

That's what replay is for.

No, replay is to get the call correct and, by therefore, eliminate confusion and controversy. Replay of catches has done anything but.​

It doesn't say "football move," it says "an act common to the game" which is used interchangably with football move as Blandino did in that link above.

Correct, and as I provided, it provides examples with an open end "etc.".

I agree that Dez intended to try to advance via a lunge but he did not execute. When you look at players who've executed proper lunges, like Ertz for example, Dez' looks nothing like theirs. This is what I kept asking percy who repeatedly ignored that question and now doesn't even mention the lunge anymore because of those comparisons, so he's "switched" to Dez switching hands as a football move.

I'm not addressing percy, I'm addressing my PoV. And your whole stance is based on your OPINION which just makes my point. Since it's based on opinion, the call should've stood. Had the official called it incomplete, the call still should've stood because it was not irrefutable evidence.

In that link above, that's Blandino's point. If you don't draw a line somewhere, subjective or not, then you don't have consistency.

You don't have consistency now. In fact, I would say it's the same as before replay and the rule so what's the point?

But you can't completely take subjectivity out of it and not have a ton of fumbled catches if you take out the subjective "enough of a" football move or "time enough" for one.

Sure you can - control of the ball and 2 feet down is a catch. If the ball is jarred loose, it's a fumble. That's way it was for decades. Yes, there were fumbles, but I wouldn't characterize it as being "a ton". But I'm not arguing to go back to that, I'm simply saying that since it was opinion based, the call should've stood, not "confirmed", but "stands as called". E.g., the end-zone catch by the Philly RB last night. He lost control of the ball but regained it prior to his 2nd foot coming down at the end-line. IMO, his toe touched the line so he didn't get both feet in and that shouldn't have been TD, but I can't say without absolute certainty it was on the line so, in that case, the call should stand.

I view it the same as the "forced out of bounds" issue. There was a post recently for suggested changes fans would like to see and one person posted going back to forced out being a catch. That brings subjectivity so I prefer to say with get 2 feet down, it's a catch, you don't for whatever reason, it's not a catch. Period. No opinion or ambiguity.

 

[MarcusRock]

Don't think so. The normal reaction of the field official when there is some doubt about whether a catch has been made -- and there would have been doubt if he was waiting to see whether Dez maintained control when he hit the ground -- is to make the "catch" signal (elbows bent, pulling both arms in toward his body). That's not what Terry Brown does though. He reacts as any official would when there is no question about the catch and he just wants to spot the ball. Note how he runs up to the spot with one hand raised.

Don't even know what you're going on about with "catch" signal (which is used on sideline catches mostly anyway). I asked a question here. If the field official doesn't think the ball touched the ground he could have called it a catch based on that fact, because it could have been a catch on those grounds, correct? So calling it a catch doesn't mean he thinks a football move happened. He could have easily missed that the ball hit the ground and it would have still been a catch if Dez kept the ball off the ground.

You don't take one hand off a ball you haven't caught yet. On the contrary, if you gain control of the ball with one hand, you'll bring in the other hand to make sure you gain possession. Here, the opposite is happening. Just like on any of a thousand plays every season when a player catches the ball with two hands then carries it in one. That's why, when they spelled out the football moves in 2016, they included "tucking the ball away."

In 2016? That's not when the play happened. No such wording on the books when the play happened. Again, there was no tucking of the ball away even if it had been mentioned. Dez held the ball out away from his body to attempt to lunge with it and the lunge never happened because he hit the ground first. Ball popped loose. No football move = going to the ground. Ball didn't survive the ground.

I can't stress this enough: You have to think about what the purpose of the football move is. It's there for a reason. It's to let you know that enough time has passed (after control and two feet down) for the player to become a runner. I would really like you (or anyone else who says all Dez did was fall down) to talk about what the football move is and why it ever existed in the first place.

When you say "choosing to take 1 hand off the ball," you're talking about an act that runners perform on a regular basis. You're right, Dez voluntarily took one hand off the ball. It was not his momentum taking him to the ground that did it, it was Dez. That's how you know he wasn't still trying to catch it. That's a football move.

Just explained above how it was not. The lunge was the attempt and it was cut short by the ground so it never became the football move needed. Dez' bailout was to keep the ball off the ground and he couldn't.

Yes, absent any prior football move, Dez could have established himself as a runner after he hit the ground, provided he maintained control of the ball. That's what Item 1 is for, diving catches. It's not applicable unless the player goes to the ground before he completes the catch process. That's what the catch process is for, to determine the point at which a receiver becomes a runner. Although in this case, the catch process was subverted.

Not subverted. Examined and found wanting. It's been explained many times over. If they were wrong there'd have been tons of media gestapos pointing out "hand switching" and anything else that was a football move in that milisecond where Dez crashed to the ground. Instead, they all somehow, just like you did, focused on the failed lunge which is explained away by simply comparing it to other more demonstrative lunges. Without that, again people have to go scouring to create yet another version of why the catch process had been completed but it's not there.

 

[CyberB0b]

 

[MarcusRock]

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."​

Not necessarily. If he's saying to only review control and two feet, then all of those catches he listed would have been catches solely on the basis of having control and two feet. Review would not even be necessary because those would have been easy calls in those cases. All it means is "something" happened past control and 2 feet. There were 2 options for the field official to look for to grant a catch: a football move prior to hitting the ground, or the ball not hitting the ground at all. Again, you're trying to use this same article to draw conclusions that Pereira never directly says. The last time you tried to use it to say that Pereira said the field official applied the correct rule and that review shouldn't have taken place.

 

[Seven]

Both were catches.

But I don't get upset another the sea fact anymore. Dallas wouldve still have lost

Dfgtddn ffe3wdgn either.......what?

 

[StarBoyz83]

Dfgtddn ffe3wdgn either.......what?

Drunk posting lol

 

[Cebrin]

Wrong. Dez landed after leaping to grab the ball and came down with each step he took all the way down to the ground. Steps don't matter when you're going to the ground. Didn't change hands, he took one hand off the ball and did not execute a lunge/reach. Once the ball hit the ground and popped out it's a clear no catch by the rules.

Only if it touches the ground. Which there's absolutely not one video angle with 100% irrefutable evidence to support that it did. Much less that the ball was not popping off his inner arm, and then being a completed catch, and touchdown when recovered in the endzone. See, in order to overturn the call on field, it cannot be remotely inconclusive. At worst, it should have been upheld as a catch near the goal-line. Especially in a big game like that.

 

[percyhoward]

There were 2 options for the field official to look for to grant a catch: a football move prior to hitting the ground, or the ball not hitting the ground at all.

While that's technically true, there's no reason to assume Periera, Blandino, or anybody thought Terry Brown missed the ball hitting the ground. Maybe if Brown had given the "catch" signal instead of simply running up to spot the ball with one arm raised, we'd have reason to think he didn't see the ball hitting the ground and was waiting for Dez to complete the catch process.

 

[OmerV]

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.

I thought you were all about what the rule actually says, and the rule does not say the going to the ground standard" only applies to a diving catch. Seems you are only all about the exact language when it suits you, but are happy to interpret when that suits you.

 

[OmerV]

Only if it touches the ground. Which there's absolutely not one video angle with 100% irrefutable evidence to support that it did. Much less that the ball was not popping off his inner arm, and then being a completed catch, and touchdown when recovered in the endzone. See, in order to overturn the call on field, it cannot be remotely inconclusive. At worst, it should have been upheld as a catch near the goal-line. Especially in a big game like that.

There is video - it's just hard to see unless you are looking at the video in slow motion. In addition there are still shots that show the ball clearly in contact with the ground.

 

[AmishCowboy]

I will always believe he caught it, no matter what Blind Dino says!

 

[OmerV]

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

Where does Item 1 mention a dive or being airborne? It actually only refers to "going to the ground".

 

[CPanther95]

The most asinine aspect of the rule (for those that understand it) is the fact that it requires looking at actions completed after where the ball will eventually considered dead. You can catch the ball at the 10 yard line, fall forward, contacted by a defender, and a few steps later your knee hits at the 7. Then you continue to the ground and the ball pops out (without touching the ground) at the 5 and you lunge forward to catch it at the 2 yard line.

... the catch is not fully completed until the 2 yard line - but then they move the ball back to the 7 where your knee hit initially. So they rule a completed pass and ball is dead at the 7, but only because he successfully completed the catch 5 yards beyond that.

I don't like it on the sideline either. Touch anything OOB and the play is dead. If you control the ball and get drilled right after the toe drag, as long as you still have control the split second any part of your body, or the ball, touches OOB, it should be a catch. Seeing what happens 5 yards OOB after your whole body is on the ground, and you're done with your roll, is idiotic.

 

[MarcusRock]

It's their OPINION that it needed to be more obvious, but that's the issue with being subjective - it's based on opinion and not fact. Fact is "did the receiver have 2 feet down before going out of bounds - yes or no? Poll 100 people, including officials and players, in a blind survey about whether what Dez did was a football move and you will not get a unanimous answer, particularly if the official on the field less than 5 yards from the play staring it down that ruled it a catch is one of those. Case in point is that Pereira during a broadcast has disagreed on numerous occasions with the replay official ruling.​

They are not incompetent nor did they conspire or collude. But to think that there wasn't a discussion amongst various individuals involved with the decision prior to reaching a decision is naive. Who knows how they ultimately decide. Does it have to be unanimous or a simply majority?

Again, it's not an issue with knowing or not knowing the rule, it's an issue with an opinion of what a football move is. If it was so black and white, why is there so much controversy to the point that Roger Goodell said they need to work on it because it is creating controversy and nobody is happy with it. IMO, replay should not rule on opinion, only absolute facts. Otherwise, everything should be reviewable.

No, the wrong rule wasn't applied, the correct rule was applied incorrectly. Do you think the official standing less than 5 yards from the play staring down the play, not blocked out or anything, didn't know the rule? If not, he shouldn't be officiating.

No, replay is to get the call correct and, by therefore, eliminate confusion and controversy. Replay of catches has done anything but.​

Correct, and as I provided, it provides examples with an open end "etc.".

I'm not addressing percy, I'm addressing my PoV. And your whole stance is based on your OPINION which just makes my point. Since it's based on opinion, the call should've stood. Had the official called it incomplete, the call still should've stood because it was not irrefutable evidence.

You don't have consistency now. In fact, I would say it's the same as before replay and the rule so what's the point?

Sure you can - control of the ball and 2 feet down is a catch. If the ball is jarred loose, it's a fumble. That's way it was for decades. Yes, there were fumbles, but I wouldn't characterize it as being "a ton". But I'm not arguing to go back to that, I'm simply saying that since it was opinion based, the call should've stood, not "confirmed", but "stands as called". E.g., the end-zone catch by the Philly RB last night. He lost control of the ball but regained it prior to his 2nd foot coming down at the end-line. IMO, his toe touched the line so he didn't get both feet in and that shouldn't have been TD, but I can't say without absolute certainty it was on the line so, in that case, the call should stand.

I view it the same as the "forced out of bounds" issue. There was a post recently for suggested changes fans would like to see and one person posted going back to forced out being a catch. That brings subjectivity so I prefer to say with get 2 feet down, it's a catch, you don't for whatever reason, it's not a catch. Period. No opinion or ambiguity.

If you're proposing that replay shouldn't exist for plays where opinion plays a part then you are asking for more controversy, not less. Whether someone fumbled before they were down by contact can be an opinion by judging when the ball actually started to come loose (simultaneous with a knee or just before, etc.). The outcry for replay was because things just had to be left as called and were affecting the outcomes of games. Sure, it still happens, but way, way less than it was before. People always focus on the few times things cause an uproar and ignore the hundreds and thousands of times when the system worked. People want a game called by lasers and computers but you just can't do that with football. Sometimes the uproar, like this Dez catch is just the product of the size of the fanbase, increasing the number of people who really, really wanted something to happen (with all the associated creativity) that just didn't.

 

[MarcusRock]

I thought you were all about what the rule actually says, and the rule does not say the going to the ground standard" only applies to a diving catch. Seems you are only all about the exact language when it suits you, but are happy to interpret when that suits you.

This is the M.O. of catch supporters. Their stories have evolved over time and have gone through several versions. Even in these debates recently the focus has changed from one phantom football move to another. The only thing that's remained consistent for them is deathly avoiding the going to the ground rule, which is an open and shut case. So what you see is shoehorning for all possible things that happened in milliseconds, which also includes scouring articles to distort what's actually being said in them (which they can't do with the rule book). When this is necessary for one side of an argument, it's because it's an insecure argument. That's why much speaking and explaining rules is necessary to overwhelm with information to divert and distract from a weak argument.

 

[OmerV]

This is the M.O. of catch supporters. Their stories have evolved over time and have gone through several versions. Even in these debates recently the focus has changed from one phantom football move to another. The only thing that's remained consistent for them is deathly avoiding the going to the ground rule, which is an open and shut case. So what you see is shoehorning for all possible things that happened in milliseconds, which also includes scouring articles to distort what's actually being said in them (which they can't do with the rule book). When this is necessary for one side of an argument, it's because it's an insecure argument. That's why much speaking and explaining rules is necessary to overwhelm with information to divert and distract from a weak argument.

An interesting thing to notice that no one bothers to mention is that of Dez's supposed 3 steps, the first two were actually just his feet coming down after jumping for the ball. There was actually only one true step, and that step was taken as he was going to the ground - really more just a process of stumbling as he was going down.

 

[MarcusRock]

An interesting thing to notice that no one bothers to mention is that of Dez's supposed 3 steps, the first two were actually just his feet coming down after jumping for the ball. There was actually only one true step, and that step was taken as he was going to the ground - really more just a process of stumbling as he was going down.

Well, a catch supporter would handle this in 2 ways. First they'd say Dez was tripped by Shields and if he wasn't tripped, he'd have remained on his feet. Otherwise, they'd say it's proof he was a runner because he had 2 feet down and then took an additional step. The 2nd version is wording from the 2016 rules that they'd put in a time machine back to 2014, even though I'm sure in the original recent debate I was told that you can't apply a rule standard that wasn't in existence yet for an event that happened in 2014. Problem solved and shoehorning complete.