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

[KJJ]

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.

There’s two significant differences between the Ertz play and the Dez play. The first big difference is that Dez was battling a defender on a 50-50 jump ball where he had to leap and high point the football to win the battle. He never had complete control of the ball until it reached his shoulders and by that time his momentum/body lean was taking him to the ground requiring him to hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Ertz was not battling for the ball and his feet never left the ground.

He maintained firm footing, caught the ball and turned up field instantly becoming a runner. Once he established himself as a runner it was a catch, therefore he didn’t have to complete the process of the ball surviving the ground. Anyone who can’t see the differences in these two plays is a brick wall and a waste of time trying to have an intelligent football discussion with.

 

[KJJ]

Some are trying to compare the Jesse James play with the Ertz play and there’s a significant difference in those plays. Watch the video James never established himself as a runner, he was going to the ground as soon as he caught the ball therefore the ball had to survive the ground. His feet left the ground to make the catch which caused him to immediately go to the ground.

 

[foofighters]

Some are trying to compare the Jesse James play with the Ertz play and there’s a significant difference in those plays. Watch the video James never established himself as a runner, he was going to the ground as soon as he caught the ball therefore the ball had to survive the ground.

Here's what's dumb. That was a catch. steps or no steps, establishing himself as the runner or not is just dumb. The guy grabs the ball, pulls it in, the stretches over the goal line. This is why the NFL is loosing my interest. Common sense is walking out the door and the rules are becoming as dumb as some golf rules.

 

[KJJ]

Here's what's dumb. That was a catch. steps or no steps, establishing himself as the runner or not is just dumb. The guy grabs the ball, pulls it in, the stretches over the goal line. This is why the NFL is loosing my interest. Common sense is walking out the door and the rules are becoming as dumb as some golf rules.

I agree it should have been a catch and Dez’s should have been a catch. These were not bad calls they were correct under the rule, it’s the rule that’s bad. I believe eventually they’re going to do away with the “going to the ground” and having to complete a process. They’ll determine when the receiver had full control of the football and call it a catch. You’ll either have a fumble if they lose the football before they hit the ground or a down by contact. There’s no rule in the NFL that frustrates fans and players more than this rule and it has to be changed. It leads to too much controversy and takes away from the game.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

If you understood that I'd said somewhere Item 1 specifically states that it's for diving catches, then you misunderstood. That's not spelled out. But diving catches are about all that you've got left when you're talking about catches that aren't near the sideline and don't give the receiver enough time for a football move. Is there any reason you'd disagree with that conclusion?

 

[JustChip]

There’s two significant differences between the Ertz play and the Dez play. The first big difference is that Dez was battling a defender on a 50-50 jump ball where he had to leap and high point the football to win the battle. He never had complete control of the ball until it reached his shoulders and by that time his momentum/body lean was taking him to the ground requiring him to hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Ertz was not battling for the ball and his feet never left the ground.

He maintained firm footing, caught the ball and turned up field instantly becoming a runner. Once he established himself as a runner it was a catch, therefore he didn’t have to complete the process of the ball surviving the ground. Anyone who can’t see the differences in these two plays is a brick wall and a waste of time trying to have an intelligent football discussion with.

You are correct, the Dez and Ertz plays have similarity, but are not exact. However, that doesn't negate the fact that the decision on Dez was not based on fact, but OPINION. Yes, the FACT is that Dez lost the ball when he contacted the ground; however, the ground contact aspect of the rule is only pertinent IF the receiver has not performed a football move prior. The 2014 rule doesn't say football move or, as you say, "become a runner"; what it actually says is:

"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.)."

The overturn of Dez's catch hinges on whether he was trying to "advance with it" or something else under the "etc." In my opinion, he was attempting to advance by stretching to attempt to score. The on-field official at the point of the catch with an unobstructed view obviously thought he did because he ruled it a catch. The replay officials didn't think he did, therefore, it was a no catch. Those are differences of OPINIONS, not fact or irrefutable so the ruling on the field should've stood, not confirmed, but stood as called. Since it was called a catch, it should've stayed a catch. If the on-field official had ruled it incomplete, it should've stayed as incomplete.

Non-catch proponents base their case on that what Dez did wasn't a football move. Catch proponents base their case on it being a football move. There are a cross-section of NFL fans, media and players on each side so what you have is a decision based on OPINION rather than irrefutable fact. So what is deemed "an act common to the game" falls under the Potter Stewart definition - I can't define what a catch is, but I know it when I see it. That's clearly not fact nor irrefutable evidence so the call on the field should've stood. Anybody that can't see that is a brick and there's no use in having an intelligent football conversation with them.

By the way, the Jesse James play had elements of Dez's play but was more like Ertz's. IMO, Jesse James caught the ball, but again, that an OPINION..

 

[JustChip]

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.

I don't know that there will be more controversy - my sense is there would be the same, just different. But I will say that I've been watching football since 1965 and, yes, there was controversy before, but it virtually always related to missed verifiable evidence (e.g., did the receiver get 2 feet down), none of this football move subjectivity. Subjectivity will always be a part - but when it is, it should not overturn the call on the field. And you see them do this - there was not irrefutable evidence on the RB TD catch that his 2nd foot was in or out. I think it was out, but think indicates opinion and not fact; therefore, the call stood.

If you're going to be subjective about what is a football move, they should allow PI to be challenged. It is as controversial, if not more, than catch/no catch, has as great or greater impact on the outcome (just look at Jags / Pats), and is just as subjective.

I'm not a proponent of more replay. Personally, I'd rather less replay. I'm ok with the human aspect with of the game. That's life - sometimes bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.

 

[KJJ]

You are correct, the Dez and Ertz plays have similarity, but are not exact. However, that doesn't negate the fact that the decision on Dez was not based on fact, but OPINION. Yes, the FACT is that Dez lost the ball when he contacted the ground; however, the ground contact aspect of the rule is only pertinent IF the receiver has not performed a football move prior. The 2014 rule doesn't say football move or, as you say, "become a runner"; what it actually says is.

The only similarity between the Dez and Ertz plays is they both lunged for the end zone and lost the ball when it contacted the ground. Ertz had already established himself as a runner prior to going to the ground therefore the ball didn’t have to survive the ground. A so called “football move” goes out the window when a receiver is ruled “going to the ground.” Once a receiver is ruled going to the ground they must complete the process of surviving the ground regardless of making a football move. That’s the part that fans can’t seem to grasp.

 

[KJJ]

By the way, the Jesse James play had elements of Dez's play but was more like Ertz's. IMO, Jesse James caught the ball, but again, that an OPINION..

The Jesse James play was more similar to Dez’s play than the Ertz play. Both Jesse James and Dez’s feet left the ground to make their catches and their momentum took them immediately to the ground. Because they were going to the ground the ball had to survive the ground.

 

[JustChip]

The only similarity between the Dez and Ertz plays is they both lunged for the end zone and lost the ball when it contacted the ground. Ertz had already established himself as a runner prior to going to the ground therefore the ball didn’t have to survive the ground. A so called “football move” goes out the window when a receiver is ruled “going to the ground.” Once a receiver is ruled going to the ground they must complete the process of surviving the ground regardless of making a football move. That’s the part that fans can’t seem to grasp.

The rule in 2014 didn't say become a runner or make a football move. The 2014 rule said "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.)."

If the above is met, then contacting the ground is moot. My opinion, which is not singular, is that Dez attempted to advance by stretching to score. Obviously, your opinion is he didn't. That difference of opinion is critical - it means it's not irrefutable evidence and, therefore, the call should stand.

BTW, I'm not contrasting Dez's play vs. Ertz's even though it's the title of this thread. I'm simply arguing that Dez's catch should not have been overturned because it was based on an ambiguous idea of what is an "act common to the game". Had it been ruled incomplete on the field, it should've stood as incomplete.

 

[JustChip]

The Jesse James play was more similar to Dez’s play than the Ertz play. Both Jesse James and Dez’s feet left the ground to make their catches and their momentum took them immediately to the ground. Because they were going to the ground the ball had to survive the ground.

Maybe, but James was running parallel to the goal line and his momentum carried him to the ground laterally to the goal line. He actually turned with his knee on the ground and extended, broke the plane and then lost the ball when it hit the ground. The similarity to Ertz's is that Ertz was likewise going parallel to the goal line and likewise turned and extended, albeit after taking a step. There is no question Ertz's was a catch. And in my opinion James was a catch under the 2014 rule, but probably not under the current rule even though you would be hard pressed to find anyone that wouldn't reasonably say it was a catch. Poll every NFL player and, not in relationship to the Rule, but just in common sense, was James' play a catch. I guarantee it would be overwhelmingly in favor of a catch.

Every time they try to remove ambiguity, they actually increase it and, therefore, controversy.

 

[Jake]

 

[DallasEast]

Goodell would score a few brownie points in my book if he spearheaded a genuine effort to finally re-write that ambiguous rule.

 

[KJJ]

The rule in 2014 didn't say become a runner or make a football move. The 2014 rule said "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.)."

If the above is met, then contacting the ground is moot. My opinion, which is not singular, is that Dez attempted to advance by stretching to score. Obviously, your opinion is he didn't. That difference of opinion is critical - it means it's not irrefutable evidence and, therefore, the call should stand.

BTW, I'm not contrasting Dez's play vs. Ertz's even though it's the title of this thread. I'm simply arguing that Dez's catch should not have been overturned because it was based on an ambiguous idea of what is an "act common to the game". Had it been ruled incomplete on the field, it should've stood as incomplete.

Since the Dez play in 2014 the rule has been clarified. Not every single thing is going to be in the rulebook and I’m not going to waste time arguing what the rulebook says. I’ve done enough of that the past three years.

 

[KJJ]

Maybe, but James was running parallel to the goal line and his momentum carried him to the ground laterally to the goal line. He actually turned with his knee on the ground and extended, broke the plane and then lost the ball when it hit the ground.

The only running James did was prior to catching the football. Once he caught the ball he immediately went to the ground, therefore the ball had to survive the ground.

 

[KJJ]

I'm simply arguing that Dez's catch should not have been overturned because it was based on an ambiguous idea of what is an "act common to the game". Had it been ruled incomplete on the field, it should've stood as incomplete.

It was overturned because his momentum/body lean was taking him to the ground and the ball didn’t survive the ground. Dez didn’t complete the process and under the rule that’s a no catch. An act common to the game or a so called football move doesn’t matter when a receiver is ruled going to the ground. The rule really isn’t that hard to grasp but it’s like trying to explain Chinese algebra to some here.

 

[robertfchew]

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.

but they disregard this rule half the time when they want to call a penalty when a player gets destroyed. Devante Adams was down and a runner yet they still called a bs penalty like 10 seconds later cause the ref saw he was knocked out. If this doesn't show you that refs are inept nothing will. They don't know the rules any better than we do

 

[robertfchew]

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.

so you are psychic? How do you know something wouldn't have happened one the kick return? Packers could have ran it back or they could have fumbled. You have no idea neither do I. Ive made the argument that Rodgers would have scored regardless but all this does it try to take away the pain of the refs screw job. Why ever play a playoff game. Brady is 10x better than foles so the superbowl shouldn't have even been played. Thats the argument you are making

 

[KJJ]

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.

You nailed it.

 

[G2]

The thing that was hard for me to wrap my head around is taking steps vs. falling to the ground. Looking at the Dez catch using the "eyeball" test I would say it's not a catch because the ball hit the ground. But I also can see that Dez was being Dez and biting and scratching for every inch.
I just wish there was a more clear way to establish a WR as a runner. Many fans get confused because a RB can just cross the plane.