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

[robertfchew]

He wasn't established as a runner to be down by contact/ground causing the fumble.

yes he was. He made a move common to the game ADVANCING THE BALL. How blind can you people be?

 

[CPanther95]

yes he was. He made a move common to the game ADVANCING THE BALL. How blind can you people be?

"Going to the ground" is also a move common to the game - as is going to the ground forward.

 

[robertfchew]

"Going to the ground" is also a move common to the game - as is going to the ground forward.

once he established possession there catching rules don't matter. He was advancing the ball. The all knowing ref was 5 feet away and had a clear view why do you think he called it a catch?

 

[nathanlt]

Unfortunately, the NFL's intent is all that matters since they are the ones that make all final rulings. Having said that, your interpretation at least makes sense from a technical standpoint. We know they do not interpret it this way, but this part of the "going to the ground" rule:

"he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone"

never specifies for how long the player must retain control after initial contact, and Dez's "initial contact with the ground" is clearly the first foot. Now the argument becomes "How can maintaining control for 2 seconds and 5 yards of travel not meet the vague requirement of 'until after'? "

But good luck with that legal argument when the NFL is judge, jury and executioner.

When it comes to the red text there, isn't initial contact with the ground the moment his first foot hits the ground??? Too bad for the NFL, they wrote it that way, then ignored what they wrote!!!

Good points, I like it.

 

[Clove]

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

What you're suggesting is more of an if to me, so why not make another if? Rodgers has done it to us time and time again.

 

[Jake]

It's been 1,109 days since #DezCaughtIt

 

[robertfchew]

What you're suggesting is more of an if to me, so why not make another if? Rodgers has done it to us time and time again.

but again theres no reason to play games then. Brady is better than foles so we shouldn't have played cause he was going to destroy them and then was going to throw a game winning td.

 

[nathanlt]

But good luck with that legal argument when the NFL is judge, jury and executioner.

Yes, but they look like the biggest fools when they ignore the written rules they authored.

 

[KJJ]

every player is going t



he wasn't a receiver he caught and made football moves. possession had already been established. he was a runner. The nfl is not consistent on this at all. why wasn't the helmet to helmet called last night? he was a runner. why was Trevathan flagged fined and suspended for hitting another runner? Is knocking a guy out illegal? No its because the nfl has no clue what is and isn't a catch or runner

Dude, he was a receiver who was going to the ground, therefore he had to maintain possession through the contact of the ground. When he slammed the ball on the ground he lost possession and once he regained possession it was too late because the ball came in contact with the ground. Had the ball come loose and not touched the ground and he regained possession it would have been a legal catch.

A move common to the game or a so called football move goes out the window when a receiver is ruled going to the ground. You’re saying the NFL has no clue but you do? Now you want to discuss the Trevathan play? This is just more of you looking for something to argue about.

 

[Clove]

but again theres no reason to play games then. Brady is better than foles so we shouldn't have played cause he was going to destroy them and then was going to throw a game winning td.

If Dez had caught it, maybe our defense holds Rodgers which has never happened in a play off game. That better?

 

[percyhoward]

"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.

You're right to look at the football move.

Actually, tucking the ball away is almost always the first act of a player who's just caught a ball -- because you don't see players running down the field with their arms outstretched and two hands on the ball.

And that doesn't even involve judgment, you just have to count the number of hands he has on the ball.

 

[JustChip]

Falling to the ground trumps a football move.

I heard Mike P say that, but the rule as written doesn't say that, or at least it didn't in 2014. It says "in the process of catching". When does the act of making a catch end? Well, that is based on subjectivity. Clearly they ruled in the Ertz case he had completed the catch before breaking the plane (which I agree with 100%). In the James case, they ruled he didn't (which I disagree with 100%).

IMO, the rule was intended to address the Butch Johnson SB type plays where the player "catches" the ball in air and then lands prostrate directly onto the ground and loses the ball. Unfortunately, all it did was to fuel more controversy. Goodell confirmed this with his statement that it needs to be addressed because nobody, not fans, not media, not players, are happy with it nor understand it.

IMO, the fix is easy. If, in the process of a catch, a receiver has control of the ball and, at any point, is in a position that a runner would be deemed as "down by contact" if he had been touched by a defensive player, whether he was touched or not, it's a catch. E.g., the Jesse James play would've been a catch because he had control and a knee down; had he been a runner and been touched, he would've been down so it's a catch. Dez's would've been a catch because he had control and, after both feet down and taking a step, his knee touched before the ball hit the ground. Butch Johnson's play would've been no catch under my rule.

If they adopted my rule, there would surely be some fumbles as there has been for decades. But that's the price for not securing the ball and there would be much, much less ambiguity.

 

[percyhoward]

Falling to the ground trumps a football move.

Then you're going to have to explain why Blandino said he "absolutely" looked for a football move that you say didn't matter.

(The reach happened well after Dez started to fall.)

 

[KJJ]

What frustrates me isn’t the rule or that Dez didn’t complete the process, it was the decision Romo made to go for a 50-50 jump ball on a manageable 4th and 2 with over 4 minutes to play. Even had the play stood and we scored on the next play or two, Rodgers and the Packers had plenty of time to beat us. Even had we converted a 2 pointer the Packers could have tied us with a FG. Romo should have gone to Beasley or Witten, picking up the first down and milked the clock forcing the Packers to use their timeouts.

The only time you want to go for a 50-50 jump ball on a 4th down play is if you’re in a do or die situation with time running out. Romo should have known our defense was being shredded by Rodgers in the second half. You want to try and leave him with as little time as possible. We all saw what happened when the Packers got the ball we couldn’t stop them. We still had a chance to win the game had our defense made a stop. The Packers moved right up the field and Rodgers was able to take a knee with 1:40 left.

 

[MarcusRock]

How did I know the Pereira statement would be ignored by the catch crowd, lol?

This is why he proposed in that recent article that going to the ground receivers be treated that same as upright receivers. Because there are different sets of requirements. And it's like what I said early in the debate that it is a decision tree process. Upright, then apply the 3-part rule; if going to the ground, then surviving the ground is a requirement.

 

[percyhoward]

When does the act of making a catch end?

Under the 2014 rule, the catch process is complete as soon as the player has control, two feet down, then performs any act common to the game.

IMO, the rule was intended to address the Butch Johnson SB type plays where the player "catches" the ball in air and then lands prostrate directly onto the ground and loses the ball.

Exactly. Item 1 was meant to apply to the type of catch that doesn't allow enough time for a football move. That's the only reason Item 1 exists -- to be used when the player went to the ground before completing the catch process described above.

 

[JustChip]

What frustrates me isn’t the rule or that Dez didn’t complete the process, it was the decision Romo made to go for a 50-50 jump ball on a manageable 4th and 2 with over 4 minutes to play. Even had the play stood and we scored on the next play or two, Rodgers and the Packers had plenty of time to beat us. Even had we converted a 2 pointer the Packers could have tied us with a FG. Romo should have gone to Beasley or Witten, picking up the first down and milked the clock forcing the Packers to use their timeouts.

The only time you want to go for a 50-50 jump ball on a 4th down play is if you’re in a do or die situation with time running out. Romo should have known our defense was being shredded by Rodgers in the second half. You want to try and leave him with as little time as possible. We all saw what happened when the Packers got the ball we couldn’t stop them. We still had a chance to win the game had our defense made a stop. The Packers moved right up the field and Rodgers was able to take a knee with 1:40 left.

On this, you and I agree 100%. The only justification is they had to score so you take a shot that you think gives the best opportunity to do that, but I disagreed at the time with doing on 4th down with less than 2 to go. Get the 1st and then take your shot(s). You are almost hinging the game on 1 play, kind of like going for 2 points when your down by 1 and no time left on the clock.

 

[percyhoward]

How did I know the Pereira statement would be ignored by the catch crowd, lol?

This is why he proposed in that recent article that going to the ground receivers be treated that same as upright receivers. Because there are different sets of requirements. And it's like what I said early in the debate that it is a decision tree process. Upright, then apply the 3-part rule; if going to the ground, then surviving the ground is a requirement.

Well, yeah beginning in 2015 when the standard was "upright long enough." That's when the real mess started, when Blandino tried to retroactively justify applying Item 1 to a player who'd already completed the catch process.

The whole point of Pereira's subsequent article was that he himself was wrong.

 

[KJJ]

On this, you and I agree 100%. The only justification is they had to score so you take a shot that you think gives the best opportunity to do that, but I disagreed at the time with doing on 4th down with less than 2 to go. Get the 1st and then take your shot(s). You are almost hinging the game on 1 play, kind of like going for 2 points when your down by 1 and no time left on the clock.

I didn’t believe a 50-50 jump ball from that far out gave us the best opportunity to score. Had we played it safe and just picked up the first down we could have taken some time off the clock and set ourselves up for a fade to Dez in the end zone. Romo and Dez had the fade down perfectly and Dez was almost impossible to defend on a fade. We could have moved down to around the 10 yard line or so and set ourselves up for a fade to Dez.

 

[KJJ]

The Dez catch. When that happened I immediately thought it would get overturned at the time because the ball popped up. So if Dex just wrapped up the ball it's a catch and we live to fight another day with fresh new downs. (Easy as hell for me to say, right?). But the bottom line as @MarcusRock provided is that it's all trumped by going to the ground. End of story.

You know, the more I think about it the more I understand the rule. One, maybe it's not as bad as we all thought. Two, maybe the fans simply need to have it explained to better understand the rule. And three and most important IMO, the coaches and players need to be educated. Because the way I look at it, if these players are informed and understand the rule they'll wrap the ball up better.

I was on the game chat and as soon as I saw the first replay, I said the call was going to be overturned. I pointed to the Calvin Johnson play. Received about 12 alerts with everyone telling me I was crazy and that the play would stand. Only one poster agreed with me that the play would be overturned.