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

[percyhoward]

Only if it touches the ground.

Once the defender has made contact, the ground can't cause a fumble. The only way the ball touching the ground becomes important is if a) there was no contact by the defender, or b) the player was still in the act of catching the pass.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

Retroactively? The statement was made by Pereira, the guy who was Blandino before Blandino was Blandino. Wouldn't he know since he presided over these rules?

Where in Pereira's recent article does he say he himself was wrong? All I see him doing is making a proposal for the rule and you interpreting that any number of ways.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

You said it. Common sense. Seems like forever, but common sense is what the rule was based on as recently as 2014.

You control the ball, get two feet down, then you do something with it to show you're no longer still trying to catch it.

The part about having to be "upright long enough" didn't come in until 2015, not coincidentally after Dez's overturn.

 

[percyhoward]

Retroactively? The statement was made by Pereira, the guy who was Blandino before Blandino was Blandino. Wouldn't he know since he presided over these rules?

Where in Pereira's recent article does he say he himself was wrong?

"Let’s have all of us who had any part in tinkering with this rule since 1999 admit that we got off track."

There was no rule about having to be "upright long enough" at the time of Dez's overturn. When Pereria says, "Treat the receiver who is going to the ground the same as the receiver who is upright and on his feet," he is calling for "upright long enough" to be removed from the rule book as the way for officials to determine when a player establishes himself as a runner.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

When you see Dez "biting and scratching" then you know he's already caught it. This is common sense, right?

That's what the football move is for.

 

[percyhoward]

"Going to the ground" is also a move common to the game.

Sure. The act of going to the ground a football act. That's why Pereira explained the Lance Moore 2-pt conversion like this:

“By rule, when a receiver with possession of the ball is in the act of going to the ground and performs a second act by reaching out to break the plane, that completes the process of the catch and the ball is dead when it breaks the plane.”

 

[MarcusRock]

"Let’s have all of us who had any part in tinkering with this rule since 1999 admit that we got off track."

There was no rule about having to be "upright long enough" at the time of Dez's overturn. When Pereria says, "Treat the receiver who is going to the ground the same as the receiver who is upright and on his feet," he is calling for "upright long enough" to be removed from the rule book as the way for officials to determine when a player establishes himself as a runner.

Again, Pereira in the article is just making a proposal as to how the rule might be changed. As for what the rule is now, which he mentioned with the James no-catch video, is that going to the ground trumps the 3-part process and drew a direct comparison to the Dez play. Direct. That spans two sets of rules, meaning there was no difference in application. He himself said going to the ground applied to the Dez catch on game day and re-stated it in the James video. So Blandino didn't retroactively apply anything. The standard that applies now, applied then per Pereira. That's not to say Pereira can't think that things are murky and should be different going forward. But it's not different now and therefore when Item 1 applies you survive the ground or else.

 

[nathanlt]

Again, Pereira in the article is just making a proposal as to how the rule might be changed. As for what the rule is now, which he mentioned with the James no-catch video, is that going to the ground trumps the 3-part process and drew a direct comparison to the Dez play. Direct. That spans two sets of rules, meaning there was no difference in application. He himself said going to the ground applied to the Dez catch on game day and re-stated it in the James video. So Blandino didn't retroactively apply anything. The standard that applies now, applied then per Pereira. That's not to say Pereira can't think that things are murky and should be different going forward. But it's not different now and therefore when Item 1 applies you survive the ground or else.

So what? He said that going to the ground applied, however, per the written word in the rule book, it DIDN'T. All the comments to explain it were PR damage control, and completely irrelevant to the printed rules. They tampered with the game.

By rule Dez caught the ball.
By tampering and PR spin, they convinced the public that Dez didn't. Blandino and Pereira are competent at damage control, not competent at knowing what the 2014 rules stated.

 

[MarcusRock]

So what? He said that going to the ground applied, however, per the written word in the rule book, it DIDN'T. All the comments to explain it were PR damage control, and completely irrelevant to the printed rules. They tampered with the game.

By rule Dez caught the ball.
By tampering and PR spin, they convinced the public that Dez didn't. Blandino and Pereira are competent at damage control, not competent at knowing what the 2014 rules stated.

So in other words, CONSPIRACY!!! I'm sure that's never been said on these forums before.

 

[nathanlt]

So in other words, CONSPIRACY!!! I'm sure that's never been said on these forums before.

No, rather, the officials did not follow the rules in the rulebook, but made up their own. It could have been incompetence. But, in any case, they did not follow the rules.

By rule, Dez caught the ball.

 

[MarcusRock]

No, rather, the officials did not follow the rules in the rulebook, but made up their own. It could have been incompetence. But, in any case, they did not follow the rules.

By rule, Dez caught the ball.

Uh huh. "If a player is going to the ground ..." Yes/no determination. It was a yes by rule and by eye test, if people are being honest. And that trumps the 3-part process. Ball hits ground, no catch.

 

[percyhoward]

Again, Pereira in the article is just making a proposal as to how the rule might be changed.

He's saying the ones who made changes to the catch rule should admit their mistakes, and specifically saying that they need to stop requiring the player to be upright in order to complete a catch.

"Treat the receiver who is going to the ground the same as the receiver who is upright and on his feet...Let’s have all of us who had any part in tinkering with this rule since 1999 admit that we got off track."​

As for what the rule is now, which he mentioned with the James no-catch video, is that going to the ground trumps the 3-part process and drew a direct comparison to the Dez play. Direct. That spans two sets of rules, meaning there was no difference in application. He himself said going to the ground applied to the Dez catch on game day and re-stated it in the James video. So Blandino didn't retroactively apply anything. The standard that applies now, applied then per Pereira.

The part that you underlined is exactly where he's saying he and the others went wrong.

And you're right, this spans two sets of rules -- the 2014 set that didn't require a player to be upright to become a runner, and the current set that does.

I'm still waiting for this answer: Why would they bother to address a football move that you say didn't matter?

 

[blindzebra]

Again, Pereira in the article is just making a proposal as to how the rule might be changed. As for what the rule is now, which he mentioned with the James no-catch video, is that going to the ground trumps the 3-part process and drew a direct comparison to the Dez play. Direct. That spans two sets of rules, meaning there was no difference in application. He himself said going to the ground applied to the Dez catch on game day and re-stated it in the James video. So Blandino didn't retroactively apply anything. The standard that applies now, applied then per Pereira. That's not to say Pereira can't think that things are murky and should be different going forward. But it's not different now and therefore when Item 1 applies you survive the ground or else.

It didn't trump it in 2014, the NFL casebook had a play that was almost exactly what happened in GB and said it was a completion.

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.

 

[percyhoward]

Uh huh. "If a player is going to the ground ..."

It's "goes to the ground." And you left out "in the act of catching a pass."

 

[percyhoward]

It didn't trump it in 2014.

Which is why they had to address the football moves.

(Although they only addressed one.)

 

[nathanlt]

Uh huh. "If a player is going to the ground ..." Yes/no determination. It was a yes by rule and by eye test, if people are being honest. And that trumps the 3-part process. Ball hits ground, no catch.

Even if, EVEN IF, going to the ground trumped the football move, the specific language proved Dez caught it.

"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"

Now, please explain to me how Dez's first foot hitting the ground did not satisfy "INITIAL CONTACT WITH THE GROUND"

Per every eye test out there, Dez clearly maintained control of the ball after his first step, aka "initial contact with the ground"

 

[MarcusRock]

He's saying the ones who made changes to the catch rule should admit their mistakes, and specifically saying that they need to stop requiring the player to be upright in order to complete a catch.

"Treat the receiver who is going to the ground the same as the receiver who is upright and on his feet...Let’s have all of us who had any part in tinkering with this rule since 1999 admit that we got off track."​

The part he's saying that got off track is the standard for reviewing of plays which is why he proposes not reviewing time. He makes the summarizing plea, "Please NFL, call a meeting to discuss the standard needed to reverse a call in replay." And later, "Those making the decisions (the replay folks) have become too technical. Replay has become too technical." This after at the beginning of the article stating that time elements should not be reviewable. He makes suggestions for replay review which is to only review 2 feet and control. And?

The part that you underlined is exactly where he's saying he and the others went wrong.

And you're right, this spans two sets of rules -- the 2014 set that didn't require a player to be upright to become a runner, and the current set that does.

I'm still waiting for this answer: Why would they bother to address a football move that you say didn't matter?

The part I underlined is what is in existence now and was then by his own words. If he has another proposal that would help people understand and be easier to rule on without causing more issues, then go for it. Doesn't change that by the rules, going to the ground applied like Pereira and everyone else with a handle on the rules stated. And it trumped the 3-part process according to him that all the catch theorists cling to to avoid going to the ground. Maybe they answered football move questions then because they were asked. They were asked about the reach, the elbow down and they answered. You take issue that they didn't address the other football moves people say happened. Were they asked about them? If not, then maybe no one else even considered them as significant unless you're someone scrounging for another football move besides the debunked reach.

 

[percyhoward]

A.R. 15.95 Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.

In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not
have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

In the above example it happens to be a lunge, but all that was required was that he perform any act common to the game. In doing so, he completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and did not have to hold onto the ball when he hit the ground.

That's why Blandino had to say he looked for a football move.

Remember, when the football move was spelled out in 2016, the examples were "tucking the ball away, turning upfield, taking additional steps."

If you agree with the overturn, then either you're saying at least one of those things wasn't considered an act common to the game just two years earlier, or you're saying he didn't do even one of these things.

 

[MarcusRock]

It didn't trump it in 2014, the NFL casebook had a play that was almost exactly what happened in GB and said it was a completion.

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.

Where are you finding this? It is not in my copy of the 2014-15 Season rules.

 

[blindzebra]

The part he's saying that got off track is the standard for reviewing of plays which is why he proposes not reviewing time. He makes the summarizing plea, "Please NFL, call a meeting to discuss the standard needed to reverse a call in replay." And later, "Those making the decisions (the replay folks) have become too technical. Replay has become too technical." This after at the beginning of the article stating that time elements should not be reviewable. He makes suggestions for replay review which is to only review 2 feet and control. And?



The part I underlined is what is in existence now and was then by his own words. If he has another proposal that would help people understand and be easier to rule on without causing more issues, then go for it. Doesn't change that by the rules, going to the ground applied like Pereira and everyone else with a handle on the rules stated. And it trumped the 3-part process according to him that all the catch theorists cling to to avoid going to the ground. Maybe they answered football move questions then because they were asked. They were asked about the reach, the elbow down and they answered. You take issue that they didn't address the other football moves people say happened. Were they asked about them? If not, then maybe no one else even considered them as significant unless you're someone scrounging for another football move besides the debunked reach.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Where are you finding this? It is not in my copy of the 2014-15 Season rules.

It is the 2012 NFL Casebook and they did not publish one in 2013-2014 and they made no changes to the rule in that time frame, so in 2014 that case play is the correct way to call the Dez play. After Blandino 'adjusted' the rule the casebook disappeared and caseplays became included in the rule book.

So in 2014 the 3 step process continues during going to the ground, which is why, as Percy has said many times, they kept talking about a football move. So when Dez landed, turned, and stepped he completed the 3 steps to become a runner. He also changed hands, braced, and extended so in reality Dez made FIVE moves common to the game to complete the catch process.