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

[MarcusRock]

To try and take away Ertz TD because of Dez would just make it’s application dumber. JMO

But that's what happens when you're looking for anything you can get your hands on to legitimize "we wuz robbed." Anything along those lines will always draw a sympathetic audience.

 

[G2]

Dez was stumbling toward the ground from the time his first foot came down. In fact, what many of you are calling his first step is actually just his first foot landing on the ground after the jump, and what is referred to as his second step was just the second foot coming down, and all the while he was stumbling while falling to the ground.

Exactly. Very clear to see in normal speed.

 

[OmerV]

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?

I didn't say you said it specifically said it, I said you interpreted it that way after earlier on this site telling me you didn't care how Ii interpreted anything, and that all you were concerned with was the actual language of the agreement. Accordingly, if you are going to apply that standard fairly, you don't get to make interpretations either. Of course the fault with that is that the rule isn't, and wasn't then, clear enough to avoid having to interpret.

 

[G2]

When I came over I found I had actually signed up to the sight a few years ago, but I never hung out here. That's why I couldn't use my other name - the sight has me stuck to the original name I signed up under.

Exactly what happened to me.

 

[Miller]

But that's what happens when you're looking for anything you can get your hands on to legitimize "we wuz robbed." Anything along those lines will always draw a sympathetic audience.

That’s what I don’t get about this thread. Ertz was clearly a TD. The application of the rule would be a travesty. But because Dez and dozens of others had bad outcomes despite proper application then somehow Ertz’s is bad? Why not just call back a 50 yard catch and run because the ball came loose diving in. (Shaking head)

 

[Miller]

Dez was stumbling toward the ground from the time his first foot came down. In fact, what many of you are calling his first step is actually just his first foot landing on the ground after the jump, and what is referred to as his second step was just the second foot coming down, and all the while he was stumbling while falling to the ground.

This

 

[OmerV]

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.

Of course the first argument doesn't actually apply because anytime a player gets hit immediately after the catching the ball but before he can make a "football move" the standard is the receiver has to hold on to the ball all the way. This would be the same as if a receiver catches the ball and immediately gets tackled hard. As for the second argument, I don't believe that single step changes the fact he was going to the ground - going to the ground was inevitable, therefore he was not an established runner.

 

[OmerV]

It's actually different. It's more ambiguous too, so definitely not clarified.

Well, attempted to clarify anyway, although it could be argued that the the part about having to "clearly become a runner" helps.

 

[Kevinicus]

Well, attempted to clarify anyway, although it could be argued that the the part about having to "clearly become a runner" helps.

Actually, that's probably the part that muddies it more than anything. The later added language reduces that somewhat, but still, it's a major cluster. And they still completely ignore the language of the rule about initial contact.

 

[OmerV]

I'd love to see them. It's the only part of that call that infuriated me.

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Qf.../uploads/chorus_asset/file/2923980/dez2.0.gif

https://postinspostcards.files.word...t-incomplete-green-bay_190837.jpg?w=812&h=609

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/n051cY3xbGo/maxresdefault.jpg

 

[TheHerd]

...

But none of that mattered because Rodgers would have still gotten the ball back.

This is why the catch call doesn't matter to me at all. Rodgers would have craved the defense up for the winning score with that much time remaining. as it was, had we stopped them we'd have gotten the ball back with a chance to win but the D was incapable of doing anything at all.

FWIW - I say the same thing about Romo's fumble in the Seattle game. All the D had to do was stop them from the 1 yd line, but they let up a huge run despite knowing the Seahawks were running right up the gut. But we it woldn't help to have a massive stout defender in the middle, just ask the old man.

 

[KJJ]

I understand the rule as it is written but much like pornography, I know a catch when I see it. The rules committee needs to treat a catch much like the Supreme Court Justice did when he defined porn.

Stop taking autonomy from the refs.

Receivers are so freakish these days the league wants them to complete a step by step process to perform a legal catch. This entire rule stemmed from the difficulty of trying to determine when a receiver has full control of the football. The catch process is what’s caused all the controversy. Prior to this rule it was difficult to decipher exactly when a receiver had full control of the ball primarily when they’re falling to the ground so the rule forces a receiver who’s going to the ground to hang on to the ball through the contact of the ground.

When a receiver is going to the ground it’s sometimes tougher to tell if they have full control of the ball. Everyone hates the rule but that’s the rule the NFL has implemented. You have to play by the rules whether you like them or not and judgement will always be involved in determining calls.

 

[OmerV]

Actually, that's probably the part that muddies it more than anything. The later added language reduces that somewhat, but still, it's a major cluster. And they still completely ignore the language of the rule about initial contact.

The bottom line is no matter how they write it there is going to be some judgment required in it's application unless they make the rule read that 2 feet coming down is all that is required even if the receiver only has the ball for a nano second, and no matter if a player is going to the ground or gets hit immediately. .

 

[kskboys]

The bottom line is no matter how they write it there is going to be some judgment required in it's application unless they make the rule read that 2 feet coming down is all that is required even if the receiver only has the ball for a nano second, and no matter if a player is going to the ground or gets hit immediately. .

Yup.

The NFL messed up badly w/ the Megatron fiasco, and the Dez call was a carryover of that. At least they've backtracked now and are trying to get it back to logic.

 

[JustChip]

All they need to do is make coaches and players 100% informed and aware of how the rule works and then WRs will do a better job wrapping the ball up. Seriously though, leave out all the steps, football move, going to the ground stuff and simply focus on maintaining possession.

I disagree on the WRs would do a better job wrapping up. Maybe in some instances, just maybe, but not likely because they're not going to stop and think "oh, I can't put my hand down to protect my fall" which is what Megatron did. And they're not going to think "oh, I can't try to reach the ball across the goal line because I might lose it when I hit the ground". No, they're operating on instincts.

I would venture to say, but admit I can't prove it, that the catch rule has invalidated more legitimate catches by a wide margin than has validated or invalidated non-catches. And I think there is the rub for most reasonable people. I'd liken it to an organization or work-group that has a problem with 1 or a very limited set of employees. Rather than man-up and address the issue with the few, they institute a blanket policy that impacts the whole. The other thing I think that's in play is consolidation of power at the corporate level, ostensibly for "consistency", but there is a measure of self-importance and jobs that play into it as well.

 

[OmerV]

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Qf.../uploads/chorus_asset/file/2923980/dez2.0.gif

https://postinspostcards.files.word...t-incomplete-green-bay_190837.jpg?w=812&h=609

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/n051cY3xbGo/maxresdefault.jpg

This is probably a better video of the ball contacting the gound

 

[Miller]

This is probably a better video of the ball contacting the ground

This too

 

[OmerV]

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

How can a person that is falling be established as a runner? How is taking one step, while falling, being established as a runner? Yes, it was only one step Dez took - the first two were actually just his feet coming down after leaping for the catch. Running is being able to control speed and direction - moving legs while falling isn't the same thing.

 

[G2]

I disagree on the WRs would do a better job wrapping up. Maybe in some instances, just maybe, but not likely because they're not going to stop and think "oh, I can't put my hand down to protect my fall" which is what Megatron did. And they're not going to think "oh, I can't try to reach the ball across the goal line because I might lose it when I hit the ground". No, they're operating on instincts.

I would venture to say, but admit I can't prove it, that the catch rule has invalidated more legitimate catches by a wide margin than has validated or invalidated non-catches. And I think there is the rub for most reasonable people. I'd liken it to an organization or work-group that has a problem with 1 or a very limited set of employees. Rather than man-up and address the issue with the few, they institute a blanket policy that impacts the whole. The other thing I think that's in play is consolidation of power at the corporate level, ostensibly for "consistency", but there is a measure of self-importance and jobs that play into it as well.

I actually don't have an issue with the rule. I tend to leave emotions out of the sport in general because more times than not we have zero control. And I understand your point about a WRs instinct to stretch a play. maybe you're right, in fact you probably are. However, just like everything in the game that changes there is an adjustment period. That sounds easy, but if coaches and players aren't educated on the rule then how are they going to apply that from the practice field to game day? You have to start somewhere and now is the time. Then I think you'll see less plays that are ruled incomplete. Take a look at the Dez videos. Dez, his coaches and even the Green Bay sideline were wondering "is it a catch?"

 

[percyhoward]

How can a person that is falling be established as a runner?

Because prior to 2015, a "runner" was simply a player in possession of a live ball. "Upright long enough" didn't enter the rules until 2015. Until that time you could complete the catch process even while falling. That's why Blandino had to say he looked for a football move even after Dez started to fall, and why he should have had to prove Dez did not perform any acts common to the game before he hit the ground -- that he simply fell.

If you missed it, here's the casebook example of a player establishing himself as a runner while he is falling:

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. ​

That's from the 2014 casebook. When the football move was spelled out in 2016, the examples put in by the catch committee 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 Dez didn't do even one of these things.

Which is it?