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

[BlindFaith]

smh

I debated this till my fingers bleed back then. Not about to do it again. The rules are what they are and were applied correctly to Dez and to Ertz. The real issue, at least to me, is the underlying objective of how and why the rule is what it is. The language of the rule is just as much to blame as is some gaps in the rule itself. But by understanding the intent, you can see why they've added and modified the language.

So, instead of beating a dead horse, how about proposing how to clarify what a catch is? Let's give it a try...

First, the intent of the language "establish himself as a runner" is not clearly written. The intent is to ensure that the receiver has the ability and/or time to protect themselves. They've tried to convey this with different examples. "Be upright long enough", "make a football move", "have time to make a football move", etc. The act in of itself does not require actually being a runner or even running at all.
Example: WR catches a ball, both feet down, possess it. And he just stands there, makes no move. This is where the "time" element comes in. If he has the time to protect himself and secure the ball, then it's a catch. But let's say that instead of just standing there he gets drilled simultaneously? Now he doesn't have the "time" to protect himself. So no catch, even though he still secured the ball with both feet down. Now you could remove the time element, but now it goes from no catch to fumble.

Now onto "going to the ground". So if a receiver catches a ball but is in the act of going to the ground he has to maintain possession of the ball through contacting the ground. What this means is if the player, with or without contacting another player, ends up on the ground during the act of catching the ball, BEFORE having the ability to protect themselves. Or as the rule is currently written, to establish themselves as a "runner". Back to intent.
Example: WR dives to catch a ball. In mid air he catches the ball, then while still falling his knee and elbow hits the ground and it jars the ball out. The player did not have a chance to protect himself. Now you could remove the "become a runner" or "make a football move" and call that a catch and fumble. But do we want to open that up to the potential risk of having more fumbles?

What muddies the water even more are how athletic these guys are. Some catches where any average person would go to the ground immediately, these guys are able to somewhat regain their balance and get a few steps in before they actually do hit the ground. But do we remove the protection from them just because they take a few steps or shift the ball from one hand to another. If while doing all of this, still ultimately on their way to the ground, somehow they loose control of the ball. Do we call that a fumble just because they briefly controlled the ball and had two feet down? That's one of the aspects the NFL has and is struggling with when trying define this particular part of the rule. Weighing protecting the receiver from unforced fumbles vs making it a catch.

So what to do to fix it? Rewrite the rules to allow for more of the controversial non catches to be catches at the peril of also introducing a much greater chance for fumbles? Or leave things exactly as is with minor corrections to the language in the rule and simply tell receivers that they have to hang on to the ball if they are going to the ground while in the act of catching the ball?

I would love to hear the proposals for any rule change. But remember, it can't just be in the context of the Dez catch or any one specific example. It has to be in the context of how the rule change would impact every type of catch.

 

[nathanlt]

smh

I debated this till my fingers bleed back then. Not about to do it again. The rules are what they are and were applied correctly to Dez and to Ertz. The real issue, at least to me, is the underlying objective of how and why the rule is what it is. The language of the rule is just as much to blame as is some gaps in the rule itself. But by understanding the intent, you can see why they've added and modified the language.

..

First, the intent of the language "establish himself as a runner" is not clearly written. .

Intent is transmitted through written language. What is written is all that matters.

What was written in the rule book means Dez caught the ball. The intent of the NFL is IRRELEVANT.

Football moves happened. CATCH

Or, if you prefer going to the ground,
Dez maintained possession of the ball through initial contact with the ground, because...

When Dez's first step contacted the ground, THAT WAS INITIAL CONTACT WITH THE GROUND.

CATCH.

 

[MarcusRock]

All there in black and white.

Where is that from though?

 

[BlindFaith]

Intent is transmitted through written language. What is written is all that matters.

What was written in the rule book means Dez caught the ball. The intent of the NFL is IRRELEVANT.

Football moves happened. CATCH

Or, if you prefer going to the ground,
Dez maintained possession of the ball through initial contact with the ground, because...

When Dez's first step contacted the ground, THAT WAS INITIAL CONTACT WITH THE GROUND.

CATCH.

Fine, like I said, if you want to change the rule, then tell me how? I'm not arguing the rule as is currently written. Officials, coaches, committees all understand the intent of the rule and how the rule is currently written. You're on the wrong side of understanding this. Sorry, but it's true. And I get how you can be confused.

If you wan't to change the rule to make Dez's non catch a catch, ok then. Change the rule to take out any reference to going to the ground while in the process of making a catch. Dez would have had a catch and down by contact and around the 1.

But you'd then have to live with the possibility that in that same scenario, lets' say he's not touched by an opposing player and he lost control of the ball as he is going down. Now it's a fumble. And lets say he fumbled it through the end zone. Now it's a touch back and ball to the other team. I can only imagine this same group of folks whining and complaining that it shouldn't be a fumble because he never really possessed the ball and it just squirted out because he didn't have a chance to completely control it.

 

[tyke1doe]

Why do Cowboys fans torture themselves? No matter how many times you say Dez catch was "A CATCH" it was, has and forever will be officially deemed a "Non Catch."
It really doesn't matter what Cowboys fans feel. The record has been written in history.
Now that we know what is expected Dez, Jesse James, et. al will have to do their best to catch the ball, "establish" themselves as runners and hold onto the ball.
Simple ... as ... that. (Or is it? )

 

[BlindFaith]

Why do Cowboys fans torture themselves? No matter how many times you say Dez catch was "A CATCH" it was, has and forever will be officially deemed a "Non Catch."
It really doesn't matter what Cowboys fans feel. The record has been written in history.
Now that we know what is expected Dez, Jesse James, et. al will have to do their best to catch the ball, "establish" themselves as runners and hold onto the ball.
Simple ... as ... that. (Or is it? )

Some of it just doesn't pass the eye ball test. The Jesse James catch was an example. Even though he was going to the ground, just based on how it looked, it looked liked he completely had control, had time to control the ball, did everything you'd think you'd need to do to "catch" the ball, but he reached out and the ground jarred the ball a bit. Per the rule, it wasn't a catch. Dez's situation was a little more bang bang and there was less, I don't know, certainty. He was stumbling and bumbling, switching hands, reaching...all within a couple seconds. Don't get me wrong. Per the eye ball test I do feel he caught the ball as well. But not per the rule.

Again, you could make those a catch, by removing the going to and through contacting the ground, but for every 1 James or Dez catch there will be 5 new fumble controversies.

 

[tyke1doe]

Some of it just doesn't pass the eye ball test. The Jesse James catch was an example. Even though he was going to the ground, just based on how it looked, it looked liked he completely had control, had time to control the ball, did everything you'd think you'd need to do to "catch" the ball, but he reached out and the ground jarred the ball a bit.

Again, you could make that a catch, by removing the going to and through contacting the ground, but for every 1 James or Dez catch there will be 5 new fumble controversies.

Oh, I agree. Under the current rules, it wasn't a catch. But I think there's a distinct difference between a bobbled ball and the ground dislodging the ball, especially when it looks like a secured catch.
I thought Dez's catch was a "secured" catch, meaning I'm pretty sure he had control of the ball. He wasn't bobbling it as he started to lunge toward the endzone.
But under the rules, it wasn't a catch.

 

[BlindFaith]

Oh, I agree. Under the current rules, it wasn't a catch. But I think there's a distinct difference between a bobbled ball and the ground dislodging the ball, especially when it looks like a secured catch.
I thought Dez's catch was a "secured" catch, meaning I'm pretty sure he had control of the ball. He wasn't bobbling it as he started to lunge toward the endzone.
But under the rules, it wasn't a catch.

So we could add in more obscure language to the rule trying to differentiate what a secured ball is and is not.

We should just add a replay official who is the catch expert. And he simply decides what a catch is or isn't based off his gut feel.

 

[OmerV]

purposely switching hands shows he is in absolute control. At that point dez was elite and could do things most players can't. He caught it, switched hands, and advanced the ball. People claiming it was not enough of a move are just inventing a theory in their head. I can call the clement play incomplete because it moved twice before the dude ever established himself and the ertz because he didn't do enough in my mind. You need to catch it do a cartwheel and then celebrate and then gronk spike it to count as a reception.

I could be halfway through a fall from a 50 story building or have my legs hogtied from my hips to my feet and still be able to switch a ball from one had to the other, but I wouldn't be in control of my body. Being able to switch hands just means your hands are free - it doesn't mean you aren't falling, or that you have control of where your body is going. As for advancing the ball, again, that was because that was the direction his momentum took him, not because he turned up field or lunged.

 

[OmerV]

you mean change his trajectory like coming down with the ball with his left shoulder facing upfield but landing and turning onto his right as his body hits the ground?

That's not trajectory

 

[glimmerman]

Dez caught it. Lol

 

[percyhoward]

Either way you want to call it. The NFL needs to do something different about this rule. In older days all of these were catches. Dez caught the ball, had control and two feet in. Same with the others. Had control, two feet in and had control when the ball broke the plain of end zone.

Prior to 2015, you could complete the catch process while falling. In 2015, the language "upright long enough" was added, meaning many plays that had always been catches up to that point were now incomplete, because the player wasn't "upright long enough" to become a runner.

Now, even Mike Pereira is saying that "upright long enough" needs to go. If there's still a faction that wants to keep "upright long enough," they're awfully quiet right now. I expect it to be removed this offseason.

 

[OmerV]

Prior to 2015, you could complete the catch process while falling. In 2015, the language "upright long enough" was added, meaning many plays that had always been catches up to that point were now incomplete, because the player wasn't "upright long enough" to become a runner.

Now, even Mike Pereira is saying that "upright long enough" needs to go. If there's still a faction that wants to keep "upright long enough," they're awfully quiet right now. I expect it to be removed this offseason.

Again, what you are citing is your post regarding the 2014 Casebook (by the way, did you ever find a link for that to pass along?) that talks about coming down in control with one foot, and then falling after being hit by a defender, which is not the same as falling from the moment the first foot comes down.

 

[glimmerman]

Prior to 2015, you could complete the catch process while falling. In 2015, the language "upright long enough" was added, meaning many plays that had always been catches up to that point were now incomplete, because the player wasn't "upright long enough" to become a runner.

Now, even Mike Pereira is saying that "upright long enough" needs to go. If there's still a faction that wants to keep "upright long enough," they're awfully quiet right now. I expect it to be removed this offseason.

It will be a welcomed change to the game that will improve scoring and possible viewership. Listening to the commentator during the SB he was saying that the td would be overturned because of the way it’s been called this season. When they gave them the td it makes the game look fixed to some. No real way to call it consistently.

 

[Gator88]

Some of it just doesn't pass the eye ball test. The Jesse James catch was an example. Even though he was going to the ground, just based on how it looked, it looked liked he completely had control, had time to control the ball, did everything you'd think you'd need to do to "catch" the ball, but he reached out and the ground jarred the ball a bit. Per the rule, it wasn't a catch. Dez's situation was a little more bang bang and there was less, I don't know, certainty. He was stumbling and bumbling, switching hands, reaching...all within a couple seconds. Don't get me wrong. Per the eye ball test I do feel he caught the ball as well. But not per the rule.

Again, you could make those a catch, by removing the going to and through contacting the ground, but for every 1 James or Dez catch there will be 5 new fumble controversies.

Will there really be a lot of fumble controversies? The only time that it will be a fumble would be when they weren't contacted when going to the ground, and they will have made a football move like reaching for the endzone. I find it would be similar to the Derek Carr play that ended the game against Dallas. It differed in that he was a runner, but he fumbled it away reaching for the endzone and there wasn't any controversy about it being a fumble.

 

[MarcusRock]

Again, what you are citing is your post regarding the 2014 Casebook (by the way, did you ever find a link for that to pass along?) that talks about coming down in control with one foot, and then falling after being hit by a defender, which is not the same as falling from the moment the first foot comes down.

Yeah, I'm waiting for a source too. There was never a year given so I'm not even sure it was from 2014. Where is it?

 

[percyhoward]

THATS THE KEY..both Dez..and Jesse James for that matter were in the process of going to the ground when catching it. Ertz was upright running. Also Dez never crossed the plane to even make that part of the equation.

It wasn't until 2015 that a player was required to be upright in order to complete the catch process. Prior to that time, once a player had control and two feet down, he could still perform any act common to the game, even while falling. That made it a catch, and he did not have to hold onto the ball when he hit the ground.

That was the rule that Blandino was asked about at the time of Dez's overturned catch. Although Dez turned upfield, tucked the ball away, and took a 3rd step, Blandino ignored all of those acts and instead focused on Dez's reach for the goal line (probably because referee Gene Steratore had let it slip that they saw him reaching for the goal line), saying it "needed to be more obvious than that."

This scenario of a player completing the catch process by performing an act common to the game is from the 2014 NFL Casebook.

 

[JustChip]

smh

I debated this till my fingers bleed back then. Not about to do it again. The rules are what they are and were applied correctly to Dez and to Ertz. The real issue, at least to me, is the underlying objective of how and why the rule is what it is. The language of the rule is just as much to blame as is some gaps in the rule itself. But by understanding the intent, you can see why they've added and modified the language.

So, instead of beating a dead horse, how about proposing how to clarify what a catch is? Let's give it a try...

First, the intent of the language "establish himself as a runner" is not clearly written. The intent is to ensure that the receiver has the ability and/or time to protect themselves. They've tried to convey this with different examples. "Be upright long enough", "make a football move", "have time to make a football move", etc. The act in of itself does not require actually being a runner or even running at all.
Example: WR catches a ball, both feet down, possess it. And he just stands there, makes no move. This is where the "time" element comes in. If he has the time to protect himself and secure the ball, then it's a catch. But let's say that instead of just standing there he gets drilled simultaneously? Now he doesn't have the "time" to protect himself. So no catch, even though he still secured the ball with both feet down. Now you could remove the time element, but now it goes from no catch to fumble.

Now onto "going to the ground". So if a receiver catches a ball but is in the act of going to the ground he has to maintain possession of the ball through contacting the ground. What this means is if the player, with or without contacting another player, ends up on the ground during the act of catching the ball, BEFORE having the ability to protect themselves. Or as the rule is currently written, to establish themselves as a "runner". Back to intent.
Example: WR dives to catch a ball. In mid air he catches the ball, then while still falling his knee and elbow hits the ground and it jars the ball out. The player did not have a chance to protect himself. Now you could remove the "become a runner" or "make a football move" and call that a catch and fumble. But do we want to open that up to the potential risk of having more fumbles?

What muddies the water even more are how athletic these guys are. Some catches where any average person would go to the ground immediately, these guys are able to somewhat regain their balance and get a few steps in before they actually do hit the ground. But do we remove the protection from them just because they take a few steps or shift the ball from one hand to another. If while doing all of this, still ultimately on their way to the ground, somehow they loose control of the ball. Do we call that a fumble just because they briefly controlled the ball and had two feet down? That's one of the aspects the NFL has and is struggling with when trying define this particular part of the rule. Weighing protecting the receiver from unforced fumbles vs making it a catch.

So what to do to fix it? Rewrite the rules to allow for more of the controversial non catches to be catches at the peril of also introducing a much greater chance for fumbles? Or leave things exactly as is with minor corrections to the language in the rule and simply tell receivers that they have to hang on to the ball if they are going to the ground while in the act of catching the ball?

I would love to hear the proposals for any rule change. But remember, it can't just be in the context of the Dez catch or any one specific example. It has to be in the context of how the rule change would impact every type of catch.

I'm an Occam's Razor disciple, or if you prefer, the KISS method. And must eliminate subjectivity as much as possible. If someone says "I think" or "it appears to me" such-and-such, indisputable evidence doesn't exist and the on-field call stands, be it complete or incomplete. My rule would be:

If, in the process of a catch, one of the following occurs: A) 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 B) a receiver has control of the ball with 2 feet having touched the field followed by a third touch of the field by any body part, the process of catching is complete and any subsequent activity is separate to the process of the 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. Ertz's clearly would've been a catch. I haven't looked at Megatron's in a long time, but as I recall, his would've been a catch. Butch Johnson's SB play would've been no catch under my rule.

The subjectivity would come in solely from not being able to tell concretely whether both feet were down, a 3rd body part touched, etc. But that's no different than most replay now - when the state of a binary fact can not be determined with absolute certainty, the call on the field stands.

And, yes, there may be fumbles that are not now, but I doubt they would really be significant. It essentially was how catches were determined for decades before and there was less controversy. Too many people have grown up under the current debacle so they difficulty viewing it outside the convoluted current rule.

 

[percyhoward]

My problem with the rule is it's too complex, yet ambiguous at the same time, and invalidates what virtually every reasonable person that has watched or played football would deem legitimate catches. Throw the rule out, find a group of people who had never heard of the rule, and show them videos of 20 or so plays where the rule has invalidated a catch (including Jessie James, Dez and Megatron). Ask them to determine which were catches and which weren't. There is not doubt in my mind that an overwhelming number of people would be of like mind and say the vast majority of the invalidated catches were indeed catches (including the 3 I mentioned). That tells you the rule is counter to common sense and logic..

Or just go back to the pre-2015 rule, which requires officials to pinpoint when a player hits the ground. Throw out the current rule, which requires officials to pinpoint when a player starts to fall.

That makes completion of the catch process possible up until the player hits the ground (like it was before 2015). Makes a lot more sense than saying a catch can't be completed unless you're upright. There's no logic behind that, other than it relieves the replay official of his responsibility to look for a football move.

 

[MarcusRock]

It wasn't until 2015 that a player was required to be upright in order to complete the catch process. Prior to that time, once a player had control and two feet down, he could still perform any act common to the game, even while falling. That made it a catch, and he did not have to hold onto the ball when he hit the ground.

That was the rule that Blandino was asked about at the time of Dez's overturned catch. Although Dez turned upfield, tucked the ball away, and took a 3rd step, Blandino ignored all of those acts and instead focused on Dez's reach for the goal line (probably because referee Gene Steratore had let it slip that they saw him reaching for the goal line), saying it "needed to be more obvious than that."

This scenario of a player completing the catch process by performing an act common to the game is from the 2014 NFL Casebook.

Perfect. Now just show me where Dez lunged since that's not part of the process of the catch.