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

[percyhoward]

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.

Remove the requirement that a player be upright in order to complete the catch process. IOW, roll back the clock to 2014.

In addition, you could go a little further and either a) make the time element (the football move) not reviewable, or b) spell out every possible football move.

But at least do the first thing.

 

[percyhoward]

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

Lunging was used as an example of an act common to the game, nothing more.

 

[percyhoward]

The problem with simply saying 2 feet down is the duration. It would probably decrease in-completions but increase fumbles.

Right, that's what the football move is for -- to satisfy the time requirement after control and two feet.

 

[MarcusRock]

Lunging was used as an example of an act common to the game, nothing more.

Which is why Blandino was questioned about football move on the Dez catch:

"We looked at that aspect of it and in order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line. This is all part of in our view, all part of his momentum in going to the ground and he lost the ball when he hit the ground. That in our view made it incomplete and we feel like it’s a consistent application of the rule as it has been written over the last couple of years.”

You posted that quote, remember? So again, it's the same old story of if there was no football move via a lunge, then find another one to avoid having the going to the ground rule apply.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

In that example, the act that completed the catch process happened while the player was falling. There is nothing in Item 1 that says it only applies to players who weren't contacted by a defender. In fact, just the opposite. It specifically states "with or without contact by an opponent."

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground."​

A player who goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass has to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground.

A player who goes to the ground after completing the catch process is a runner down by contact.

 

[blindzebra]

Which is why Blandino was questioned about football move on the Dez catch:

"We looked at that aspect of it and in order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line. This is all part of in our view, all part of his momentum in going to the ground and he lost the ball when he hit the ground. That in our view made it incomplete and we feel like it’s a consistent application of the rule as it has been written over the last couple of years.”

You posted that quote, remember? So again, it's the same old story of if there was no football move via a lunge, then find another one to avoid having the going to the ground rule apply.

LOL, Dez did four things prior to the lunge that could be considered a football move.
He turned upfield, it took a step, he moved the ball into his left hand, and be braced to extend the ball.

 

[MarcusRock]

LOL, Dez did four things prior to the lunge that could be considered a football move.
He turned upfield, it took a step, he moved the ball into his left hand, and be braced to extend the ball.

He didn't "turn" upfield, he ran, jumped, and landed while going in a single direction. What changed his trajectory from air to ground at all?
Steps are irrelevant if you're going to the ground (extra steps is a 2016 rule word anyway)
Didn't move or switch hands, he double clutch secured it in 2 hands and took one off. Wasn't "tucked" (2016 word) into his body either. He left it loose.
Braced to extend the ball? What is that? There was no execution of any type of reach or lunge. Blandino, Steratore, and Pereira all said this.

So if you're not subject to Article 3, you're subject to Item 1.

 

[percyhoward]

It's the same old story of if there was no football move via a lunge, then find another one to avoid having the going to the ground rule apply.

The football move has always been the only story. Everything else is just uninformed noise.

You've already said "additional steps don't matter when the going to the ground rule applies," and "Dez chose to take 1 hand off the ball." Find any other football moves besides those two yet?

 

[BlindFaith]

Remove the requirement that a player be upright in order to complete the catch process. IOW, roll back the clock to 2014.

In addition, you could go a little further and either a) make the time element (the football move) not reviewable, or b) spell out every possible football move.

But at least do the first thing.

So what about the play that kinda started all this. Calvin Johnson.

If a player is on the boundary, gets two feet in and is falling to the ground. We are talking fractions of seconds. Do you now say he only has to possess it for milliseconds for it to be a catch?

Do you have different rules for a player going out of bounds? Maybe keep the going to the ground for those cases a player goes out of bounds?

And removing the going to the ground rule will result in more fumbles. I guarantee it. Over the course of this last season how many catches or non catches were impacted? 10?

How many times were there catches with a player going to the ground and they blatantly lost the ball after getting two feet down but it was called incomplete? Those plays never got the hype, but they would if you change the rule.

I'm honestly not that concerned with the rule as is. Just hold onto the ball. I am concerned as to why Clements was ruled a catch. He never had clear possession and then two feet down.

 

[blindzebra]

He didn't "turn" upfield, he ran, jumped, and landed while going in a single direction. What changed his trajectory from air to ground at all?
Steps are irrelevant if you're going to the ground (extra steps is a 2016 rule word anyway)
Didn't move or switch hands, he double clutch secured it in 2 hands and took one off. Wasn't "tucked" (2016 word) into his body either. He left it loose.
Braced to extend the ball? What is that? There was no execution of any type of reach or lunge. Blandino, Steratore, and Pereira all said this.

So if you're not subject to Article 3, you're subject to Item 1.

Yawn, I am done. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I have given you concrete evidence of the proper way the rule was to be applied in 2014, and you are too dense to understand it.
When Dez landed he was facing the opposite sideline, so if he did not turn how did he end up facing the pylon on his side of the field? He moved the ball from two hands to the hand nearer the goalline. You can clearly see his right hand extend to the ground to keep his body up, and his left leg went from bent to extended to launch himself toward the endzone. I don't give a crap what Blandino, Steretore, or Pereira said. I have officiated for almost 25 years, I know how to read a rule book and apply casebook plays, and I have two eyes. I for one would love to get them in a room with the rulebook and casebook and destroy them with the rules that they did not apply correctly, and then altered after the fact to make the call fit the rule.

 

[blindzebra]

So what about the play that kinda started all this. Calvin Johnson.

If a player is on the boundary, gets two feet in and is falling to the ground. We are talking fractions of seconds. Do you now say he only has to possess it for milliseconds for it to be a catch?

Do you have different rules for a player going out of bounds? Maybe keep the going to the ground for those cases a player goes out of bounds?

And removing the going to the ground rule will result in more fumbles. I guarantee it. Over the course of this last season how many catches or non catches were impacted? 10?

How many times were there catches with a player going to the ground and they blatantly lost the ball after getting two feet down but it was called incomplete? Those plays never got the hype, but they would if you change the rule.

I'm honestly not that concerned with the rule as is. Just hold onto the ball. I am concerned as to why Clements was ruled a catch. He never had clear possession and then two feet down.

Going to the ground should only apply when all 3 standards for a catch...2 feet, control, a football act...can't occur OOB or in the endzone where there is no football act to make.

 

[percyhoward]

So what about the play that kinda started all this. Calvin Johnson.

The football move is to satisfy the time requirement after control and two feet. In the end zone, you still have to satisfy the time requirement even though there's no reason to make a football move because you've already scored. So end zone plays involve the official's judgment to a much greater degree than plays outside the end zone. Incidentally, that's why the rule says a player has the ball long enough to become a runner when he can perform the football move, instead of simply "a player becomes a runner when..." It's so the rule will also apply to the end zone.

If a player is on the boundary, gets two feet in and is falling to the ground. We are talking fractions of seconds. Do you now say he only has to possess it for milliseconds for it to be a catch?

The idea behind the football move is that, if he had it long enough to perform a football move, it's a catch. If he is outside the end zone and didn't perform a football move, it must have been because he didn't have time. (He obviously wanted to.) He'd have to maintain control when he hit the ground in that case.

And removing the going to the ground rule will result in more fumbles. I guarantee it. Over the course of this last season how many catches or non catches were impacted? 10?

No reason to remove it as long as you remove "upright long enough." The player still has to meet the time requirement of the football move after control and two feet. So there wouldn't be any more fumbles than there were in 2014, the last season that was played without the "upright long enough" rule.

How many times were there catches with a player going to the ground and they blatantly lost the ball after getting two feet down but it was called incomplete? Those plays never got the hype, but they would if you change the rule.

The more comments like this I read, the more I realize that there are a lot of people who probably need every possible football move to be spelled out. I don't think that's going to happen, or even that it should happen. I'm OK with "perform any act common to the game," as it should be obvious that this wouldn't include losing the ball or simply falling.

I'm honestly not that concerned with the rule as is. Just hold onto the ball. I am concerned as to why Clements was ruled a catch. He never had clear possession and then two feet down.

There are currently two standards in the rule book at the same time for becoming a runner. It just depends on which one the official wants to apply. That's a problem.

 

[nathanlt]

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.

You don't understand what the written rule stated. The references to going to the ground were not adequate in the slightest to take away Dez's CATCH. As stated word for word in the rulebook at the time, Dez maintained possession. He maintained control after "initial contact with the ground" .(this initial contact was his first step.)
Then he took a second step.
Then he took a third.
Each elbow contacted the ground before the ball did.
He was down by contact multiple times.
He was down by contact before the ball ever moved, at the half yard line..

All that you are doing is proposing what ifs.
What if the intent of the NFL was described and defined in the rule book?
What if the ball came loose and Dez never regained possession?
What if either of us could change the rule?

None of those what if's are relevant. Dez caught the ball, and Blandino called in and took it away. TAMPERING.

By rule, Dez caught the ball.

 

[nathanlt]

He didn't "turn" upfield, he ran, jumped, and landed while going in a single direction. What changed his trajectory from air to ground at all?
Steps are irrelevant if you're going to the ground (extra steps is a 2016 rule word anyway)
Didn't move or switch hands, he double clutch secured it in 2 hands and took one off. Wasn't "tucked" (2016 word) into his body either. He left it loose.
Braced to extend the ball? What is that? There was no execution of any type of reach or lunge. Blandino, Steratore, and Pereira all said this.

So if you're not subject to Article 3, you're subject to Item 1.

Dez is not subject to rules made in the future. That's ludicrous.

 

[BlindFaith]

1. So end zone plays involve the official's judgment to a much greater degree than plays outside the end zone.

2. He'd have to maintain control when he hit the ground in that case.

3. So there wouldn't be any more fumbles than there were in 2014, the last season that was played without the "upright long enough" rule.

4. The more comments like this I read, the more I realize that there are a lot of people who probably need every possible football move to be spelled out. I don't think that's going to happen, or even that it should happen. I'm OK with "perform any act common to the game," as it should be obvious that this wouldn't include losing the ball or simply falling.

5. There are currently two standards in the rule book at the same time for becoming a runner. It just depends on which one the official wants to apply. That's a problem.

1. So add even more officials judgment to determining a play? Not.

2. So keep the going to the ground when going out of bounds, except if in the end zone, in which case it's the judgement of the official. Well that simplifies things.

3/4. Think intent here. The going to the ground rule is to allow the receiver to gather and secure the catch. You do say that the still need to be a runner or make a move common to the game, except regarding points 1 and 2 above. So yeah, what do you consider qualifications of this if a player is falling down while catching the ball? Number of steps? Tucking the ball away? Reaching out with the ball? These are yet even more judgment calls.

You could easily make the Dez catch a catch this way. And the two or three examples we are talking about the receiver retained possession of the ball after the ball contacted the ground. But let's just say in the Dez play that he wasn't touched down and the ball got away from him and squirted through the end zone. Are you ready to call that a fumble?

And I do think there will be more fumbles. Guy is diving for a ball or catches a ball off balance, but for a second has two feet down and the ball in hand. But as he continues to fall he uses the hand with the ball in it to brace himself and the ball comes loose. Fumble? Or as he's falling a defender drills him and the ball flies out. Fumble?

5. Not sure of the two standards you are talking about. There is a time element - the example of a guy catching a ball and with out moving being given some time aspect to secure the ball. This doesn't really ever come up though. A guy is never going to catch a ball and simply not move. But it is there for simultaneous contact by a defender who forces the ball out. Then there is the or becomes a runner. Fairly easy to determine, but still a judgment call.

Now what I think you are referring to is this must be upright idea. I've never read that in the rulebook. They do say if you are not "upright", ie going to the ground, that if the ball contacts the ground you must maintain control of it. And we covered that already.

So, did Dezs play look like a catch? Yes. Could they revert the rule back to make it a catch? Yes. Would we then need specialised rules for end zone and boundary going to the ground rules? Yes. And would there be complaining of fumbles on even more than the handful of plays being impacted now? I think so, yes.

 

[MarcusRock]

The football move has always been the only story. Everything else is just uninformed noise.

You've already said "additional steps don't matter when the going to the ground rule applies," and "Dez chose to take 1 hand off the ball." Find any other football moves besides those two yet?

Steps are not a football move if you're going to the ground. That is the rule. Taking 1 hand off the ball is just that. It's no more a football move than catching a pass and scratching an itch with 1 hand.

It's funny that you promote that article by Pereira that states replay is becoming too technical while trying to oppose a call using replay to get technical when the lunge/reach was taken away.

 

[BlindFaith]

You don't understand what the written rule stated. The references to going to the ground were not adequate in the slightest to take away Dez's CATCH. As stated word for word in the rulebook at the time, Dez maintained possession. He maintained control after "initial contact with the ground" .(this initial contact was his first step.)
Then he took a second step.
Then he took a third.
Each elbow contacted the ground before the ball did.
He was down by contact multiple times.
He was down by contact before the ball ever moved, at the half yard line..

All that you are doing is proposing what ifs.
What if the intent of the NFL was described and defined in the rule book?
What if the ball came loose and Dez never regained possession?
What if either of us could change the rule?

None of those what if's are relevant. Dez caught the ball, and Blandino called in and took it away. TAMPERING.

By rule, Dez caught the ball.

Please post the rule book articles that support what you are proposing. Eh, don't bother. Like I said before, I'm not getting sucked into explaining the rules again.

I honestly don't care if you understand or not. Professionals that do the NFL for a living don't agree with you. But yet I or anyone else here should?

 

[MarcusRock]

Yawn, I am done. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I have given you concrete evidence of the proper way the rule was to be applied in 2014, and you are too dense to understand it.
When Dez landed he was facing the opposite sideline, so if he did not turn how did he end up facing the pylon on his side of the field? He moved the ball from two hands to the hand nearer the goalline. You can clearly see his right hand extend to the ground to keep his body up, and his left leg went from bent to extended to launch himself toward the endzone. I don't give a crap what Blandino, Steretore, or Pereira said. I have officiated for almost 25 years, I know how to read a rule book and apply casebook plays, and I have two eyes. I for one would love to get them in a room with the rulebook and casebook and destroy them with the rules that they did not apply correctly, and then altered after the fact to make the call fit the rule.

If you consider a part spin in the air while descending from a leap as "turning upfield" then maybe it's better that you never officiate an NFL game. If he launched toward the end zone, then he didn't make it. You know, because he was falling to the ground and all. As I said, and you can see from the real speed video, trajectory never changed. Anyone with two eyes can see that but this thread seems to be more about feeling than seeing. Once again, CONSPIRACY! confirming we wuz robbed. Why does the league pick on us so?

 

[nathanlt]

1. So add even more officials judgment to determining a play? Not.

2. So keep the going to the ground when going out of bounds, except if in the end zone, in which case it's the judgement of the official. Well that simplifies things.

3/4. Think intent here. The going to the ground rule is to allow the receiver to gather and secure the catch. You do say that the still need to be a runner or make a move common to the game, except regarding points 1 and 2 above. So yeah, what do you consider qualifications of this if a player is falling down while catching the ball? Number of steps? Tucking the ball away? Reaching out with the ball? These are yet even more judgment calls.

You could easily make the Dez catch a catch this way. And the two or three examples we are talking about the receiver retained possession of the ball after the ball contacted the ground. But let's just say in the Dez play that he wasn't touched down and the ball got away from him and squirted through the end zone. Are you ready to call that a fumble?

And I do think there will be more fumbles. Guy is diving for a ball or catches a ball off balance, but for a second has two feet down and the ball in hand. But as he continues to fall he uses the hand with the ball in it to brace himself and the ball comes loose. Fumble? Or as he's falling a defender drills him and the ball flies out. Fumble?

5. Not sure of the two standards you are talking about. There is a time element - the example of a guy catching a ball and with out moving being given some time aspect to secure the ball. This doesn't really ever come up though. A guy is never going to catch a ball and simply not move. But it is there for simultaneous contact by a defender who forces the ball out. Then there is the or becomes a runner. Fairly easy to determine, but still a judgment call.

Now what I think you are referring to is this must be upright idea. I've never read that in the rulebook. They do say if you are not "upright", ie going to the ground, that if the ball contacts the ground you must maintain control of it. And we covered that already.

So, did Dezs play look like a catch? Yes. Could they revert the rule back to make it a catch? Yes. Would we then need specialised rules for end zone and boundary going to the ground rules? Yes. And would there be complaining of fumbles on even more than the handful of plays being impacted now? I think so, yes.

What a waste of time. Your explanation is complex and speculates about the NFL's intent for multiple paragraphs, which you know nothing about. How could you pretend to know the intent of the NFL in the first place? None of the intent matters. What applies is the written rule, NOTHING MORE.

"revert the rule back to make it a catch" The NFL couldn't and has never described what they think a catch is since they inserted the "initial contact with the ground" phrase. The words they had in place in place at the time for Dez's CATCH did NOTHING to invalidate it.

The ineptness of the NFL to write their intent on paper is epic. They don't have a command of the English language, not enough to write a rule that is remotely connected to their concept of what a catch is. Either they are inept, or are deliberately trying to cloud the issue of a catch, to predetermine the outcome of games at their whim.

 

[nathanlt]

Please post the rule book articles that support what you are proposing. Eh, don't bother. Like I said before, I'm not getting sucked into explaining the rules again.

I honestly don't care if you understand or not. Professionals that do the NFL for a living don't agree with you. But yet I or anyone else here should?

You've just made an incredible mistake. You can't be foolish enough to equate Blandino, a former standup comedian WHO NEVER OFFICIATED a single NFL game... as a professional.

I don't care what NFL officials intend or agree with, they violated their own rulebook to take away Dez's catch.

Do you know what "initial contact with the ground" means???