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

[OmerV]

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

All you got out of his post was that the word "tucked" was used in 2016? Take that part out and read the rest of the post and he has still made his case.

 

[MarcusRock]

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

You're missing my point. I'm quoting where catch theorists are using 2016 rule language interchangeably while also trying to claim that they're different rules with the words "upright" or "upright long enough." They're the same rule. They updated the language to try to clarify the rule because it was "too hard to understand" for some. This is why Pereira's video on the James catch directly links what happened there to the Dez catch. If they were different rules, you couldn't link them as he did, emphatically to boot.

For example, this is what I found in the 2016 Rules:

A.R. 15.95 Does not become runner prior to going to ground
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 reached out for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. A’s ball fourth-and-10 on A20. In this situation, the receiver did not have the ball long enough to clearly become a runner before going to the ground. In order to complete the catch, he must maintain control until after his initial contact with the ground. The act of reaching out with the ball does not trump the requirement to maintain control of the ball when he lands.

Looks familiar, right? See my next post.

 

[MarcusRock]

Now before the conspiracy cries of “changing the rules” starts, look at these rules closer. Here’s the 2014 Rules version again:

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.

Now how is it that the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch? Remember there is a 3-part process (control, 2 feet, act common to the game). Yet, this “act common to the game” is not part of the 3-part process that includes an act common to the game. Why not just say he had control, 2 feet, and lunging was that act common to the game to complete the 3-part process?

Lunging here must be considered a separate act altogether, that fulfills the time element as it says. This is why I brought up that if the ball never touched the ground in the Dez play it would have been called a catch, even having not performed an act common to the game after control, and 2 feet, even if he bobbled the ball multiple times before finally grasping it. Even if going to the ground was not applied (as the field official didn’t) this would have been true and a catch because that also would have fulfilled the time element.

So I don’t see an inconsistency from rule to rule. Is the rule convoluted? Hell yes. I just don’t think that’s the reason to change it if you don’t have something simpler that also accounts for all the possible acrobatic plays that happen nowadays. That’s why replay helps. If you apply the wrong rule on the field, replay should ensure that the correct one is applied. That is what happened.

 

[DogFace]

Now before the conspiracy cries of “changing the rules” starts, look at these rules closer. Here’s the 2014 Rules version again:

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.

Now how is it that the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch? Remember there is a 3-part process (control, 2 feet, act common to the game). Yet, this “act common to the game” is not part of the 3-part process that includes an act common to the game. Why not just say he had control, 2 feet, and lunging was that act common to the game to complete the 3-part process?

Lunging here must be considered a separate act altogether, that fulfills the time element as it says. This is why I brought up that if the ball never touched the ground in the Dez play it would have been called a catch, even having not performed an act common to the game after control, and 2 feet, even if he bobbled the ball multiple times before finally grasping it. Even if going to the ground was not applied (as the field official didn’t) this would have been true and a catch because that also would have fulfilled the time element.

So I don’t see an inconsistency from rule to rule. Is the rule convoluted? Hell yes. I just don’t think that’s the reason to change it if you don’t have something simpler that also accounts for all the possible acrobatic plays that happen nowadays. That’s why replay helps. If you apply the wrong rule on the field, replay should ensure that the correct one is applied. That is what happened.

Because he completed the time element needed to satisfy the rule. As it says. He got his second foot down and was “still in control of the ball”. “Still” in control vs losing control implies the time needed to satisfy the time element was met. Just as Dez moving the ball from his shoulder to two hands then to one while his second and third foot landed satisfied the time element required.

 

[MarcusRock]

Something tells me Pereira was talking about the league's replay organization becoming too technical, rather than referring to the actual recorded images themselves.

Here's another article where Pereira mentions his proposal.

"And the last thing … and most critical thing … replay has got to get the hell out. Replay has got to review the factual part of the play. So if replay wants to look, and say it’s got control and two feet … replay can look at that, and that’s fine. But the subjective element of time that the officials see and rule on … it needs to stay with them. And it shouldn’t go to replay and have them look at it at a different speed and impose a different standard.”

 

[MarcusRock]

Because he completed the time element needed to satisfy the rule. As it says. He got his second foot down and was “still in control of the ball”. Still in control vs losing control implies the time needed to satisfy the time element was met. Just as Dez moving the ball from his shoulder to two hands then to one while his second and third foot landed satisfied the time element required.

Why is an "act common to the game" considered separate from the 3-part process that already includes an "act common to the game?"

 

[DogFace]

Why is an "act common to the game" considered separate from the 3-part process that already includes an "act common to the game?"

Beause it was a later and separate act that did not matter because the the time element was already met.

Remember the rule is the player must “have time” to make an act common to the game. Not necessarily actually performing the act.

The wording is the player must maintain control long enough to perform and act common to the game.

 

[MarcusRock]

Beause it was a later and separate act that did not matter because the the time element was already met.

Remember the rule is the player must “have time” to make an act common to the game. Not necessarily actually performing the act.

The wording is the player must maintain control long enough to perform and act common to the game.

You're not making sense. The case says that "the act of lunging," i.e., performing the act, fulfilled the time element. So how can it not matter?

 

[TwentyOne]

Catch, three steps, dives and the ball pops out.

Always hard to compare rulings when the rulebook was changed meanwhile.

 

[TwentyOne]

Both were catches.

But I don't get upset another the sea fact anymore. Dallas wouldve still have lost

There you go.

That murray fumble killed us.

 

[DogFace]

You're not making sense. The case says that "the act of lunging," i.e., performing the act, fulfilled the time element. So how can it not matter?

That’s separate act. Not part of the process of the catch because the time element was already satisfied before that act. That’s why when the player lost the ball when he hit the ground it didn’t matter.

No. It did not say that act fulfilled the time elelment. It’s says it does not matter.

It says the act of lunging is not part of the process.

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.

 

[MarcusRock]

That’s separate act. Not part of the process of the catch because the time element was already satisfied before that act. That’s why when the player lost the ball when he hit the ground it didn’t matter.

No. It did not say that act fulfilled the time elelment. It’s says it does not matter.

It says the act of lunging is not part of the process.

Before he lunged, he only had control and 2 feet down. What was that act common to the game that would have fulfilled the 3rd part of the 3-part process if not the lunge?

 

[DogFace]

Before he lunged, he only had control and 2 feet down. What was that act common to the game that would have fulfilled the 3rd part of the 3-part process if not the lunge?

The time element was satisfied when he was “still” in control of the ball.

Remember the player only needs time to perform an act...

 

[MarcusRock]

The time element was satisfied when he was “still” in control of the ball.

So if a player has control and gets 2 feet down while being hit, is it a catch when he hits the ground as long as he has control all the way to the ground if the ball pops out?

 

[DogFace]

So if a player has control and gets 2 feet down while being hit, is it a catch when he hits the ground as long as he has control all the way to the ground if the ball pops out?

In 2014–As long as he had time to make an act common to the game.

The ground can’t cause a fumble.

 

[MarcusRock]

In 2014–As long as he had time to make an act common to the game.

The ground can’t cause a fumble.

Isn't that still true in the 2016 rules? This is why I contrasted with the 2016 case because there the player is also "still control of the ball" when he reaches, yet performing that act does not qualify as fulfilling the time requirement. He also "had time" to do it, because he did it. Why is that?

 

[percyhoward]

"The subjective element of time that the officials see and rule on … it needs to stay with them. And it shouldn’t go to replay and have them look at it at a different speed and impose a different standard.”

So, applied to this case, the subjective element of time that field judge Terry Brown saw and ruled on needed to stay with him, and shouldn't have gone to replay. Meaning Blandino would have just looked at control and two feet, and the catch would have stood. He never would have had to say he looked for the football move, and the football move most likely would never have been removed from the rule book a few months later.

Great paragraph from the article:

“I even argued with Dean Blandino...He said they made it this way to make it more consistent for the officials on the field. Well, wait a minute … and I say to him, ‘If that’s the case, why did they call the Jesse James’ play a touchdown on the field? And why did they call Dez Bryant’s play with Dallas a catch?"​

That paragraph is all about "upright long enough" that was put into the rules in 2015. Field officials have no idea how upright is upright enough, or how long is long enough, so the majority of them almost certainly just kept using the standard of the football move, as they had been doing for years.

It also reveals that Pereira believes that either Blandino had an ulterior motive for engineering the rule change (and that he didn't care about how field officials would use it), or that he didn't spend enough time considering how field officials would use it. Deception or incompetence.

 

[KJJ]

There you go.

That murray fumble killed us.

Our defense not being able to stop Rodgers is what killed us especially in the second half. We had a terrible sequence right before the end of the first half. We were driving the ball, had momentum on our side and had an opportunity to take control of the game. We were deep in Packers territory and started shooting ourselves in the foot with penalties. We were setting up for a field goal attempt and a penalty moved us back 5 yards. We then ended up getting the FG attempt blocked. With only 34 seconds left before the half the Packers were able to move from their own 40 into FG range and get some points right before the half. The momentum switched at that point and that’s when Rogders who had been off started to heat up.

He shredded us in the second half on one leg. One of the TD passes he threw was on one leg. Even after the Dez overturn there was over 4 minutes left in the game and we never got the ball back. We were defenseless on the Packers final drive. Had Dez’s play stood and we took the lead no way do we stop Rodgers with the amount of time left in that game, that was proven. We would’ve lost anyway but many fans continue to beat themselves up over the Dez overturn. It’s the same theme with this fanbase to always look for excuses. I laugh when I read claims that we were robbed of a championship. lol

 

[percyhoward]

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.

Now how is it that the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch?

The entire scenario is under the heading, "Act Common to the Game," so this one's saying the lunge was the football move that established the player as a runner. The lunge isn't a part of the process of catching the ball, it's a separate act that proves the catch process was already completed. Having control of the ball long enough to perform a lunge is one thing that satisfies the time requirement.

Basically, if he's lunging, he's no longer trying to catch the ball.

If he hadn't lunged, he'd have had to do something else, like turn upfield, tuck the ball away, take additional steps, or ward off a defender, in order to meet the time requirement.

The confusion is understandable though. I would've used "act" instead of "process."

 

[MarcusRock]

So, applied to this case, the subjective element of time that field judge Terry Brown saw and ruled on needed to stay with him, and shouldn't have gone to replay. Meaning Blandino would have just looked at control and two feet, and the catch would have stood. He never would have had to say he looked for the football move, and the football move most likely would never have been removed from the rule book a few months later.

Great paragraph from the article:

“I even argued with Dean Blandino...He said they made it this way to make it more consistent for the officials on the field. Well, wait a minute … and I say to him, ‘If that’s the case, why did they call the Jesse James’ play a touchdown on the field? And why did they call Dez Bryant’s play with Dallas a catch?"​

That paragraph is all about "upright long enough" that was put into the rules in 2015. Field officials have no idea how upright is upright enough, or how long is long enough, so the majority of them almost certainly just kept using the standard of the football move, as they had been doing for years.

It also reveals that Pereira believes that either Blandino had an ulterior motive for engineering the rule change (and that he didn't care about how field officials would use it), or that he didn't spend enough time considering how field officials would use it. Deception or incompetence.

LOL. You like to make these TMZ-esque suppositions to rile up the CONSPIRACY! crowd, don't you? In that very same paragraph you quote an incomplete manner, how can that refer to upright long enough changes in 2015 when he mentions the Calvin Johnson catch in 2010 in that same train of thought? You conveniently left that part out. Like I said, this is your pattern of debating now. Just like in linking to that other Pereira article about changing the rules and "summarizing" what wasn't even written there. There's deception in Denmark alright, and I don't think it's Blandino.

The sentence before that paragraph in the same quote is:
"But we’re in this day now where the rule that has this going to the ground … that the ground trumps everything, and you have to hold on to the ball."

That's what he argued with Blandino about. That going to the ground trumps everything. Just like he said in that video I posted. When he links the Dez catch to that in the video, it was true then, and it's true now which is why neither Dez or James' catches stood even though James completed the reach Dez was hoping to, but didn't. So you or anyone can say you like Pereira's proposal if you wish. Hell, if it improves things, I say go for it too. But it's not the rule now and can't be retroactively applied to past times where it wasn't the rule.

If you have to deceive in an argument, it's because an argument can't stand on its own. And if the ringleader's doing this, people have to think about who among the catch theorists can be trusted. Do people want proof or just their own way?