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

[blindzebra]

This isn't different than we've seen before in this thread. I believe he was going to the ground all the way, not just because of the contact as stated in 8.12, and I really don't think he lunged either. He reached with the ball, but he wasn't in control with his body enough to lunge. He was only headed toward the goal line because that is the direction he was running before he started going to the ground, and his momentum was taking him that way.

That is the point. The incomplete crowd keeps saying the rule changed from 2012 to 2014, that caseplay proves going to the ground does not trump the process.
If he reached he completed the process, because that is an act common to the game.

 

[OmerV]

No it doesn't. The caseplay I provided shows it. Did Dez have control? Yes. Did Dez get two feet down? Yes. Did Dez make a football move? Well, he turned, took a third step, extended the ball, and pushed off his left leg kicking up turf, so yes. He completed the 3 steps for a catch.

He never took the first 2 steps, so how could he take a 3rd one? What you are referring to as the first two steps were actually just his feet coming down after the leap.

 

[OmerV]

If he reached he completed the process, because that is an act common to the game.

That makes no sense. A person could be completely airborn without having yet come to the ground and still be able to reach. Completing the process isn't as simple as a reach - completing the process for a player going to the ground is maintaining possession all the way through. Now, if you disagree and believe he wasn't going to the ground before the contact, then we just have a disagreement with what we saw, but reaching is not an act of lunging or completing the process.

 

[blindzebra]

He never took the first 2 steps, so how could he take a 3rd one? What you are referring to as the first two steps were actually just his feet coming down after the leap.

For God's sake, the catch rule says control, two feet in bounds, and an act common to the game.

Dez had control...check...landed on two feet...check...there was a third foot down, a move from two hands to the hand nearer the goaline, and even you said he reached out the ball...that is an act common to the game.

 

[blindzebra]

That makes no sense. A person could be completely airborn without having yet come to the ground and still be able to reach. Completing the process isn't as simple as a reach - completing the process for a player going to the ground is maintaining possession all the way through. Now, if you disagree and believe he wasn't going to the ground before the contact, then we just have a disagreement with what we saw, but reaching is not an act of lunging or completing the process.

Not true. The caseplay I posted shows that going to the ground ends if the other 3 steps occur before he contacts the ground.

Dez had control, Dez had two feet down inbounds, and that reach was a football act.

 

[StylisticS]

I never understood the difference between the no catch in the playoff game and the catch he made earlier in the season against the giants. One was ruled incomplete, the other was ruled down by contact at the 2.

 

[percyhoward]

That's what he argued with Blandino about. That going to the ground trumps everything...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.

"Upright long enough" is "going to the ground trumps the catch process." If you're not upright long enough, then you can't establish yourself as a runner while going to the ground. In other words, the catch process is subordinated. That's the line of thinking that led to the misapplication of Item 1 in the Dez overturn, and the correct application of a lousy new rule in the James overturn.

And Pereira's not just saying, "Hey look guys, I've got this great idea!" He's admitting his own guilt and taking Blandino and others to task for their part in messing up the catch rule, of which the Dez play is the most infamous example.

 

[blindzebra]

"Upright long enough" is "going to the ground trumps the catch process." If you're not upright long enough, then you can't establish yourself as a runner while going to the ground. In other words, the catch process is subordinated. That's the line of thinking that led to the misapplication of Item 1 in the Dez overturn, and the correct application of a lousy new rule in the James overturn.

And Pereira's not just saying, "Hey look guys, I've got this great idea!" He's admitting his own guilt and taking Blandino and others to task for their part in messing up the catch rule, of which the Dez play is the most infamous example.

And that was the lie he told in 2015 that it was just a clarification of the existing rule when it was a complete rewriting of the rule from 2012-2014.

 

[percyhoward]

Actually, the casebook example you provided talked about one foot landing with the ball being secure, and then a defender hits the receiver and knocks him to the ground. What you quoted in this post isn't the casebook example, its the actual wording in the rulebook, which, by the way it is worded would negate Dez's catch because there was never a point where he came down from his leap and wasn't going to the ground. From the time his first foot landed he was stumbling to the ground.

Again, if you don't mind, could you provide a link to the 2014 casebook. I feel like I need to look that over to be fair, and I haven't been able to find it online.

Sorry, thought you had seen it in the other post.
http://test.footballzebras.com/files/original/d7f57f11109a4a4353de0d4fe3437d4c.pdf

 

[MarcusRock]

"Upright long enough" is "going to the ground trumps the catch process." If you're not upright long enough, then you can't establish yourself as a runner while going to the ground. In other words, the catch process is subordinated. That's the line of thinking that led to the misapplication of Item 1 in the Dez overturn, and the correct application of a lousy new rule in the James overturn.

And Pereira's not just saying, "Hey look guys, I've got this great idea!" He's admitting his own guilt and taking Blandino and others to task for their part in messing up the catch rule, of which the Dez play is the most infamous example.

So in the video I posted where Pereira links James' catch to Dez' as each going to the ground cases after stating that going to the ground trumps the catch process, Pereira's just playing along with the CONSPIRACY! Got it.

 

[percyhoward]

There was a provision for "going to the ground" in the rules then as well.

"Going to the ground" isn't what was changed in 2015. What was changed was the standard for becoming a runner.

Until 2015, a "runner" had always been defined as a player in possession of a live ball. So a player could establish himself as a runner while falling, as long he had control, two feet, and enough time for a football move. Which is common sense, because falling, stumbling, etc has nothing to do with your ability to gain possession of the ball. After control and two feet, officials looked for a football move. If one happened, the player became a runner, and "going to the ground" did not apply.

Beginning in 2015, a player had to be "upright long enough" to become a runner. Officials would now apply "going to the ground" based on their judgment about whether the player was upright for a long enough amount of time. Even though there is no standard for how upright is upright enough, or how long is long enough. Officials ostensibly no longer looked for a football move. It's very likely that many officials never stopped using the football move, however, because it gives them something clear cut to look for. It makes more sense, in other words.

 

[percyhoward]

According to Percy there was a 2014 casebook. I thought exactly as you pointed out that there wouldn't be a need for a new casebook every year.

Go to p 105 of the PDF and you'll see this.

 

[MarcusRock]

"Going to the ground" isn't what was changed in 2015. What was changed was the standard for becoming a runner.

Until 2015, a "runner" had always been defined as a player in possession of a live ball. So a player could establish himself as a runner while falling, as long he had control, two feet, and enough time for a football move. Which is common sense, because falling, stumbling, etc has nothing to do with your ability to gain possession of the ball. After control and two feet, officials looked for a football move. If one happened, the player became a runner, and "going to the ground" did not apply.

Beginning in 2015, a player had to be "upright long enough" to become a runner. Officials would now apply "going to the ground" based on their judgment about whether the player was upright for a long enough amount of time. Even though there is no standard for how upright is upright enough, or how long is long enough. Officials ostensibly no longer looked for a football move. It's very likely that many officials never stopped using the football move, however, because it gives them something clear cut to look for. It makes more sense, in other words.

In 2014, there was a note under the 3 part process that stated: "It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so." So they had to not only look for a football move, but maintenance of control of the ball "long enough" to do one. So like with 2015, how long is long enough? It's basically the same thing where an official has to judge time but in 2015 and now, they only have to judge time vs. looking for a football move OR time enough to do one in 2014. Which is easier to judge in a moment?

The going to the ground rule has always contained the phrase, "If a player goes to the ground ..." It is a yes/no determination. The officials have ALWAYS had to make this yes/no determination so I see no indication that taking away the "time enough to make a football move" and replacing it with "upright long enough" did anything with going to the ground application of the rule.

You are again making suppositions that are not evident in what's written. Pattern.

 

[percyhoward]

While the casebook makes it 100% clear that the player braced himself and lunged for the goal line, the extent to which a player can be said to have braced himself and/or lunged in a real game is entirely a matter of opinion. Without being told that a player braced himself and lunged, officials have to determine for themselves.

Maybe, but when it comes to the time requirement, I'd rather depend on the official either seeing or not seeing an actual physical act than depend on their judgment of how upright is upright, or how long is long enough.

They replaced the football move with "upright long enough" as a way to determine how long a player had to be on his feet before being considered as "going to the ground." That focus is all wrong. Instead of finding a way to determine "what is going to the ground," they should have been asking "what is a catch?" Because -- as the people who made the original rule knew -- if you answer that second question, you've already answered the first.

The issue right now (since 2015) is that there is no observable act that tells them a player has established himself as a runner. So any official -- usually the replay official -- can apply "going to the ground" at his whim, as happened on the James overturn.

 

[percyhoward]

That is the point. The incomplete crowd keeps saying the rule changed from 2012 to 2014, that caseplay proves going to the ground does not trump the process.
If he reached he completed the process, because that is an act common to the game.

The scenario I posted earlier in the thread is also from the 2014 Casebook.

 

[percyhoward]

So in the video I posted where Pereira links James' catch to Dez' as each going to the ground cases after stating that going to the ground trumps the catch process, Pereira's just playing along with the CONSPIRACY! Got it.

What point are you trying to make here?

 

[percyhoward]

For God's sake, the catch rule says control, two feet in bounds, and an act common to the game.

Anybody who weighs in (on either side) should first be required to explain what a football move is for. In their own words.

 

[blindzebra]

In 2014, there was a note under the 3 part process that stated: "It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so." So they had to not only look for a football move, but maintenance of control of the ball "long enough" to do one. So like with 2015, how long is long enough? It's basically the same thing where an official has to judge time but in 2015 and now, they only have to judge time vs. looking for a football move OR time enough to do one in 2014. Which is easier to judge in a moment?

The going to the ground rule has always contained the phrase, "If a player goes to the ground ..." It is a yes/no determination. The officials have ALWAYS had to make this yes/no determination so I see no indication that taking away the "time enough to make a football move" and replacing it with "upright long enough" did anything with going to the ground application of the rule.

You are again making suppositions that are not evident in what's written. Pattern.

BS.
I will try to make this simple, so even you can understand.

The caseplay from the 2014 rules

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.

The three part process exists along side going to the ground in 2014, if the process happens before they hit the ground it is a catch, if it doesn't they must maintain control. It is right there in black and white. Once Dez moved the ball to his left hand and extended it toward the goalline he completed the process.

What upright long enough did was change the ability for the process to exist with going to the ground. In 2014 the time element was really unnecessary, in reality you either make a football move or you don't. Unless you have a receiver catch it and stand still for several seconds, gets hit or falls down on their own, what is the need for the or long enough to do so? The caseplay clearly says that a player going to the ground can still complete the process, so saying Dez did not stay up long enough to do so is moot. What they did in 2015 was take away the thing that completes the process and replace it with a vague phrase that was constructed to align with the misapplication they applied to the Bryant play. What should have happened was to clarify exactly what is a move common to the game, but if they did that they'd have to admit they blew the call in GB.

 

[percyhoward]

In 2014, there was a note under the 3 part process that stated: "It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so." So they had to not only look for a football move, but maintenance of control of the ball "long enough" to do one. So like with 2015, how long is long enough? It's basically the same thing where an official has to judge time but in 2015 and now, they only have to judge time vs. looking for a football move OR time enough to do one in 2014. Which is easier to judge in a moment?

The football move, obviously. Strange question. "How long is long enough?" Long enough to make a football move.

The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in the field of play. The only reason they say "long enough" is because in the end zone there's no reason to make a football move, so there's no football move to look for. Under the pre-2015 rules, if the player wasn't in the end zone, the football move was effectively the act that meant the time requirement had been met, since if he had the time and the motive to make the move, he would.

The going to the ground rule has always contained the phrase, "If a player goes to the ground ..." It is a yes/no determination. The officials have ALWAYS had to make this yes/no determination so I see no indication that taking away the "time enough to make a football move" and replacing it with "upright long enough" did anything with going to the ground application of the rule.

You are again making suppositions that are not evident in what's written. Pattern.

The going to the ground rule has always contained the phrase "in the act of catching a pass," and the act of catching a pass is the "yes/no" that tells you whether or not he needs to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground.

Pre-2015, the official didn't know if the player had become a runner until after he'd either a) completed the catch process, or b) hit the ground and held onto the ball, whichever came first.

Since 2015, the official is able to decide, "He's not a runner" and then go about applying item 1.

Difference.

 

[percyhoward]

What upright long enough did was change the ability for the process to exist with going to the ground.

Well said.

In 2014 the time element was really unnecessary, in reality you either make a football move or you don't. Unless you have a receiver catch it and stand still for several seconds, gets hit or falls down on their own, what is the need for the long enough to do so?

So they wouldn't have to make a separate rule for the end zone.

Item 3. End Zone Catches.
The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in the field of play.