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

[DogFace]

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?

2015 and 2016 they changed the rules for establishing yourself as a runner.

 

[DogFace]

The thing is the example you are quoting indicates that there was no "going to the ground" prior to being hit, whereas Dez was going to the ground all the way. From the time his first foot landed he was stumbling on his way to the ground.

That’s how you and many others see it. I don’t. I can imagine him staying up if he wasn’t tripped or if he had not wanted to dive. I’m not sure how I can assure you this is how I really feel, but it is and I really don’t it would’ve been that much of an unbelievable play.

I’m not sure how I can prove he wasn’t definetly going to fall or you can prove he was or what the ref was thinking. The one 7ft from the play did rule it a catch.

That said, I don’t think the going to the ground was relevant because he completed the 3 step process and that makes the going to the ground rule not part of the ruling.

I can remember a play where he almost fell on a long td and his torso was completely parallel to the ground and pulled out of it. Can’t remember the game. I think it was last year?? People on this site brought up the Green Bay catch for comparing.

 

[DogFace]

Just for clarification sake, the time element does not take into consideration the other 2 prerequisites of a catch.

a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.)
​

Control with 2 feet doesn't satisfy the time requirement because the element of time must occur after control with and a 2nd foot.

From the perspective of satisfying the element of time, whatever magical stopwatch the NFL would use would begin after his 2nd foot.

Once he was “still” in control of the ball after the second foot came down he satisfied the time element. That is, he didn’t lose control as the second foot hit.

100th of a second? I don’t know. The case example says it was a catch and the time requirement was met.

 

[G2]

And yet, when his first foot hit, the process of going to the ground was COMPLETE.

Or is there a written definition otherwise? Nope!

So a foot hitting the ground is completely going to the ground? Meh

 

[G2]

That’s how you and many others see it. I don’t. I can imagine him staying up if he wasn’t tripped or if he had not wanted to dive. I’m not sure how I can assure you this is how I really feel, but it is and I really don’t it would’ve been that much of an unbelievable play.

I’m not sure how I can prove he wasn’t definetly going to fall or you can prove he was or what the ref was thinking. The one 7ft from the play did rule it a catch.

That said, I don’t think the going to the ground was relevant because he completed the 3 step process and that makes the going to the ground rule not part of the ruling.

I can remember a play where he almost fell on a long td and his torso was completely parallel to the ground and pulled out of it. Can’t remember the game. I think it was last year?? People on this site brought up the Green Bay catch for comparing.

Tripped? I dunno, seems like a stretch. Normal speed shows he was falling to the ground, from momentum and stumbled. Otherwise he would simply run into the end-zone.

 

[percyhoward]

Tripped? I dunno, seems like a stretch. Normal speed shows he was falling to the ground, from momentum and stumbled. Otherwise he would simply run into the end-zone.

Prior to 2015, you could make a football move (after control and two feet) to establish yourself as a runner while falling. There's nothing in the rules prior to 2015 about "momentum," "falling," or "stumbling." If you can find it, post it, and you'll shut us up forever. You won't be able to find it. All that was required under Item 1 (so-called "going to the ground" rule) was that a player complete the catch process before he went to the ground.

Officials' decisions have to be driven by things they can see happening (or not happening), keeping judgment calls at a minimum. An official can pinpoint when a player hits the ground, but he can't pinpoint when a fall begins or how long player needs to be upright. "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass" was never meant to be understood as "If a player starts to go to the ground..." Once you understand this, everything else makes sense.

Pereira says he and other heads of officiating "got off track" since 1999 in their interpretations of the catch rule. He's telling you that they have been wrong . He isn't sure how it happened, which is no surprise. If he understood how it happened, he would not have let it happen in the first place.

 

[TwentyOne]

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

Maybe i watched a different game then you.

We had momentum when the Murray fumble happend. Sure we still may have lost the game. But the fumble took the air out of us. Thats what i define as a killer moment.

We can discuss wether our defense was our achilles heel in 2014. But that has nothing to do with a killer moment in a game.

 

[TwentyOne]

Prior to 2015, you could make a football move (after control and two feet) to establish yourself as a runner while falling. There's nothing in the rules prior to 2015 about "momentum," "falling," or "stumbling." If you can find it, post it, and you'll shut us up forever. You won't be able to find it. All that was required under Item 1 (so-called "going to the ground" rule) was that a player complete the catch process before he went to the ground.

Officials' decisions have to be driven by things they can see happening (or not happening), keeping judgment calls at a minimum. An official can pinpoint when a player hits the ground, but he can't pinpoint when a fall begins or how long player needs to be upright. "If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass" was never meant to be understood as "If a player starts to go to the ground..." Once you understand this, everything else makes sense.

Pereira says he and other heads of officiating "got off track" since 1999 in their interpretations of the catch rule. He's telling you that they have been wrong . He isn't sure how it happened, which is no surprise. If he understood how it happened, he would not have let it happen in the first place.

I have a question regarding your signature.

Do i understand you right that Dez Bryant is an average top 10 WR and should be paid like one and not like a top 3 WR ?

 

[DogFace]

Maybe i watched a different game then you.

We had momentum when the Murray fumble happend. Sure we still may have lost the game. But the fumble took the air out of us. Thats what i define as a killer moment.

We can discuss wether our defense was our achilles heel in 2014. But that has nothing to do with a killer moment in a game.

No you’re right. If he doesn’t fumble, but rather scores as he should have, we win. We had the momentum and that fumble was a killer. Hell, we almost won anyway.

When they had the ball after the Dez catch reversal I think we almost stopped them and Rogers competed a tipped pass. I think. Maybe that was another time he beat us.

 

[TwentyOne]

No you’re right. If he doesn’t fumble, but rather scores as he should have, we win. We had the momentum and that fumble was a killer. Hell, we almost won anyway.

When they had the ball after the Dez catch reversal I think we almost stopped them and Rogers competed a tipped pass. I think. Maybe that was another time he beat us.

Rodgers is just a great QB. As much as i hate him when he beats us he is a joy to watch. The way he is moving in the pocket and makes his OL look great is amazing.
To me he was the only reason the packers beat us this day. But thats just me loving to watch great player.

The Murray fumble killed me. I never was a fan of him. And the way he left to the Eagles for me was the nail in his coffin.
maybe if Dez' catch would have been ruled good we had a chance to win the game. But then ? What does it matter today....

And i think you are right. We wouldnt be able to win the big game anyway. Our defense was not good enough this year. And i too dont think we were robbed this day. In the end its who scores more points who deserves to win the game.

 

[nathanlt]

So a foot hitting the ground is completely going to the ground? Meh

You added completely. The rule book didn't.

By rule, catch.

 

[G2]

You added completely. The rule book didn't.

By rule, catch.

Not if you don't maintain possession. Ball hit the ground and popped up.

 

[nathanlt]

Rodgers is just a great QB. As much as i hate him when he beats us he is a joy to watch. The way he is moving in the pocket and makes his OL look great is amazing.
To me he was the only reason the packers beat us this day. But thats just me loving to watch great player.

The Murray fumble killed me. I never was a fan of him. And the way he left to the Eagles for me was the nail in his coffin.
maybe if Dez' catch would have been ruled good we had a chance to win the game. But then ? What does it matter today....

And i think you are right. We wouldnt be able to win the big game anyway. Our defense was not good enough this year. And i too don't think we were robbed this day. In the end its who scores more points who deserves to win the game.

The "we would have lost anyway" mantra is irrelevant. A botched call by the officiating came at the worst possible time, Dallas never got the ball back. It was an exciting game, and all fans were deprived of seeing a great matchup play out, without incompetence on the part of the refs showing up.

The packers were a good team, so was Dallas. Let them play the game!! The fans lost that day too.

 

[nathanlt]

Not if you don't maintain possession. Ball hit the ground and popped up.

Yes, the ball hit the ground and popped up. You don't have to hold onto the ball for 36 steps either to have possession of it... (and you don't have to hold onto it longer than three) He was down by contact twice with each elbow before the ball moved. Going to the ground was complete when his first foot hit the ground.

By rule, CATCH.

 

[OmerV]

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.

Much of what you miss is that the play in the casebook is specific to the receiver coming down with one foot and in control and doesn't start going to the ground until a defender hits him, and it's the hit that causes him to go to the ground.

If you believe, as I do, that Dez was going to the ground before and regardless of whether there was contact, the play you cite in the casebook doesn't apply. They didn't plug in the words, "He goes to the ground as a result of the contact" just for grins - that is a requirement for this play to apply.

That said, if we simply disagree on whether Dez was "going to the ground" from the time his first foot hit the ground, then that's just a matter of perception, not the rule book.

 

[G2]

Yes, the ball hit the ground and popped up. You don't have to hold onto the ball for 36 steps either to have possession of it... (and you don't have to hold onto it longer than three) He was down by contact twice with each elbow before the ball moved. Going to the ground was complete when his first foot hit the ground.

By rule, CATCH.

That would all be true if he were a runner. And no one said anything about 36 steps. Going to the ground was not complete when he came down.

 

[JoeKing]

If you want to be difficult about this ruling then you can do that but the ref was clear in telling why this was different. They are saying Dez did not establish himself as a runner before crossing the goal line, unlike the Pats guy. Dez was falling forward the whole time and the second the ball hit the ground and came loose, it was a non-catch and a dead ball. The Pats guy had already established himself as a runner before crossing the goal line so the second the ball penetrated the goal line, it was a TD. Anything that happened after that(the ball popping out) did not matter.

 

[nathanlt]

That would all be true if he were a runner. And no one said anything about 36 steps. Going to the ground was not complete when he came down.

Yes, it was complete. The rulebook's phrase, "going to the ground" has nothing that defines anything other than one foot hitting the ground. So, yes, Dez was a runner, who also had made 7 football moves during his run.

 

[OmerV]

That’s how you and many others see it. I don’t. I can imagine him staying up if he wasn’t tripped or if he had not wanted to dive. I’m not sure how I can assure you this is how I really feel, but it is and I really don’t it would’ve been that much of an unbelievable play.

I’m not sure how I can prove he wasn’t definetly going to fall or you can prove he was or what the ref was thinking. The one 7ft from the play did rule it a catch.

That said, I don’t think the going to the ground was relevant because he completed the 3 step process and that makes the going to the ground rule not part of the ruling.

I can remember a play where he almost fell on a long td and his torso was completely parallel to the ground and pulled out of it. Can’t remember the game. I think it was last year?? People on this site brought up the Green Bay catch for comparing.

You don't have to assure me that's you really feel he may have stayed up - that point is just a matter of personal perception, and we all have to be influenced by what we believe we saw.

As for the 3 step process, see the discussion of the casebook play above.

 

[nathanlt]

If you want to be difficult about this ruling then you can do that but the ref was clear in telling why this was different. They are saying Dez did not establish himself as a runner before crossing the goal line, unlike the Pats guy. Dez was falling forward the whole time and the second the ball hit the ground and came loose, it was a non-catch and a dead ball. The Pats guy had already established himself as a runner before crossing the goal line so the second the ball penetrated the goal line, it was a TD. Anything that happened after that(the ball popping out) did not matter.

Rulebook does not match what they are saying after the fact. It's public relations nightmare, so they were trying to verbally change the written rule.