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

[BlindFaith]

But first you'd have to assume he couldn't have made the move before that point.

Another way to say it is, you'd have to assume that if he were in the field of play instead of the end zone, no football move would have occurred before he touched the ball to the ground.

It goes back to what I said was the intent of the term make a football move. It's to allow the receiver to have time or actually secure the ball.

They've clearly indicated that during the act of going to the ground it doesn't ensure adequate ability to secure the ball.

So in order to protect the receiver they require having the ball secured, maintaining possession through contacting the ground.

THAT is the fulfilment of being able to secure the ball, ie becoming a runner.

That's why I hate the term become a runner as used in the language. It's much more about making sure the player has time and ability to secure the ball.

And there are two flavors of that. One while the player is upright and one while they are going to the ground. The upright version is pretty clear.

The act of going to the ground is far more risky to ensure the ability of the player to secure the ball. They are falling, they are far more exposed, off balance, have their arms extended or flailing about, trying to prepare to make contact with the ground. Not the ideal situation to ever try to ascertain a good point of where they can adequately secure the ball.

So they say that if you make it through all of that, contact the ground and still maintain security of the ball, it's a catch. If at any point during that act you lose the ball. Incomplete. No gray area and no fumbles.

So I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Other than the rule being poorly written. But just apply a common sense evaluation of the intent.

Yes, they could change the rule to make these catches. I've said that to you before. But I don't think the risk of opening up a whole new can of worms is worth it.

Just don't drop the ball. You already see wrs adjusting to this. Trying to land on their side or back. Pulling the ball in instead of reaching out.

Sure, it's exciting to be falling to the ground and to try and reach out for a TD. But how bout just securing the ball at the 1 instead of reaching and dropping it for no gain.

 

[percyhoward]

They've clearly indicated that during the act of going to the ground it doesn't ensure adequate ability to secure the ball.

They decided that if a player goes to the ground, they don't want to have to look for some other act that proves he already caught the ball. That makes it easier for them by eliminating their responsibility of determining what is a catch. If you're saying, "They've clearly decided you can't become a runner while falling," then you're right. They decided that in 2015.

That's why I hate the term become a runner as used in the language. It's much more about making sure the player has time and ability to secure the ball.

There's a part of the rule book called "Definitions"

SECTION 28
RUNNER
A Runner is the offensive player who is in possession of a live ball, i.e., holding the ball or carrying it in any direction​

The act of going to the ground is far more risky to ensure the ability of the player to secure the ball. They are falling, they are far more exposed, off balance, have their arms extended or flailing about, trying to prepare to make contact with the ground. Not the ideal situation to ever try to a certain a good point of where they can adequately secure the ball.

So they say that if you make it through all of that, contact the ground and still maintain security of the ball, it's a catch. If at any point during that act you lose the ball. Incomplete. No gray area and no fumbles.

So I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Other than the rule being poorly written. But just apply a common sense evaluation of the intent.

It's very easy to understand. The problem with it is that it no longer addresses whether a catch has been made. In the words of Pereira, "It's not logic."

“I even argued with Dean Blandino, who works with me and whom I have great respect for, 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? And why did they call Calvin Johnson’s play back in 2010 … one signaled a touchdown and the other guy came in kinda sheepishly and went, ‘Incomplete.’ And then they stayed there.

“It’s not logic. So my thing is control, two feet and a football move — whether you’re on your feet or going to the ground — you’ve completed the process."​

Yes, they could change the rule to make these catches. I've said that to you before. But I don't think the risk of opening up a whole new can of worms is worth it.

And as I've told you before, there would be nothing "new" about going back to the old standard of control, two feet, and a football move.

 

[BlindFaith]

They decided that if a player goes to the ground, they don't want to have to look for some other act that proves he already caught the ball. That makes it easier for them by eliminating their responsibility of determining what is a catch. If you're saying, "They've clearly decided you can't become a runner while falling," then you're right. They decided that in 2015.


There's a part of the rule book called "Definitions"

SECTION 28
RUNNER
A Runner is the offensive player who is in possession of a live ball, i.e., holding the ball or carrying it in any direction​

It's very easy to understand. The problem with it is that it no longer addresses whether a catch has been made. In the words of Pereira, "It's not logic."

“I even argued with Dean Blandino, who works with me and whom I have great respect for, 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? And why did they call Calvin Johnson’s play back in 2010 … one signaled a touchdown and the other guy came in kinda sheepishly and went, ‘Incomplete.’ And then they stayed there.

“It’s not logic. So my thing is control, two feet and a football move — whether you’re on your feet or going to the ground — you’ve completed the process."​

And as I've told you before, there would be nothing "new" about going back to the old standard of control, two feet, and a football move.

Sure, if you want to allow or try and judge some sort of football move while going to the ground. Fine. It will be a mess.

And then you'd still have the going to the ground rule for boundary catches because as you said they wouldn't have time.

Why not just apply the same rule for both?

Just hold on to the ball.

 

[KJJ]

Voice of reason?

You can’t be serious. Once again you’ve attempted to ruin a thread by making it about you.

I’m almost sure I’ve forced you to ignore me again(for like the 5th time). I’m trying to instruct others how to accomplish this cherished feat as well.

You and the other guy are attempting to ruin the thread by making this a personal attack. I’m giving opinions on the topic and you’re making this about me because you can’t handle my opinions. If it wasn’t for the opposing views me and a few others have this thread would have died long ago. You too are being proven wrong and your only line of defense are insults. Congratulations on making yourself look bad.

 

[CowboysFanSince88]

Neither was a catch

1. Dez tried to reach for the endzone instead of catching the ball and securing it

2. Ertz caught the ball and it hit the ground and he never secured the ball


The end

 

[DogFace]

You and the other guy are attempting to ruin the thread by making this a personal attack. I’m giving opinions on the topic and you’re making this about me because you can’t handle my opinions. If it wasn’t for the opposing views me and a few others have this thread would have died long ago. You too are being proven wrong and your only line of defense are insults. Congratulations on making yourself look bad.

Ok. Can you explain how the case play is not like the Dez catch? We know it was a completion in the case play. What about the Dez catch made it unlike the case play?

 

[percyhoward]

Sure, if you want to allow or try and judge some sort of football move while going to the ground. Fine. It will be a mess.

You're talking about the standard for defining a catch that was in place for years, so you can't act like it's some wild suggestion.

And then you'd still have the going to the ground rule for boundary catches because as you said they wouldn't have time.

Why not just apply the same rule for both?

Because you don't voluntarily limit your ability to determine whether a catch has been made, just because there may be certain parts of field (end zone, sideline) where that limitation is imposed on you.

 

[DogFace]

Neither was a catch

1. Dez tried to reach for the endzone instead of catching the ball and securing it

2. Ertz caught the ball and it hit the ground and he never secured the ball


The end

How is the Dez catch unlike the case play in this thread that was a completion?

 

[KJJ]

I believe that the truth outweighs being nice, and when you live in a world where those who speak the loudest, and keep repeating lies eventually get others to believe them, I don't believe in standing quietly in the corner watching it happen. And just an FYI, talking down to people like you do in nearly every post is an attack. And when people like to say it wasn't me doing it, it usually was.

You’re repeating lies because you don’t understand a rule and don’t agree with it. When others don’t buy into your BS you go on the attack. Disagreeing with someone and Informing isn’t talking down to them. Insults are talking down to someone. Telling someone they have a learning impediment is talking down to them. Once your nonsense gets broken down you lose your cool.

 

[KJJ]

Ok. Can you explain how the case play is not like the Dez catch? We know it was a completion in the case play. What about the Dez catch made it unlike the case play?

You can waste your time with it. The rule is the same today as it was in 2014 and it’s being officiated the same way.

 

[CowboysFanSince88]

How is the Dez catch unlike the case play in this thread that was a completion?

Dez is too stupid to be a NFL receiver. Any normal receiver would have known to catch the ball and not worry about scoring since the team was going to have a 1st and goal.

 

[KJJ]

What football move were you expecting Johnson to make in the end zone?

He went up and caught the football. That alone is a football move. A football move wouldn’t have mattered because he was going to the ground and had to maintain possession through the contact of the ground.

 

[blindzebra]

Neither was a catch

1. Dez tried to reach for the endzone instead of catching the ball and securing it

2. Ertz caught the ball and it hit the ground and he never secured the ball


The end

Wrong and wrong. Dez established himself as a runner under the 2014 rules. Ertz was upright and took three steps making him a runner under the new rules from 2015.

And I am glad the blaiming Dez for reaching came up...because by saying he should not have done it you are also saying he did it with intent. Since a reach is not part of catching the ball and he intended to do it to score...it makes a reach a football move.

 

[blindzebra]

You’re repeating lies because you don’t understand a rule and don’t agree with it. When others don’t buy into your BS you go on the attack. Disagreeing with someone and Informing isn’t talking down to them. Insults are talking down to someone. Telling someone they have a learning impediment is talking down to them. Once your nonsense gets broken down you lose your cool.

LOL you are too funny. I am one of a handful of people in this thread that has presented factual evidence and show a complete understanding of the rule. While you keep repeating the same nonsense not supported by rules and can't understand the difference between going to the ground in the endzone and in the field of play.
Enjoy playing the victim while the rest of us laugh at the combination of ignorance and arrogance that screams out from every post you make.

 

[CowboysFanSince88]

Wrong and wrong. Dez established himself as a runner under the 2014 rules. Ertz was upright and took three steps making him a runner under the new rules from 2015.

And I am glad the blaiming Dez for reaching came up...because by saying he should not have done it you are also saying he did it with intent. Since a reach is not part of catching the ball and he intended to do it to score...it makes a reach a football move.

When he landed the ball was not secure. And I blame romo for that stupid pass on 4th and 2 when he could have just focused on getting the 1st down instead of going for it all

 

[CowboysFanSince88]

Wrong and wrong. Dez established himself as a runner under the 2014 rules. Ertz was upright and took three steps making him a runner under the new rules from 2015.

And I am glad the blaiming Dez for reaching came up...because by saying he should not have done it you are also saying he did it with intent. Since a reach is not part of catching the ball and he intended to do it to score...it makes a reach a football move.

Dez even admits in the video........"I tried to reach over the goal line"

And that's WHY IT WAS NOT A CATCH

 

[KJJ]

LOL you are too funny. I am one of a handful of people in this thread that has presented factual evidence and show a complete understanding of the rule. While you keep repeating the same nonsense not supported by rules and can't understand the difference between going to the ground in the endzone and in the field of play.
Enjoy playing the victim while the rest of us laugh at the combination of ignorance and arrogance that screams out from every post you make.

You’re one of many is this thread that don’t know what you’re talking about. If you knew what you were talking about the NFL would’ve admitted the Dez overturn was incorrect. If you knew what you were talking about the rule would’ve been changed. You’re claiming the NFL is wrong and you’re right and you’re calling me arrogant? Lol The only one repeating the same nonsense is you. You and the rest are still crying over a call from three years ago as if you think complaining and shedding tears are going to change the outcome.

 

[KJJ]

What do you think Pereira's doing now?

He works as a rules analyst for Fox and he also agreed that Dez didn’t complete the process.

 

[percyhoward]

1. Dez tried to reach for the endzone instead of catching the ball and securing it

Right, and that reach is a football move. Prior to 2015, the football move completed the catch process, whether the player was falling or not.

“By rule, when a receiver with possession of the ball is in the act of going to the ground and performs a second act by reaching out to break the plane, that completes the process of the catch...” Pereira, 2010​

2. Ertz caught the ball and it hit the ground and he never secured the ball.

Since 2015, a player cannot complete the catch process while falling. So, by rule, that's an incomplete pass.

Which shows you how ridiculous that rule is.

 

[percyhoward]

He works as a rules analyst for Fox and he also agreed that Dez didn’t complete the process.

You said, "The league has admitted numerous officiating mistakes over the years."

When I asked you what Pereira was doing now, I didn't mean "what's his job." What he's doing now is admitting some of the officiating mistakes that the league did not (or hasn't yet).

http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/article191713479.html

http://www.talkoffamenetwork.com/pereira-the-problem-with-the-catch-rule-and-how-id-refine-it/