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

[G2]

"Tastes great."

 

[KJJ]

I understand the official ruling that he had to maintain possession after he touched the ball to the ground. That's easy to comprehend. But we're past that.

We're beyond asking what the ruling was, and we're at a place where we're questioning the validity of the ruling.

You have to start earlier in the process. You have to go back to before he touched the ball to the ground, and ask yourself if he would have made a football move if he'd been in the field of play instead of the end zone. If the answer is "yes" then it's a catch. If "no" then incomplete.

End zone plays bring a large amount of subjectivity into the equation.

You and others are questioning the validity of the ruling. Most rational fans accept that it’s a rule but don’t like the rule. Had the Calvin Johnson play happened in the field of play he would’ve fallen down anyway because he was falling during the process of making the catch. It was a difficult catch, he leaped over a defender and as he was coming down lost his balance and fell. The athletic move he made to go up over the defender and make that catch was a football move in my book but because he was going to the ground he had to complete the process.

 

[KJJ]

That's nothing more than the official explanation. It's one thing to understand the official explanation, but another thing to consider whether it has any justifiable basis.

The league's own rule book, their own case book scenarios, and their own explanations of similar plays all show that you can make a football move while falling. Even the official explanation admitted that you could make a football move while falling, they just said one of those moves (the reach) wasn't obvious enough, and did not address any of the other moves.

A receiver can make a football move while falling but like Perera and even Stephen Jones said a receiver going to the ground trumps everything. The receiver is required to survive the ground after falling. They must maintain control of the football during the entire process. The admission that you can make a football move while falling doesn’t matter. The process still has to be completed. You and others refuse to accept that.

 

[percyhoward]

You and others are questioning the validity of the ruling. Most rational fans accept that it’s a rule but don’t like the rule.

I'd say most fans agree no one knows what a catch is anymore, but that most rational people wouldn't accept the "bad rule" explanation without looking at the rules first. There will inevitably be some people who don't understand the rules they're looking at. But if you think about it, football is a very old game, and no bad rule would last for long anyway. The tombstone of "upright long enough" will probably read "2015-2017."

Had the Calvin Johnson play happened in the field of play he would’ve fallen down anyway because he was falling during the process of making the catch. It was a difficult catch, he leaped over a defender and as he was coming down lost his balance and fell.

The question the official had to ask himself wasn't whether Johnson would have fallen anyway. The catch rule in 2010 was not interested in what constituted falling. He had to ask himself whether there was enough time to make a football move, since, in the end zone, there would be no football move for him to see.

The athletic move he made to go up over the defender and make that catch was a football move in my book but because he was going to the ground he had to complete the process.

It should have been ruled a catch, if for no other reason than that he held the ball in one hand while he reached out with the other hand to brace himself. But I'm giving an opinion based on common sense here, not quoting the rule.

If you understand that the football move is what satisfies the time requirement after control and two feet down, how could you think his athletic move of going up over the defender could possibly be considered a football move? He didn't have any feet down yet.

 

[Reality]

*** WARNING! ***

Mentioning or referencing users in an effort to attack, insult, intimidate, etc. the user is not allowed! That includes group campaigns attempting to stop someone else from posting their opinions.

If you are incapable of making a strong argument against what the user is posting, then it is probably better to not post on the topic.

If a user bothers you, put them on ignore and you won't see their posts!

 

[KJJ]

I'd say most fans agree no one knows what a catch is anymore, but that most rational people wouldn't accept the "bad rule" explanation without looking at the rules first.

Any rational fan would accept the rule because there’s nothing they can do about it and every fan and team has to live with the same rule. Most fans don’t understand the rules when looking at them in the rulebook. The rules are officiated according to the rulebook but there’s a lot of judgment involved and that’s where the confusion comes in. Why did they call one play this way and another play that way when they looked similar? Looking similar isn’t looking the same. It all comes down to the judgment of the official. A lot of things have to be determined to make a proper call and not everyone is going to be happy with the final ruling.

 

[DogFace]

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.

Wait, that’s how the voice of reason speaks?

I thought you were all about adding an opposing view.

I was sure you would avoid the question.
I knew you couldn’t answer so this goes out to all:

How is the Dez catch different from the case play in this thread??

No one has answered that. One tried then changed the subject to something that no one knew what he was taking about.

The case play is nearly identical and that’s why there’s no answers.

By the 2014 rules per the case play used as an example for refs to understand how to rule on the play it was clearly a catch.

 

[percyhoward]

*** WARNING! ***

Mentioning or referencing users in an effort to attack, insult, intimidate, etc. the user is not allowed! That includes group campaigns attempting to stop someone else from posting their opinions.

If you are incapable of making a strong argument against what the user is posting, then it is probably better to not post on the topic.

If a user bothers you, put them on ignore and you won't see their posts!

Amen. Everyone on both sides, please heed this warning. As hard as it may be to avoid at times, try not to get personal.

 

[G2]

"Less filling."

 

[DogFace]

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.

I disagree, but you sure can feel however you like.

That still didnt answer the question.

How is the Dez catch different from the case play??

 

[KJJ]

It should have been ruled a catch, if for no other reason than that he held the ball in one hand while he reached out with the other hand to brace himself. But I'm giving an opinion based on common sense here, not quoting the rule.

We agree it should’ve been a catch and the Dez play should have been a catch but the rule negated both plays. They weren’t bad calls they were officiated according to the rule which is a bad rule.

 

[percyhoward]

Any rational fan would accept the rule because there’s nothing they can do about it and every fan and team has to live with the same rule.

Incompetence among authority figures can make one feel frustrated and helpless, but if those feelings make me unable to discuss their incompetence calmly and intelligently, then I'm more of a sheep than a human being.

Most fans don’t understand the rules when looking at them in the rulebook. The rules are officiated according to the rulebook but there’s a lot of judgment involved and that’s where the confusion comes in.

There's a certain percentage who don't. But that doesn't mean all of them can't, if they apply some critical thinking.

 

[KJJ]

If you understand that the football move is what satisfies the time requirement after control and two feet down, how could you think his athletic move of going up over the defender could possibly be considered a football move? He didn't have any feet down yet.

A football move doesn’t negate or satisfy any requirement if a receiver is going to the ground. A receiver leaping into the air over a defender and catching the football is a football move in my book. Both Calvin Johnson and Dez out battled defenders in midair to make great catches but they didn’t complete the catch process because both were going to the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

We agree it should’ve been a catch and the Dez play should have been a catch but the rule negated both plays. They weren’t bad calls they were officiated according to the rule which is a bad rule.

You could argue that the Johnson play was officiated according to the rule, because of the amount of subjectivity involved. There was no football move to look for, so it was left up to the officials as to whether Johnson had control long enough.

The Bryant play happened in the field of play, so there was a football move to look for.

Big difference.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I really don't agree that most fans accept the catch rule stuff. Of course, I can't speak for everyone, I can only offer an opinion, but I can speak for myself. I, myself, am about one more season away from just stopping with the NFL. Now, I know what a lot of you are probably thinking. Everybody says this and they still come back. I happen to agree with that position, for the most part. As a poster on this board for a very long time, I've seen it myself, over and over but this is really not about boards or bad calls or whatever else. This is really about the idea that Pro Football is using rules like this, to effect the game too much. It's too much Offense, it's too many ways to determine the outcome via officiating. It's moving too far away from a game that was entertaining, to a game that is just not as much fun to watch. The last Super Bowl was very competitive, to the end. All that and I really didn't enjoy it at all. All Offense, no D, except for the very last, where the Offense was so limited by time, situation and down and distance that it could be targeted. I just feel like the game is moving too far from what made the game fun, and all for the sake of what?

Yeah, I don't really agree with that point of view. JMO

 

[big dog cowboy]

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.

It all starts at the top.

 

[KJJ]

There's a certain percentage who don't. But that doesn't mean all of them can't, if they apply some critical thinking.

You and a few others are too preoccupied with what the rulebook says. All the judgment that’s involved in making these calls isn’t going to be covered in the rulebook. You need to focus on how the calls are being officiated on the field and take into account the judgment that’s involved in making some of these calls. The OP didn’t see any difference between the Ertz play and the Dez play and although many agreed with him on this board, any rational, objective fan can clearly see they’re not close to being the same. Ertz’ feet never left the ground. He caught the ball and immediately turned up field establishing himself as a runner. When Dez’s feet contacted the ground he was clearly falling therefore he had to complete the process.

 

[percyhoward]

A football move doesn’t negate or satisfy any requirement if a receiver is going to the ground.

Please read this carefully and repeatedly, if necessary.

Prior to 2015, a football move is what completed the catch process.

A player could only be considered a receiver going to the ground if he did not complete the catch process before hitting the ground.

If Dez made even one football move before he hit the ground, he completed the catch process.

A receiver leaping into the air over a defender and catching the football is a football move in my book.

Just not in the rule book, which says the football move has to happen after control and two feet down.

But again, I think the Johnson play was a catch because he took one hand off the ball and didn't lose control until the ball touched the ground. If he took one hand off of it, he obviously wasn't still trying to catch it.

 

[blindzebra]

Amen. Everyone on both sides, please heed this warning. As hard as it may be to avoid at times, try not to get personal.

Percy you are a good dude, and supply more factual data on football than probably any poster on this forum. So I will leave the thread with this, which I am sure you will agree is a concise, logical, and accurate view on the play.

For all who might be confused by all of the misleading posts on here by a few of the posters who seem to lack the ability to read and interpret rules. I have officiated multiple sports for 25 plus years...explains the username...and I actually TAUGHT CLASSES for beginning officials. I know what I am talking about when it comes to rules and how case book plays work. I would not be bragging to say I would have been more qualified to have held Blandino's position being he was an ex comedian who NEVER OFFICIATED A GAME IN HIS LIFE.
Here are the facts:
On the 4th and 2 play, Romo threw deep left to Dez. Dez high pointed it and brought it in gaining full control with both hands when his second foot lands. His body turns to his left, he takes a step and during this step, he becomes tangled up with Shields. As he starts to go down he moves the ball into his left hand...which is his dominate hand, and the one nearest the goalline...with his right hand he braces and simultaneously pushes off his left leg which goes from bent to fully extended, and this tosses up turf as he propels himself toward the endzone. As he lands just short of the goalline his control of the ball is temporarily lost.

In 2014 the rules for a catch read that a player needed to have control, have two feet down in bounds, and make or have the time to make a move common to the game.

The 2014 Case Book had the following play:

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.

For those who don't know what a case book is, it is a supplement to the rule book that presents possible scenarios of plays that could happen under certain rules to show how the rule should be applied correctly. I will also mention that a major part of officiating is understanding how different rules line up to cover a play.

The case play presented above mixes two rules and a subsection of one of them. The first part is the catch rule, and under that rule is an item about going to the ground, which states a RECEIVER going to the ground, with or without contact, must maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground. Now back to that earlier catch rule: control, two feet, and time to or an act common to the game. Why is this important? Because completing the act of a catch turns a RECEIVER into a RUNNER. Now that rule comes into play in terms of fumbles or down by contact.

Now let's review both what Dez did and the case play presented above. In both, the receiver controlled the ball and was contacted by a defender causing them to go to the ground. The case play receiver landed on one foot, Dez landed on two. So going back to the catch rule Dez has completed 1. Control 2. Two feet down in bounds. In the case play the receiver takes a second step after contact, so now both have completed two of the three steps required to go from a RECEIVER to a RUNNER. At this point the case play RECEIVER braces and lunges to complete the third step of the catch process and is now considered a RUNNER. Dez meanwhile turns his body from the opposite sideline toward the goalline, steps with his left foot and his left leg bends at the knee as he continues down to the ground, Dez takes his right hand off the ball, with his left hand he starts to extend the ball while his right arm braces to keep his body up, with his left leg he pushes off, throws up turf, and his leg goes from bent to fully extended, he extends the ball even farther just before he hits the ground. Now the question to ask yourself here is, if the case play the RECEIVER just braced and lunged to become a RUNNER, under the catch rule what did Dez do? By my count, he turned, took a step, moved the ball, braced, pushed off his left leg, and extended the ball. If the two acts the case play player did made him a RUNNER, what does the SIX ACTS DEZ DID make him?

All involved with the overturn talked post game about football moves, so regardless of what some want you to believe, in 2014 an act common to the game (football move) mattered when going to the ground, just as the case book play clearly states. In 2015 the NFL altered the rule and changed part three of the process to upright long enough to become a runner. Why is this so-called clarification crucial? Because it negates the catch process during going to the ground. In other words, the RECEIVER must become a RUNNER before they start the going to the ground process. Yes, I am aware that the case play above stuck around for the 2015 rule and case book, however it has not existed since 2015 and it contradicts the new wording of the rule. Let's just assume 2015 was bad editing for the case book. The Dez case play included in the 2016 rule book, that conveniently left out a third step and bracing, that said reaching did not make you a runner, was just another attempt to justify an incorrect ruling under the 2014 rules. The video by Pereria that uses Dez as an example, is just an example of how THE 2015 RULE CHANGE APPLIES AND IN NO WAY FITS WITHIN THE RULES IN 2014.

And since blaming Dez for reaching came up it got me thinking...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.



I am out.

 

[KJJ]

You could argue that the Johnson play was officiated according to the rule, because of the amount of subjectivity involved. There was no football move to look for, so it was left up to the officials as to whether Johnson had control long enough.

The Bryant play happened in the field of play, so there was a football move to look for.

Big difference.

There was no need to look for a football move with the Calvin Johnson play because he falling to the ground and the rule is clear that a receiver that’s going to the ground has to complete the process. Once they saw Calvin Johnson falling to the ground and losing the ball there wasn’t anything else to look for.