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

[percyhoward]

@percyhoward or @blindzebra can you tell me why these are slightly different ?

Are they both definitely from 2014?

It's an example of a player performing a football move while falling, and it's straight out of the 2014 Casebook.

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.

Also, you can go to any of Blandino's video explanations prior to 2015, and you will not find even one example of a play where he says the player has to be upright to perform the football move.

Also, Dez was clearly falling when he performed the reach that Blandino says he "absolutely" looked at, and said wasn't obvious enough, because it needed to be with two hands, or with his arm extended. He did not simply say, "A player can't perform a football move while falling," which is all he would have had to say if it were true. Forget the fact that nobody previously had ever said you needed to use two hands to reach in order for it to be a football move. Forget the fact that if Dez had extended his arm, he'd have only been moving the ball closer to the sideline, so he had to keep his elbow bent in order to keep the ball closer to the goal line.

Blandino, like most people I guess, has this classic image in his mind of a player stretching out to break the plane of the goal line. But in his classic image, the player is always falling toward the goal line. The football move involves trying to break the plane, period. No matter where the player is in relation to the plane. It is illogical to say the player has to "extend his arm" for the goal line no matter where the goal line is. What makes it a football move isn't how the image looks, it's that he's trying to score. So the only way it needs to look is that it needs to look like he's trying to score.

Draw a line that extends his arm straight out, and that line points wide left of the plane. Because Shields' leg whip took Dez's right leg out from under him, this is not the classic image that they have in their minds of a player falling toward the goal line. Extending the arm doesn't improve his chances of scoring as much as keeping his elbow bent. That's why he's keeping his elbow bent. He's trying to score, not get out of bounds.

 

[percyhoward]

He wants changes to the rule, but he agrees with Dez not catching the ball.

That was from December 18. This article is from December 26.

"The fix seems simple to me. Treat the receiver who is going to the ground the same as the receiver who is upright and on his feet. It is control, two feet or another body part other than the hand or foot, and time – in this case having the ball long enough after control and two feet to be able to do something with it like turn upfield, lunge, reach, etc. Also, make that element of time not reviewable in replay. It’s too subjective. Review, control and two feet, but not time...Let’s have all of us who had any part in tinkering with this rule since 1999 admit that we got off track...Make this change and...Dez Bryant catches that pass in 2015...."

Here's another one from three weeks later:

"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."

 

[Doomsay]

58 pages

Rule isn't/wasn't clear & not evenly adjudicated.

 

[nathanlt]

That was from December 18. This article is from December 26.

"The fix seems simple to me. Treat the receiver who is going to the ground the same as the receiver who is upright and on his feet. It is control, two feet or another body part other than the hand or foot, and time – in this case having the ball long enough after control and two feet to be able to do something with it like turn upfield, lunge, reach, etc. Also, make that element of time not reviewable in replay. It’s too subjective. Review, control and two feet, but not time...Let’s have all of us who had any part in tinkering with this rule since 1999 admit that we got off track...Make this change and...Dez Bryant catches that pass in 2015...."

Here's another one from three weeks later:

"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."

Wow, it sounds like rules experts are laying the ground work for an NFL admission that they were wrong about the Dez catch. Far fetched, of course, but public comments are something I never thought I'd see, especially from Periera

What a find, to get those articles. When the NFL finally comes around and admits that errors were made in multiple games over nearly a decade, this catch nightmare can come to an end.

 

[percyhoward]

58 pages

Rule isn't/wasn't clear & not evenly adjudicated.

The rule was changed. The standard for becoming a runner was changed in 2015 so that replay officials would not have to determine what was a catch until after a player hit the ground and maintained control of the ball. Made it easier for them, but meanwhile they lost sight of what a catch was.

 

[MarcusRock]

Right. In the end zone. The act wouldn't occur in the end zone, and they didn't want to make a separate rule for end zone plays.

Where's the proof for "they didn't want to make a separate rule for end zone plays?" That's you again filling in information that's not there. These rulebooks are in excess of 200 pages. One more rule would have been a burden, lol?

No time for a football move happens all over the place, not just the end zone. A WR catches a pass facing a QB, gets hit immediately from behind, they hit the ground, the ball pops out, no catch. Same situation but the defender holds up the runner, tries to strip the ball out, isn't successful, then just completes the tackle and the ball pops when hitting the ground again. In the second case, the official has to judge whether the WR had time enough to make a football move as the defender held him up (2014). In 2015, the official can deem him clearly a runner because he was held and prevented from making a football move. It is STILL a time determination the same as it was in 2014.

Please tell me what you think the football move was supposed to demonstrate, if not that the player had become a runner. Yes, a runner does certain things. Those things are called football moves. When the official saw a football move, he knew the TIME requirement for becoming a runner was met.

See above. A player can be prevented from making a football move by a defender. You see it with defenders trying to hold up a player to strip the ball all the time. Some players just stand still and concentrate on maintaining possession until the whistle blows. Why does the whistle blow? Because in 2015 he's clearly a runner solely due to the TIME he has possession of the ball and on 2 feet. The rule is the same.

They're not looking for "acts" according to the 2017 rules. They're looking at whether the body of a player is upright, and how long it stays upright.

If he performs an act to clearly become a runner then he is considered upright. Use the case example presented that is in the 2014 and 2015 rulebook. Did it say how low to the ground the receiver was? No. All that mattered was that he lunged. You can lunge from the slimmest of angles as long as you execute. Did Dez? Nope. But lunging would have clearly demonstrated that he was a runner now matter how low to the ground he was.

They're so far off track, that they've gone from asking "what is a catch?' to asking "what is going to the ground?"

Yes, all the major players were asked. That includes the head of officials who overturned a catch that should have stood, the ref who worked for him, and the former head of officials who now looks back on this play as an example of "falling into the trap of becoming too technical and losing sight of the most important part of the decision, which is what was called on the field."

And? Those are the rules. You want to ex-post facto apply Pereira's proposal as some sort of justification? It's not even the rule yet, if it ever will be. I already said Pereira doesn't like what the rules are but states that the James play as well as the Dez play fell under the rules of going to the ground trumping the 3-part process. Lunging was the get out of jail free card but Dez didn't execute.

 

[BlindFaith]

What part of the 2014 rules leads you to this conclusion?

We already know a player could make a football move while falling, so what is it that you see there that makes you, or anyone, continue to think this?

Are you saying he didn't make any football moves?

PASSING PLAYS
Whether a pass is complete or incomplete is reviewable at all times. This includes in the field of play, at a sideline,
and in an end zone.
In order to complete a catch there are three primary requirements that must be met. First, the player must gain
firm grip and control of the ball. Second, he must get two feet or another part of the body, other than his hands, on
the ground inbounds. And, after these first two requirements have been met, he must maintain control of the ball
long enough to perform an act common to the game. Such act is defined as being able to pitch, pass, or advance
the ball. It is not necessary for the player to commit the act, provided he maintains control of the ball long enough
to do so. If the player does not complete all three of the requirements, then the pass is incomplete. These
guidelines apply to both the on-field officials and replay.

In all pass situations, if a player goes to the ground before completing the requirements for a catch, he must
maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. In the field of play or in the end zone
if the player loses control of the ball during the process and it hits the ground then the pass is incomplete. If the
receiver is contacting the sideline any loss of control during the process of the catch will make the pass
incomplete, regardless of whether the ball touches the ground.

A.R. 15.93 Going to the ground, does not complete process
Third-and-5 on A30. Pass over middle is ruled complete at the B45. Replays show that the receiver controlled the
ball while going to the ground, but when his upper body hit, the nose of the ball touched the ground and then he
lost control of it.
Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. A’s ball fourth-and-5 on A30. Reset game clock to when the ball hit the
ground. Receiver is going to the ground and must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting
the ground.

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.

I see where you could make a case based on this. But this is clearly either not written correctly or simply not correct based on the actual rules themselves. Why is it buried at the bottom and if so important, not called out and defined on the rule itself?

This AR says that the catch is completed, not as the rule itself says, but rather due to time as he's falling satisfies the rule. This goes directly against the actual rule itself.

The example even specifically says that the player only had 1 foot down and was going to the ground.

The rule says that the player has not completed the process unless all the following requirements are met:
1. Possession of the ball
2. Two feet down
3. Make act common to the game

If those acts aren't completed before the player goes to the ground they have to maintain possession through contacting the ground.

In the AR it clearly says the player only had one foot down and was going to the ground. That means the process wasn't completed and since he was going to the ground - we know the rest.

The AR for some reason deviates from the actual rule and says that there was some time element that satisfied the catch process. The time element or becoming a runner can only occur if the player is not going to the ground. Again, per the rule. And I have no idea the relevance of even adding in the lunge part. They are trying to say the catch was already made even before the lunge.

So I have no idea why it's in there, but it clearly is not the rule, but rather "someone" adding something that is in direct conflict with the actual rule. Maybe Blandino added it. Sounds like something a complete idiot would add.

 

[CCBoy]

The rule was changed. The standard for becoming a runner was changed in 2015 so that replay officials would not have to determine what was a catch until after a player hit the ground and maintained control of the ball. Made it easier for them, but meanwhile they lost sight of what a catch was.

Run Forrest...Run.

 

[MarcusRock]

They completely changed the standard for the time requirement that completes the catch process.

You can see a football move when it happens, so you know if the replay official missed it. Notice with the new standard how there's nothing to look for in the replay? No precise moment to identify when the catch process was completed. So we just sit and wait for the decision based on the replay official's opinion that can't be questioned. "Same rule" my butt.

See previous post for the application of time requirements. If you can't see someone clearly become a runner via acts or via time if they are held by a defender, then you don't want to see it. You're acting as if becoming a runner wasn't a thing in 2014 but then was all of a sudden in 2015.

 

[CCBoy]

Where's the proof for "they didn't want to make a separate rule for end zone plays?" That's you again filling in information that's not there. These rulebooks are in excess of 200 pages. One more rule would have been a burden, lol?

No time for a football move happens all over the place, not just the end zone. A WR catches a pass facing a QB, gets hit immediately from behind, they hit the ground, the ball pops out, no catch. Same situation but the defender holds up the runner, tries to strip the ball out, isn't successful, then just completes the tackle and the ball pops when hitting the ground again. In the second case, the official has to judge whether the WR had time enough to make a football move as the defender held him up (2014). In 2015, the official can deem him clearly a runner because he was held and prevented from making a football move. It is STILL a time determination the same as it was in 2014.



See above. A player can be prevented from making a football move by a defender. You see it with defenders trying to hold up a player to strip the ball all the time. Some players just stand still and concentrate on maintaining possession until the whistle blows. Why does the whistle blow? Because in 2015 he's clearly a runner solely due to the TIME he has possession of the ball and on 2 feet. The rule is the same.



If he performs an act to clearly become a runner then he is considered upright. Use the case example presented that is in the 2014 and 2015 rulebook. Did it say how low to the ground the receiver was? No. All that mattered was that he lunged. You can lunge from the slimmest of angles as long as you execute. Did Dez? Nope. But lunging would have clearly demonstrated that he was a runner now matter how low to the ground he was.



And? Those are the rules. You want to ex-post facto apply Pereira's proposal as some sort of justification? It's not even the rule yet, if it ever will be. I already said Pereira doesn't like what the rules are but states that the James play as well as the Dez play fell under the rules of going to the ground trumping the 3-part process. Lunging was the get out of jail free card but Dez didn't execute.

Keep attempting to ignore defining elements...the only way to advance the ball is to establish a runner. That is by hand off, lateral, or pass...

Now that element is a description of a runner's move and possession...except for boundary involvements, that is not then determined by stop watch or erased with the involvement of two feet in bounds or two steps. Not, remove those elements from view and blame Percy once again...

 

[BlindFaith]

You’ve been at this a long time. Since the very beginning I believe. I respect your arguments. They are well thought out and have some validity. You’re one of the few on that side of the argument that genuinely seems as intelligent and know the rules as well as Percy and blindzebra Who are obviously spearheading the other side of the argument. He may have backed some in a corner finally and blindzebras case book play( I believe he first posted it) is hard to argue with.

He never got an answer so I will continue to ask.

So is your opinion that the case play was incorrect? It was nearly identical to the Dez catch.

Short answer is yes. This case, I believe to be totally incorrect based on the actual rules themselves. See above.

 

[CCBoy]

See previous post for the application of time requirements. If you can't see someone clearly become a runner via acts or via time if they are held by a defender, then you don't want to see it. You're acting as if becoming a runner wasn't a thing in 2014 but then was all of a sudden in 2015.

C'mon, what Percy argued was that the application was a marred application and contrary to the historical place for ball advancement in the sport of football. Kind of like saying a Federal Agency can stand on merit of it's own view...without any outside review. Just contrary to common sense and applications of standards. Let's see what the newly formed Supreme Court rules on such Agency enforcement and what is done to an actual act of running by the NFL?

 

[BlindFaith]

Keep attempting to ignore defining elements...the only way to advance the ball is to establish a runner. That is by hand off, lateral, or pass...

Now that element is a description of a runner's move and possession...except for boundary involvements, that is not then determined by stop watch or erased with the involvement of two feet in bounds or two steps. Not, remove those elements from view and blame Percy once again...

Becoming a runner is poor language.

But you don't have to actually advance the ball to become a runner. You could catch the ball and just stand there. So there is a time element added. That is to protect the receiver. They have to either actually secure the ball, ie become a runner, or have the time to do so.

 

[BlindFaith]

C'mon, what Percy argued was that the application was a marred application and contrary to the historical place for ball advancement in the sport of football. Kind of like saying a Federal Agency can stand on merit of it's own view...without any outside review. Just contrary to common sense and applications of standards. Let's see what the newly formed Supreme Court rules on such Agency enforcement and what is done to an actual act of running by the NFL?

Percy is arguing that the Dez catch should have been a catch. The fact that it was called correctly per the rule isn't debatable, or shouldn't be. The NFL agrees it was called correctly.

The question is if and how to change it.

 

[CCBoy]

Becoming a runner is poor language.

But you don't have to actually advance the ball to become a runner. You could catch the ball and just stand there. So there is a time element added. That is to protect the receiver. They have to either actually secure the ball, ie become a runner, or have the time to do so.

Advancement isn't the question, but in truth, advancement revolves around the core of the game. If one messes with that, then one has made another game from one that was designed to be individual striving centered.

 

[CCBoy]

Percy is arguing that the Dez catch should have been a catch. The fact that it was called correctly per the rule isn't debatable, or shouldn't be. The NFL agrees it was called correctly.

The question is if and how to change it.

C'mon, look back at that time line again...as a ruling was made post Dez catch. Naw, Percy is on the same trail...

 

[MarcusRock]

Prior to 2015, it did not subordinate the catch process, and that's the reason Bryant's catch should have stood.

Since 2015, it does subordinate the catch process, and that's the problem with the current standard.

False. Pereira stated that going to the ground trumps the catch process. " .... as with Dez Bryant a couple of years ago, you must hold on to the ball." Direct linkage to Dez.

 

[BlindFaith]

Advancement isn't the question, but in truth, advancement revolves around the core of the game. If one messes with that, then one has made another game from one that was designed to be individual striving centered.

Look at the link I posted. The one that shows many different plays regarding just this topic.

Becoming a runner is subjective. As the examples show. In these bang, bang plays it's hard to determine.

The balance, as I've said before, is to protect the receiver from fumbles and interceptions. Making it as simple as two hands on the ball and two feet down does not protect the player.

Allowing them to do so is a judgment call.

 

[BlindFaith]

C'mon, look back at that time line again...as a ruling was made post Dez catch. Naw, Percy is on the same trail...

What ruling are you talking about? Sorry, you have me confused as to what you are even talking about.

 

[percyhoward]

Where's the proof for "they didn't want to make a separate rule for end zone plays?" That's you again filling in information that's not there. These rulebooks are in excess of 200 pages. One more rule would have been a burden, lol?

No time for a football move happens all over the place, not just the end zone. A WR catches a pass facing a QB, gets hit immediately from behind, they hit the ground, the ball pops out, no catch. Same situation but the defender holds up the runner, tries to strip the ball out, isn't successful, then just completes the tackle and the ball pops when hitting the ground again. In the second case, the official has to judge whether the WR had time enough to make a football move as the defender held him up (2014). In 2015, the official can deem him clearly a runner because he was held and prevented from making a football move. It is STILL a time determination the same as it was in 2014.



See above. A player can be prevented from making a football move by a defender. You see it with defenders trying to hold up a player to strip the ball all the time. Some players just stand still and concentrate on maintaining possession until the whistle blows. Why does the whistle blow? Because in 2015 he's clearly a runner solely due to the TIME he has possession of the ball and on 2 feet. The rule is the same.



If he performs an act to clearly become a runner then he is considered upright. Use the case example presented that is in the 2014 and 2015 rulebook. Did it say how low to the ground the receiver was? No. All that mattered was that he lunged. You can lunge from the slimmest of angles as long as you execute. Did Dez? Nope. But lunging would have clearly demonstrated that he was a runner now matter how low to the ground he was.



And? Those are the rules. You want to ex-post facto apply Pereira's proposal as some sort of justification? It's not even the rule yet, if it ever will be. I already said Pereira doesn't like what the rules are but states that the James play as well as the Dez play fell under the rules of going to the ground trumping the 3-part process. Lunging was the get out of jail free card but Dez didn't execute.

Blandino wasn't even looking at the lunge.

He said he looked at the reach, because he had to. He'd already said in previous explanations that a reach to break the plane established the player as a runner, because it was a football move.

Not to mention the fact that he ignored the other football moves, of course.