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

[percyhoward]

What do you mean that I say didn't matter?

Are you no longer saying a player couldn't make a football move while falling prior to 2015?

And are you ever going to weigh in on the examples I provided?

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.

What point do you think you're making here? Was there still a time requirement in 2015? Of course. Was it still based on a football move? Of course not.

 

[MarcusRock]

I agree with the Fitz call but it’s close. He kept his feet on the ground, made the catch and turned up field. Very similar to the Ertz play. A lot of these calls come down to judgment because some are very close. Not all are going to be clear cut.

If the Fitz call was ruled a catch it was ruled a catch for the same reason the Thomas play and Ertz play was ruled a catch. They were all on their feet. Dez went up and was coming down all the way.

 

[CCBoy]

Are you no longer saying a player couldn't make a football move while falling prior to 2015?


What point do you think you're making here? Was there still a time requirement in 2015? Of course. Was it still based on a football move? Of course not.

 

[percyhoward]

That an official could declare a player either had time to perform a football move (2014) or was clearly a runner solely based on time (2015) meaning nothing changed in the rules from 2014 to 2015 like you were saying it did. Whether you had "time enough" to perform an act (to be a runner) in 2014 or upright "long enough" to be a runner the rules are the same.

The football moved was removed from the rule book as the standard for becoming a runner and replaced by "upright long enough" in 2015.

You've found a few hypothetical plays that are examples of an official not being able to look at a football move.

I'm supposed to be foolish enough to think there's some kind of connection?

 

[KJJ]

If the Fitz call was ruled a catch it was ruled a catch for the same reason the Thomas play and Ertz play was ruled a catch. They were all on their feet. Dez went up and was coming down all the way.

That was the key element to all three of those plays their feet were on the ground enabling them to quickly secure the ball and make a turn up field, which established them as runners. Going up after the ball especially battling a defender in the case of Johnson and Dez requires the receiver to make adjustments to secure the catch and by that point their momentum is taking them to the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

If the Fitz call was ruled a catch it was ruled a catch for the same reason the Thomas play and Ertz play was ruled a catch. They were all on their feet. Dez went up and was coming down all the way.

Blandino explained why the Fitzgerald play was a catch.

“The official on the field ruled that the player had the ball long enough to be a runner, and if it’s not clear and obvious that he was not a runner, then the call on the field must stand,” Blandino said, emphasizing that Fitzgerald turned his body to move up the field before landing on the ground. “This is close. It’s questionable as to whether he did become a runner. And that’s the key. Again, the basic premise of replay is that the call on field is presumed correct unless we have indisputable evidence that it’s incorrect. This was not indisputable, not definitive. There is a subjective element to this rule. . . . It was questionable. That’s why the call on the field stood.”

 

[MarcusRock]

The football moved was removed from the rule book as the standard for becoming a runner and replaced by "upright long enough" in 2015.

You've found a few hypothetical plays that are examples of an official not being able to look at a football move.

I'm supposed to be foolish enough to think there's some kind of connection?

No. Instead of "performing an act common to the game," part c of the 3-part process was re-worded as "clearly becoming a runner." Are there observable acts an official can see that someone has clearly become a runner?

Then Note 1 in the 2014 rule ("time enough" to perform an act common to the game) was moved into Item 1 of the rule to note that going to the ground kicks in if he is not upright "long enough" to demonstrate he is clearly a runner. How do you demonstrate that? By EITHER those observable acts or in the examples I cite where he might be restricted from performing one of those observable acts by a defender and he is deemed a runner by time alone.

So tell me where football move was "removed" from the rule book as the standard for becoming a runner. I just showed you how it's still there.

 

[MarcusRock]

Blandino explained why the Fitzgerald play was a catch.

“The official on the field ruled that the player had the ball long enough to be a runner, and if it’s not clear and obvious that he was not a runner, then the call on the field must stand,” Blandino said, emphasizing that Fitzgerald turned his body to move up the field before landing on the ground. “This is close. It’s questionable as to whether he did become a runner. And that’s the key. Again, the basic premise of replay is that the call on field is presumed correct unless we have indisputable evidence that it’s incorrect. This was not indisputable, not definitive. There is a subjective element to this rule. . . . It was questionable. That’s why the call on the field stood.”

Maybe you can tell me why this is significant tomorrow. It's past midnight and I'm going to bed.

 

[CCBoy]

No. Instead of "performing an act common to the game," part c of the 3-part process was re-worded as "clearly becoming a runner." Are there observable acts an official can see that someone has clearly become a runner?

Then Note 1 in the 2014 rule ("time enough" to perform an act common to the game) was moved into Item 1 of the rule to note that going to the ground kicks in if he is not upright "long enough" to demonstrate he is clearly a runner. How do you demonstrate that? By EITHER those observable acts or in the examples I cite where he might be restricted from performing one of those observable acts by a defender and he is deemed a runner by time alone.

So tell me where football move was "removed" from the rule book as the standard for becoming a runner. I just showed you how it's still there.

I'll assist here, Percy...and this discussion started around the action of Dez Bryant, who first completed two steps and extended. Not where does the 'not mentioned' stop watch kick in to invalidate the executed extension with two valid steps. What now is determined to be the required time to complete those actions within? That does not exist, but the establishing acts do.

 

[percyhoward]

No. Instead of "performing an act common to the game," part c of the 3-part process was re-worded as "clearly becoming a runner." .

You have to use completely different words when you're describing something that's completely different. They "re-word" the name of the President every time a new one gets elected.

Are there observable acts an official can see that someone has clearly become a runner?

Then Note 1 in the 2014 rule ("time enough" to perform an act common to the game) was moved into Item 1 of the rule to note that going to the ground kicks in if he is not upright "long enough" to demonstrate he is clearly a runner. How do you demonstrate that? By EITHER those observable acts or in the examples I cite where he might be restricted from performing one of those observable acts by a defender and he is deemed a runner by time alone.

So tell me where football move was "removed" from the rule book as the standard for becoming a runner. I just showed you how.

None of this changes the fact that, before 2015 they were looking for a physical act, and after that they were looking at body position.

If you want to see where the football move was removed, look at the shrinking of part C of the catch process. Or read Pereira's reaction when the new catch rule was announced.

2014
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.).

2015
(c) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner.​

 

[percyhoward]

Maybe you can tell me why this is significant.

It's significant because it reflects the basic premise of replay, which is that the call on field is presumed correct unless there's indisputable evidence that it’s incorrect.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Good job fellas...I'm almost made my mind up; I'm gonna need at least 6-7 more pages though before you convinced me.

 

[DogFace]

It's the difference as in, Dez didn't lunge and the caseplayer did. So if people are using the caseplay to say that Dez' play should have been a catch, the lunge is the difference as to why it's not a catch.

I’ve asked you this a few times. Why would the lunge be the difference if the caseplayer’s lunge was NOT part of the process of the completion in the case play.

Some say Dez’s lunge was a football move and part of the process. I’m not arguing that, whether true or not.

The caseplay demonstrates the lunge does not have to be part of the completion because the time element has already been satisfied. Just as with the Dez catch.

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 b

 

[DogFace]

Read the play again. He was going to the ground prior to getting his 2nd foot down. Even if your belief that A and B automatically satisfy C was correct - which it isn't, there'd be no point in having C if that was the case - he didn't satisfy the requirement of having 2 feet down before going to the ground. Under no circumstance would time have been satisfied before he was going to the ground. Not according to the rule as it is written, and certainly not according to your misguided interpretation.

Are you speaking of the Dez catch or the case play?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 b

 

[DogFace]

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

At least someone finally addressed that contradiction of saying that caseplay was a good example to prove Dez did not catch it.

Thank you for seeing it and pointing that out.

Others won’t even address the fact that either the casebook play was wrong or since the play was nearly identical to the Dez catch then that made the Dez catch a completion.

I disagree the case play is wrong, but I respect the fact you’d admit it had to be. Others can’t.

 

[RodeoJake]

All this talk about the catch/no catch only takes the focus off the play that was really the pivotal moment in the game: Murray's fumble. He had an open field in front of him. If he had carried the ball securely, he probably scores, or at the very least takes it close enough for us to score a play or two later. It was inexcusable. We score there, and we win. It would have broken the Pack's spirit.

 

[Jake]

Good job fellas...I'm almost made my mind up; I'm gonna need at least 6-7 more pages though before you convinced me.

 

[G2]

All this talk about the catch/no catch only takes the focus off the play that was really the pivotal moment in the game: Murray's fumble. He had an open field in front of him. If he had carried the ball securely, he probably scores, or at the very least takes it close enough for us to score a play or two later. It was inexcusable. We score there, and we win. It would have broken the Pack's spirit.

Wasn't that in the 3rd quarter? I think going for the end zone on 4th and 2 was much more pivotal in the 4th quarter.

 

[MarcusRock]

You have to use completely different words when you're describing something that's completely different. They "re-word" the name of the President every time a new one gets elected.


None of this changes the fact that, before 2015 they were looking for a physical act, and after that they were looking at body position.

If you want to see where the football move was removed, look at the shrinking of part C of the catch process. Or read Pereira's reaction when the new catch rule was announced.

2014
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.).

2015
(c) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner.​

Not what I asked you. I asked you are there observable acts an official can see that demonstrates if someone has clearly become a runner?

The words football move, or "act common to the game" were replaced but go up a few lines here to the question I asked you.

 

[MarcusRock]

It's significant because it reflects the basic premise of replay, which is that the call on field is presumed correct unless there's indisputable evidence that it’s incorrect.

What's not indisputable about not correctly applying the going to the ground rule the first time around? Everyone agreed that it did apply. Once the reverse angle the field official was not privy to clearly showed the ball hit the ground, then it was an open and shut case. Replay did its job on a rule that people hate. That's the reason for the tumult as it was for the James play.