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.
So I think the reason there is confusion is really based on what the actual rules say and then what these use cases say.
The rules are clear as they stand alone. My argument has always been to explain how the rules show Dez didn't catch the ball.
In my opinion, the case play that folks are hanging on to from 2014 and I believe the year before, where they talk about a player "bracing" themselves on the
So I'm done debating this. If the case play was an actual rule then it should have been defined as one. And the definition would then include actual language to say how and what qualifies as a football move while going to the ground.
It seems the case play was there to provide an out for officials to call going to the ground plays that look like catches as catches. The point the he caught it gang are trying to prove. If that is the intent, then define in the rule what qualifies as becoming a runner while going to the ground.
The problem with that, as Pereira has said, is that it becomes hard to do. But they can't try and have it both ways. That's why everyone is confused.
Here's how I see the rule today.
You really have two situations where a player can catch a ball.
1. If he is upright
2. If he is falling
So now how do you define what a catch is for both?
If a player is upright they can become a runner. This is to give them time to secure the ball. So you have:
1. Possess the ball
2. Two feet down while possessing the ball
Now you could simply stop there. Some would say you should. That is really all a catch should be. But if you did you would see many more fumbles. So they interjected:
3. Become a runner
Becoming a runner or making an act or having time. This is all there to allow the player to protect himself and secure the ball. This is a judgement call.
Now, if a player is falling. This is a bigger judgment call. And, as in the Fitz, I don't agree with the judgement made.
To deem a player is going to the ground you have to believe that the player would have no way of staying upright. If you determine this then they injected this:
3. Maintain control through the process of contacting the ground.
That, to me, is the equivalent of becoming a runner for a player who is upright. Since you can't run while you are falling. If you are falling, you first hit the ground. You can then get back up and run, but an additional act of getting off the ground is required.
So there should be no mention of making a common act or becoming a runner while someone is falling. And you are either upright or falling. And those are judgement calls. And if you are falling, you can't become a runner.
Now, you could remove maintaining control from a player going to the ground. Just like you could remove becoming a runner for an upright player. So a player falling would simply need to possess the ball and as soon as he has two feet down, or more likely, have any other part of his body touch the ground, then it's a catch. That's what a lot of people would think a catch to be. But again, now you are opening up the chance for many more fumbles.
But what we can't have is some mix match interpretation where there is some reference to being able to become a runner while falling. That's why I've said that the rules need to be rewritten so at least we all know what it is they are looking for and enforcing.
Now if they want to remove become a runner for an upright player or remove maintain control through contacting the ground for a falling player, fine.
Or if they want to allow for some other measure of security for a player who is falling. Fine. But then clearly define that in the rule and not try to kind of have that, but not really.
I don't if any of this helps. It's just how I see it. I believe it's how Pereira sees it. If you or anyone else see it differently then so be it. But I'm done talking about it until or if they change the rule.
