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

[LACowboysFan1]

Not much of a consolation, but with the iggles win we still have the only SB losses Brady/Belichick have are to NFC East teams, no other division has done that....

 

[vaturkey]

I thought after review, that he clearly had caught the ball and was making a football move and then broke the end zone line. Dez didn't make a football move and was still securing the catch. Just my opinion, flame away. PS. The one that should have been overturned was the end zone catch by the Philly RB. There is no way IMO that he had that ball secured until after this toe his the end zone line.

 

[diefree666]

The real problem started with the stupidity of the committee that decided to change a fundamental rule of the NFL because of ONE play (Megatron) that is the beginning of all this GARBAGE about football moves and so on. You should never change a fundamental rule because of ONE play. That started down this increasingly IDIOTIC road.

They keep making it harder and harder for anyone to figure out and because of that we have more and more plays that are clearly STUPIDLY interpreted by the officials.

As I said, just about every person who played football said Dez's catch was a catch; the only ones that did not were NFL shills.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

I thought after review, that he clearly had caught the ball and was making a football move and then broke the end zone line. Dez didn't make a football move and was still securing the catch. Just my opinion, flame away. PS. The one that should have been overturned was the end zone catch by the Philly RB. There is no way IMO that he had that ball secured until after this toe his the end zone line.

I see your point, but just to nit-pick, when Dez went up for the ball he was facing back towards Romo, and had to turn to lunge for the end zone. To me that's a football move, he could have just fallen down on his back and not lunged for the end zone, but making the decision to turn his body and go for the end zone made it a football move.

Regardless, that wasn't the last play of the game, even if he'd made the catch for a td Rodgers being Rodgers and the Dallas defense being the Dallas defense, all the Packers needed was a field goal to win and that was hardly an impossibility...

 

[dirtycallahan]

The Dez catch is like the Romo football IQ barometer.

 

[diefree666]

The Dez catch is like the Romo football IQ barometer.

now some like the eagle troll marcus rock just want to argue the rule; as it is currently written. They have to do that since anyone with any common sense knows the rule is total Horse Crap.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

"The real problem started with the stupidity of the committee that decided to change a fundamental rule of the NFL because of ONE play"

They do that all the time, how about the "horse collar" rule? T.O. gets his ankle broken because of that type of tackle, it's now a penalty. Players got tackled that way often before and didn't get hurt, then because a high-profile player gets hurt, the whole rule is changed...

 

[Hennessy_King]

"The real problem started with the stupidity of the committee that decided to change a fundamental rule of the NFL because of ONE play"

They do that all the time, how about the "horse collar" rule? T.O. gets his ankle broken because of that type of tackle, it's now a penalty. Players got tackled that way often before and didn't get hurt, then because a high-profile player gets hurt, the whole rule is changed...

It was McNabb and we can thank Roy Williams for that rule.

 

[MarcusRock]

Dez's UnCatch was a catch under the rules at the time
Moreover, it was ruled a catch *on the field*, and it's simply a joke to claim that there was *indisputable* visual evidence to over turn the call on the field, on probably the most disputed call of the decade

NFL officiating totally screwed the pooch on that call

What was indisputable was that the wrong rule was applied by the field official. So when you review, you apply the correct one. That's what replay is for. It was almost impossible to tell that the ball hit the ground in real time speed but when you see it did in replay (and the pics posted above) the ball has to survive the ground because the going to the ground Item of the rule applied.

"But it wasn't just Blandino justifying the rule. Steratore the referee did and so did former rules guy Mike Pereira during the broadcast. All of them were asked about Dez' lunge and all 3 said Dez needed to be more demonstrative in his lunge to be considered a football move"

So it wasn't so much about when he caught the ball but how "hard" he lunged? That's cutting the rule way too fine, if you start judging catches bases on degrees of lunges it becomes too subjective, which is what the rules are supposed to eliminate as much as possible.

Not a Lions fan, but if anybody was screwed over on this type of call it was Johnson, he made the catch and was just trying to get up off the ground by pushing up with the hand that had the ball in it, about as obvious as you can get the play was totally over, no interpretation of the "rule" was needed in that case. Even if he wasn't pushing up from the ground, after he caught the ball his kneed hit the ground before the ball did, which means he had "gone to the ground", if you say that's still not a catch now you're saying the ball itself has to go to the ground, which the rule doesn't even mention.

I think we all can agree the rule is now totally screwed up and needs to be changed.

Yes, it was about "how hard Dez lunged." It's called being demonstrative or more obvious. I think we all know Dez intended to lunge but because he was falling to the ground so fast he didn't have enough time to execute. Is there not clearly a difference between the lunges of Dez and Ertz? Dez just looked like he fell while Ertz was on the ground running and dove into the end zone.

To me, the rule is wordy but I think it needs to be to explain how to rule all the possible catches out there when you have super athletic athletes making these catches. I think the issue is just that people don't understand them but there's no way to simplify them to account for all the occurrences. They shouldn't get rid of a rule solely because people don't understand them.

So when people don't understand the rules then they go calling me an Eagles troll (when I've debated this catch for years) for simply trying to quote the rules in showing them that their claims are incorrect (like the Dez and Ertz catches were identical). So I'm no troll, I'm simply Anti-whine. Whining has its place but at least have it be a factual whine, otherwise I feel the need to point it out. When whiners don't get the sympathetic co-whines they seek, they get angry instead of getting the rule book to show how they're correct because they either can't navigate the rules or support for their whine is not in there. Then you get the figurative lego structure smashing in the form of insults.

Here is a video of Blandino explaining the catch rules quite simply. I got it from the "it was a catch" forum champion when I debated him on the Dez no-catch just a few weeks ago. Watch from about 1:45 and pay attention to the differences he draws between Johnson and Thomas' catches and the terminology he uses. Thomas' catch was the most similar to Ertz' catch.

LINK

 

[BlindFaith]

Think I'm ready to return to the "Two Feet + Control = Catch" rule.

No more debate about a "football move", or "did the receiver become a runner?".

Might not be perfect, but at least it is simple and consistent.

You will be opening up a can of fumbles if it is done as you speak. Let's say on the Dez non catch, that he loses the ball at the end and GB recovers. The same crowd will be saying, but gee, he never controlled the ball so why should it be a fumble.

The becoming a runner or making a football move is to protect from just that. I've stated it numerous times in various threads. The tricky part of the rule is that when you try to fix it for a few catches it potentially explodes into more issues for other types of catches.

What do you want? More catches with the likelihood of many more fumbles or the rule as is and players just needing to understand the rule and maintain possession while going to the ground?

Per the rule - Dez did not catch the ball.
Per the rule - Ertz did catch the ball.

The Clement catch, they blew it. No idea how they called that a catch. But it's another good example to add to the list of things they need to fix if they do decide to change what a catch actually is.

 

[DallasEast]

What was said years ago is still true today. The rule is ambiguous and should be re-written in simple, concise and precise language devoid of grey judgment. It is shameful that the national discussion has been re-opened due to yet ANOTHER debatable occurrence--that unfortunately happened in the Super Bowl this time.

 

[curboys]

Foles catch was a blatant Illegal Formation............ only 6 on the line

The offensive team must have at least seven players lined up on the line of scrimmage. Of the players on the line of scrimmage, only the two players on the ends of the line of scrimmage are eligible receivers. Would have to agree with Nightman. This should have been a penalty.

 

[Jake]

2014? How long are we going to bang that drum?

Rodgers probably would've marched down the field and won the game anyway.

 

[coult44]

Are you serious?

 

[coult44]

Except .....

 

[robertfchew]

Are you serious?

after the Randall Cobb "catch" earlier in the game the definition of the ground was redefined.

 

[robertfchew]

I thought after review, that he clearly had caught the ball and was making a football move and then broke the end zone line. Dez didn't make a football move and was still securing the catch. Just my opinion, flame away. PS. The one that should have been overturned was the end zone catch by the Philly RB. There is no way IMO that he had that ball secured until after this toe his the end zone line.

you're blind my man. dez went up and caught it, came down, switched hands on purpose not a bobble, took steps, and went for the end zone. if thats not a football move nothing is. simple fact is the eagles were spotted 14 points because the refs were either too afraid to call for the pats or they did this on purpose because the nfl needs Brady and bellicheck back.

 

[robertfchew]

I see your point, but just to nit-pick, when Dez went up for the ball he was facing back towards Romo, and had to turn to lunge for the end zone. To me that's a football move, he could have just fallen down on his back and not lunged for the end zone, but making the decision to turn his body and go for the end zone made it a football move.

Regardless, that wasn't the last play of the game, even if he'd made the catch for a td Rodgers being Rodgers and the Dallas defense being the Dallas defense, all the Packers needed was a field goal to win and that was hardly an impossibility...

I have argued the same point about it not actually mattering but at the same time that play was so amazing and unexpected it could have broken the packs spirit instead it was overturned and gave them huge momentum.

 

[KJJ]

You’re still not convinced the ball touched the ground?

 

[CATCH17]

After skying high to catch the ball and coming down to the ground with each step. He had possession, 2 feet but did not make the football move that would have undone the going to the ground rule. There was no lunge. He intended it but did not execute. Therefore, once the ball hit the ground and came loose, there was no catch. There are rules that govern this.

So the argument is whether or not you believe it was a football move and many of us believe it was a football move when he took steps and reached for the pylon.