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

[KJJ]

This is weird, I could have sworn that you just said you wanted to get back on topic?

Do you wanna do that or do you wanna complain more? Here's an idea, maybe you should report my post and claim that it's a personal attack.

Grow up man.

I’m trying to get back on topic while you seem focused on me. If you want the last word take it.

 

[OmerV]

I explained the reason already about 20 times. Go find it and maybe you will learn something.

And your reason was wrong 20 times. You cherry pick whatever portions of the rulebook and case book you can use to make an argument, without concern for the entirety or context of either

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I’m trying to get back on topic while you seem focused on me. If you want the last word take it.

Thank you KJJ.

 

[blindzebra]

lol - so, what the casebook says is irrelevant ... well, except whatever parts you cherry pick out of context.

Again, though, the rule that says "with or without contact" requires the receiver to maintain control without the ball ever hitting the ground. You sure that's the language you want to use as an argument?

But, of course the language in the rule is irrelevant too, except for the parts of that you want to cherry pick out of context.

Talk about proving my point. Here is an idea. Find a working official and tell them case plays are irrelevant and get back to us when they stop laughing at you.

 

[nathanlt]

You are misunderstanding the rule. First of all, 1 foot does not constitute a catch in the NFL - 2 feet does. Secondly, the rule being discussed is "going to the ground", not merely touching it. That means the whole body is falling to the ground, not merely a foot touching the ground. In the NFL one foot doesn't complete a catch even if a player is not "going to the ground", and 1 foot is not enough to establish the receiver as a runner. In college one foot works, but it takes 2 in the NFL. If a foot simply contacting the ground, whether in the process of going to the ground or not, was all that was required there would be no controversy, but the standards for controlling the ball and establishing possession is part of the equation, and that's what makes the rule difficult.

No, I'm saying that the written rule did not state that the entire body has to touch the ground. The burden of proof is on the rule writer, and there's nothing stating that the entire body has to touch the ground.

I defy anyone to produce a rulebook definition, (written in the rulebook) that specifically says someone's entire body has to touch the ground without the ball moving. Absent that explanation in the rule book text, one foot touching the ground completely meets the requirement of the phrase, "the process of going to the ground"

Process of going to the ground
Step 1 "Gravity brings the player toward the ground"
Step 2 "Any part of the players' body touches the ground"
Process complete
End string.

Anyone who says otherwise, (NFL officials included) is inserting their own opinion, not taking the rule book for what it says.

 

[blindzebra]

And your reason was wrong 20 times. You cherry pick whatever portions of the rulebook and case book you can use to make an argument, without concern for the entirety or context of either

Wow is all I can say. I supplied every aspect of the rule from 2012 through 2017 in this thread. No cherry picking, no edits, just word for word from every rule section covering the catch process. You are the one cherry picking one item and expanding it beyond the intent of the rule. You are the one misrepresenting the rule, the case play, and the truth.

 

[blindzebra]

No, I'm saying that the written rule did not state that the entire body has to touch the ground. The burden of proof is on the rule writer, and there's nothing stating that the entire body has to touch the ground.

I defy anyone to produce a rulebook definition, (written in the rulebook) that specifically says someone's entire body has to touch the ground without the ball moving. Absent that explanation in the rule book text, one foot touching the ground completely meets the requirement of the phrase, "the process of going to the ground"

Process of going to the ground
Step 1 "Gravity brings the player toward the ground"
Step 2 "Any part of the players' body touches the ground"
Process complete
End string.

Anyone who says otherwise, (NFL officials included) is inserting their own opinion, not taking the rule book for what it says.

Dude you are doing the same thing that they are. You are expanding your perception to read into the rules something not there. Hands and feet can't end going to the ground because they are the only body parts that can contact the ground and keep you a runner.

 

[MarcusRock]

That’s the biggest problem here emotions override logic with many. If the same exact call happened to the Packers and the Cowboys went on to win no one would be claiming the Packers got screwed and the rule would be a lot clearer to everyone.

This is why no one talks about the picked-up flagged vs. Detroit the week before. I remember Pereira flatly stating that we got away with one, criticizing how the officials handled it, and wanting to know how the league was going to explain it come Monday. But I guess that's a topic for the Detroit message boards to discuss. We don't give a *bleep* because we got what we wanted.

 

[khiladi]

The NFL Casebook example we were discussing talks about coming down with one foot before being hit by a defender and going to the ground - why would it have said that if contact with the defender wasn't part of the equation? As for the wording in the NFL rulebook in 2014, it discusses having to maintain control all the way through when a player is "going to the ground", so it's not only about time, it's also about whether a player is going to the ground as the catch is made, which Dez was from the time his first foot hit the ground.

No it doesn't... It simply says football move, of which additional steps may be one...

 

[nathanlt]

Dude you are doing the same thing that they are. You are expanding your perception to read into the rules something not there. Hands and feet can't end going to the ground because they are the only body parts that can contact the ground and keep you a runner.

I approach it from a minimalist perspective, meaning, if it's not fully explained and written down, nothing substantial has been changed in what a catch is. That's the difference. I'm not adding words to what's there, only requiring the rule writer to give justification for taking catches away.

Burden of proof.

Do you see how my approach is different than theirs?

A new phrase in 2015, "completing the process of going to the ground" needs to be described in crystal clear detail. Without it, there's no justification for taking catches away.

 

[G2]

If Dez had fumbled that ball and the defender recovered, we'd then be saying that he didn't catch it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly

 

[nathanlt]

This is why no one talks about the picked-up flagged vs. Detroit the week before. I remember Pereira flatly stating that we got away with one, criticizing how the officials handled it, and wanting to know how the league was going to explain it come Monday. But I guess that's a topic for the Detroit message boards to discuss. We don't give a *bleep* because we got what we wanted.

The Lions reciever grabbed the linebacker on that one. It should have never been called in the first place. I remember it well, I was deployed at the time.

 

[big dog cowboy]

If the same exact call happened to the Packers and the Cowboys went on to win no one would be claiming the Packers got screwed and the rule would be a lot clearer to everyone.

FWIW, every Packer fan I have talked too about this says the exact same thing - Dez caught it. I don't live in Texas either.

 

[blindzebra]

I approach it from a minimalist perspective, meaning, if it's not fully explained and written down, nothing substantial has been changed in what a catch is. That's the difference. I'm not adding words to what's there, only requiring the rule writer to give justification for taking catches away.

Burden of proof.

Do you see how my approach is different than theirs?

A new phrase in 2015, "completing the process of going to the ground" needs to be described in crystal clear detail. Without it, there's no justification for taking catches away.

Your argument is like theirs in that you are both ignoring a key point of officiating and that is there is a lot more that goes into a rule than what is written on the page. Yes the rule is vague. But for it to be fully understood requires having a grasp on the rules of what is a receiver, a runner, what constitutes control.etc. That means combining different rules, subsets of rules, and reviewing case plays.
Your point is missing that feet are part of going from receiver to runner and an allowed body part for a runner to have contact the ground. Therefore they can't be used to end going to the ground.

 

[KJJ]

This is why no one talks about the picked-up flagged vs. Detroit the week before. I remember Pereira flatly stating that we got away with one, criticizing how the officials handled it, and wanting to know how the league was going to explain it come Monday. But I guess that's a topic for the Detroit message boards to discuss. We don't give a *bleep* because we got what we wanted.

The conspiracy theorists who continue to whine over officiating calls claiming there’s a bias against the Cowboys steer clear of that call. It doesn’t support the theme they have. You never see a flag picked up after a call is announced to the crowd. That call pretty much won us that football game. I’m sure the Detroit fans think there’s a bias against them with that call and the Calvin Johnson play. Could only imagine the whining they must do on that board being one of the only teams to never even reach the Super Bowl.

 

[MarcusRock]

The Lions reciever grabbed the linebacker on that one. It should have never been called in the first place. I remember it well, I was deployed at the time.

Yes, the Lions receiver did do that I agree. But Hitchens did shove him while not playing the ball plus pulled the TE's jersey tail during the route. It should have at least been offsetting fouls and Detroit gets to replay 3rd Down.

 

[OmerV]

No it doesn't... It simply says football move, of which additional steps may be one...

See the casebook example below in bold and underlined. Oh, and it does not say "football move". Oh, and Dez only took one step (first two weren't steps, they were just feet landing after the leap), and even the one step was while in the act of "going to the ground".


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.

A.R.

 

[KJJ]

FWIW, every Packer fan I have talked too about this says the exact same thing - Dez caught it. I don't live in Texas either.

It’s easy for you to say that but if you watch the game rewind they showed several Packer players on the sidelines screaming Calvin Johnson rule. Someone posted a link to a Packers board and practically every fan there was comparing the Dez play to the Calvin Johnson play. They were arguing the same thing some of us have that Dez was going to the ground and didn’t complete the process.

 

[G2]

There are observable acts. Switching the ball from two hands to one is an example of one. As you know it’s not necessary to observe a move. The official can also observe that the time element has been satisfied. These acts can happen on the way to the ground.

One of the best questions I’ve heard from Percy is why would Dez switch to one hand or take his hand off the ball if he was still trying to catch it.

Why did he catch a ball vs. Seattle and do the same? Because he doesn't think. Wrap the ball up and maybe we're talking a play off win instead of a rule 3 seasons later.

 

[KJJ]

Why did he catch a ball vs. Seattle and do the same? Because he doesn't think. Wrap the ball up and maybe we're talking a play off win instead of a rule 3 seasons later.

Dez has had an ongoing issue of surviving the ground after making a catch. In the 2015 opener against the Giants he went up after the ball in the end zone, won the battle and when he hit the ground the ball came loose. It was initially called a TD but on replay you could see the ball come loose after Dez contacted the ground. Although the ball didn’t touch the ground by the time Dez reestablished possession his elbow was OB.