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

[BlindFaith]

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.

And you are missing the point of that if you are going to the ground you can not become a runner. So no steps, or reaches or lunges apply. Only maintaining possession through contacting the ground.

 

[BlindFaith]

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.

Is this a case play from the 2014 rule book or before that?

Either way, it does bring up yet another nuance to all of this. As you pointed out, this talks about a player being forced to the ground by another player. Meaning that the player would have had the ability to become a runner on his own, but was prevented from doing so by being forced down to the ground. I don't think this is in the current rule book. Much like they had the rule where if a receiver got pushed out of bounds, but would have come down with both feet in, they ruled it a catch. That is now gone.

These case plays inject things that need to be clearly called out in the rules themselves.

I could see how one could argue that Dez was only going to go to the ground because of contact while trying to make the catch. I think he clearly would have gone to the ground even if there was no contact. His getting tripped could look to be the factor of his falling to some. But again, that would be a judgment call and is yet another layer of confusion.

And as you have said before, certain sentences get cherry picked for certain situations. This is clearly an isolated case of forced contact that caused a wr who would have had the ability to become a runner without the contact is forced into the act of going to the ground. But even this case is full of holes. What if he is pushed down but doesn't brace himself. Or what if he braces himself but doesn't lunge. And is this only related to crossing the end zone resulting in a TD, but if it happened in the field of play...what? Still a complete pass but a fumble?

Poorly, poorly written case play. And something of this magnitude should be clearly defined in a rule, situated with the other rules germane to the topic of going to the ground. Not hidden away in some case play.

 

[OmerV]

Is this a case play from the 2014 rule book or before that?

Either way, it does bring up yet another nuance to all of this. As you pointed out, this talks about a player being forced to the ground by another player. Meaning that the player would have had the ability to become a runner on his own, but was prevented from doing so by being forced down to the ground. I don't think this is in the current rule book. Much like they had the rule where if a receiver got pushed out of bounds, but would have come down with both feet in, they ruled it a catch. That is now gone.

These case plays inject things that need to be clearly called out in the rules themselves.

I could see how one could argue that Dez was only going to go to the ground because of contact while trying to make the catch. I think he clearly would have gone to the ground even if there was no contact. His getting tripped could look to be the factor of his falling to some. But again, that would be a judgment call and is yet another layer of confusion.

And as you have said before, certain sentences get cherry picked for certain situations. This is clearly an isolated case of forced contact that caused a wr who would have had the ability to become a runner without the contact is forced into the act of going to the ground. But even this case is full of holes. What if he is pushed down but doesn't brace himself. Or what if he braces himself but doesn't lunge. And is this only related to crossing the end zone resulting in a TD, but if it happened in the field of play...what? Still a complete pass but a fumble?

Poorly, poorly written case play. And something of this magnitude should be clearly defined in a rule, situated with the other rules germane to the topic of going to the ground. Not hidden away in some case play.

I never found any cases set up for 2014, but someone here explained the 2012 casebook applies because the rule was the same from 2012-2014. I haven't gone back and verified that the rule didn't change, but in any case I am using the 2012 casebook.

I agree with your comments about some possibly believing Dez was forced to the ground rather than going to the ground all the way, and I've actually posted something about that a couple of times, making the point if that's the case we simply have a difference in how we perceived the play and why Dez went to the ground rather than an issue with the rules.

 

[blindzebra]

And you are missing the point of that if you are going to the ground you can not become a runner. So no steps, or reaches or lunges apply. Only maintaining possession through contacting the ground.

That is absolutely not what the caseplay from 2014 says.

 

[OmerV]

That is absolutely not what the caseplay from 2014 says.

Where is the caseplay from 2014? To my knowledge nobody has ever found one. If you can provide a link that would help. Some here said there was no 2014 casebook and that the 2012 casebook is what applies.

 

[blindzebra]

Is this a case play from the 2014 rule book or before that?

Either way, it does bring up yet another nuance to all of this. As you pointed out, this talks about a player being forced to the ground by another player. Meaning that the player would have had the ability to become a runner on his own, but was prevented from doing so by being forced down to the ground. I don't think this is in the current rule book. Much like they had the rule where if a receiver got pushed out of bounds, but would have come down with both feet in, they ruled it a catch. That is now gone.

These case plays inject things that need to be clearly called out in the rules themselves.

I could see how one could argue that Dez was only going to go to the ground because of contact while trying to make the catch. I think he clearly would have gone to the ground even if there was no contact. His getting tripped could look to be the factor of his falling to some. But again, that would be a judgment call and is yet another layer of confusion.

And as you have said before, certain sentences get cherry picked for certain situations. This is clearly an isolated case of forced contact that caused a wr who would have had the ability to become a runner without the contact is forced into the act of going to the ground. But even this case is full of holes. What if he is pushed down but doesn't brace himself. Or what if he braces himself but doesn't lunge. And is this only related to crossing the end zone resulting in a TD, but if it happened in the field of play...what? Still a complete pass but a fumble?

Poorly, poorly written case play. And something of this magnitude should be clearly defined in a rule, situated with the other rules germane to the topic of going to the ground. Not hidden away in some case play.

It is from the 2014 case book.
The going to the ground rule says with or without contact from an opponent, so no it is not an isolated case. One more time, that is not what a case book is for. It would literally have thousands, if not millions, of pages if a case play for every possible scenario was included. As I said earlier, 3 plays covering going to the ground. One was a receiver because the player never established himself as a runner. The other two have a receiver becoming a runner by completing the catch process. You saying that contact is the reason why it is there is as silly as Marcus and his magic lunge.

Here are 3 questions for you:
If Item 1 has precedence over the catch process, why didn't Item 1 say that before upright long enough in 2015?
If contact or a magic lunge has a special rule, why isn't it in the rules, anywhere?
Can you explain the role a case book plays in officiating?

 

[BlindFaith]

That is absolutely not what the caseplay from 2014 says.

You mean this:

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

This is all the case play says. It doesn't say anything about becoming a runner WHILE going to the ground. It implies, and yes, it is my interpretation, that the if the player who otherwise would have and had the ability to become a runner is forced to the ground due to contact with another player, then they rule it a catch.

This is the 2014 version of the case play. The other version from maybe 2012 had a point about bracing that they removed for this version.

You even said yourself, you cant just look at the written text. You said something to the affect of applying parts of rules, and case plays and seminars and meetings. Try doing that.

 

[blindzebra]

Where is the caseplay from 2014? To my knowledge nobody has ever found one. If you can provide a link that would help. Some here said there was no 2014 casebook and that the 2012 casebook is what applies.

Google is your friend, but since you apparently can't figure it out, here it is for the 4th time in the thread

http://test.footballzebras.com/files/original/d7f57f11109a4a4353de0d4fe3437d4c.pdf

 

[BlindFaith]

The going to the ground rule says with or without contact from an opponent, so no it is not an isolated case.

Please, for the love of the game, stop mixing rules with case plays. You are again quoting the going to the ground RULE, when discussing a CASE PLAY you brought up.

Here are 3 questions for you:
If Item 1 has precedence over the catch process, why didn't Item 1 say that before upright long enough in 2015?
If contact or a magic lunge has a special rule, why isn't it in the rules, anywhere?
Can you explain the role a case book plays in officiating?

What is item one you're talking about? You keep talking in circles so I honestly can't keep track.

Very good question, one that I've asked many times. Why are we taking the case plays as "rules". But that's what you want to do, so I'm just trying to explain them. As poorly written as they are. The rule itself says nothing about a magic lunge while going to the ground. The rule itself says NOTHING about any move or action that can be performed while going to the ground that would make one a runner.

A case play should be an application of the already written rule, not to interject a new rule. I've been saying this all along. Very, very few people ever even refer to these case rules. They read and try to understand the actual rules. This goes back to how this whole rule (and case plays) are incompetently written.

 

[DogFace]

A person could be entirely airborne and switch the ball from two hands to one, but that doesn't establish a catch. As for Percy's quote, it ignores the fact that by rule a catch isn't simply having a grasp on the ball, it is also either establishing that a player is in control, if he is upright, or if he is going to the ground, that he never loses possession with the ball hitting the ground.

Having time to make a football move does establish the player is in control of the ball. Switching from two hands to one and preparing to lunge both establish that in the Dez catch.

 

[blindzebra]

You mean this:

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

This is all the case play says. It doesn't say anything about becoming a runner WHILE going to the ground. It implies, and yes, it is my interpretation, that the if the player who otherwise would have and had the ability to become a runner is forced to the ground due to contact with another player, then they rule it a catch.

This is the 2014 version of the case play. The other version from maybe 2012 had a point about bracing that they removed for this version.

You even said yourself, you cant just look at the written text. You said something to the affect of applying parts of rules, and case plays and seminars and meetings. Try doing that.

A.R. 8.8 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE OR INCOMPLETE PASS Second-and-5 on A35. A1 throws a forward pass to A2 at the A40. A2 dives for the ball and controls the ball in the air. The first thing to hit the ground is the point of the ball. a) A2 briefly loses control of the ball when it hits the ground; or b) A2 never loses control of the ball. Rulings: a) Third-and-5 on A35. Incomplete pass. b) First-and-10 on A40.

A.R. 8.9 GOING TO THE GROUND—INCOMPLETE PASS First-and-10-on A30. A1 throws a pass to A2 who dives and controls the ball while airborne at the A38, but the ball comes out as he hits the ground. Ruling: Second-and-10 on A30. The pass is incomplete, as the receiver went to the ground in the process of making the catch and did not maintain possession of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. 32

A.R. 8.10 GOING TO THE GROUND—INCOMPLETE 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. The contact by B1 sends him across the goal line and to the ground in the end zone. The ball comes out as he hits the ground. Ruling: Second-and-10 on B25. The pass is incomplete, as the receiver went to the ground in the process of making the catch and did not maintain possession of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. A.R.

8.11 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS First-and-10-on A30. A1 throws a pass to A2 at the A45 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. The contact by B1 causes A2 to go to the ground where he maintains control of the ball. Ruling: First-and-10 on A45. The pass is complete, as the receiver went to the ground in the process of making the catch and maintained possession of the ball throughout the process of contacting 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. 8.13 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who is contacted by a defender before he completes the catch at the three-yard line. Despite B2’s contact, A2 keeps his balance, gets both feet down, and lunges over the goal line. The ball comes out as he hits the ground. Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The receiver went to the ground as the result of lunging for the goal line, not in the process of making the catch.

Take that play and compare it to AR 8.13, it is identical. What it says is the catch process was completed and stopped the going to the ground subsection of the rule because of the time element.

AR 8.12 the brace was the act common to the game that ended the catch process and made A2 a runner.

AR 8.11 is the completion of Item 1, and A2 never became a runner.

AR 8. 8-10 all have a receiver that never completed the catch process to become a runner, so Item 1 was applied and they did not maintain control.

 

[DogFace]

You’re the one complaining, you initiated this. lol Where have I complained about people disagreeing with me? Provide a link? It’s obvious you’re still angry about that argument we had at the end of the 2013 season involving Romo and his contract. Stop stirring the pot and let’s get back to the topic of this thread. You’re just another one trying to make this about me.

It is not you at all. It’s everyone else. They all want this thread to be about you. That doesn’t seem abnormal at all to think that either.

 

[DogFace]

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.

Do you have any evidence to back that up or is that an emotional response to overwhelming evidence against your argument?

 

[BlindFaith]

Google is your friend, but since you apparently can't figure it out, here it is for the 4th time in the thread

http://test.footballzebras.com/files/original/d7f57f11109a4a4353de0d4fe3437d4c.pdf

So explain this one:

GOING TO GROUND A.R. 15.112 Going to ground before process complete Second-and-9 on A18. QBA1 throws a pass to A2 at the A31. A2 controls the ball and just as his second foot touches the ground, he is contacted by a defender and driven to the ground. Before the receiver hits the ground, the defender pulls the ball loose. The loose ball is recovered by B3 and returned to the A5. The officials rule catch and fumble. Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. Because the receiver did not complete the catch before being contacted, he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. A’s ball third-and-9 on A18. Adjust clock and start on the snap. Only the Replay Official can initiate a review of this play

I guess I need to read through all of these stupid case plays. Because I'm just going on the cherry picked ones you guys have picked out and are just mixing parts of use cases with actual rules.

 

[MarcusRock]

Do you have any evidence to back that up or is that an emotional response to overwhelming evidence against your argument?

MrC, are you going to answer my question? You're saying percy was wrong with that statement which prompted my question, right?

 

[nathanlt]

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.

First, thank you very much for your comment.

With a vague rule, and combining the concepts of receiver, runner, control, how can any reasonable person be expected to know that going to the ground supersedes "down by contact" when it NEVER explicitly says that going to the ground replaces down by contact. For that matter, it doesn't vaguely reference that concept.

As a rule writer, you can't leave out massive chunks of intent, and expect officials to understand that.

Words mean things, if you leave words out, you haven't changed the rule to match intent. That's my take, the NFL was highly incompetent when writing the new rule. As such, they didn't write enough to take away Dez's catch.

 

[blindzebra]

Please, for the love of the game, stop mixing rules with case plays. You are again quoting the going to the ground RULE, when discussing a CASE PLAY you brought up.



What is item one you're talking about? You keep talking in circles so I honestly can't keep track.

Very good question, one that I've asked many times. Why are we taking the case plays as "rules". But that's what you want to do, so I'm just trying to explain them. As poorly written as they are. The rule itself says nothing about a magic lunge while going to the ground. The rule itself says NOTHING about any move or action that can be performed while going to the ground that would make one a runner.

A case play should be an application of the already written rule, not to interject a new rule. I've been saying this all along. Very, very few people ever even refer to these case rules. They read and try to understand the actual rules. This goes back to how this whole rule (and case plays) are incompetently written.

For crying out loud, I have clearly established the link of rule book to case book. For a group of people so concerned with going to the ground they should know that it is Item 1 of the catch rule.

I will make this as simple as I can, a player is a receiver until he becomes a runner. Under the rules from 2014, and before, a receiver became a runner by having control, two feet down in bounds, and making or having time to make an act common to the game. If a receiver is going to the ground, with or without contact, they must have control through contacting the ground. For those that can't see the simple distinction of receiver versus runner, there is no hope. Based on the case plays from 2014 I presented above, you can see that there is no requirement for the player to become a runner before he starts to go to the ground. A receiver can become a runner after he starts to go to the ground. It wasn't until they completely changed the rule to upright long enough in 2015, a phrase that was never written anywhere in the rules before 2015, did a receiver had to establish themselves as a runner before they went to the ground.

 

[DogFace]

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.

We’ve discussed that play many times.

It’s the one where the Detroit player grabbed and held Hichens face mask and Hichens pushed his arm to get his hand off of his mask. Right?

There was contact early in the play, but that would’ve been holding because the ball was still in Stafford’s hand and that’s not what the ref threw the flag on.

 

[DogFace]

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.

I agree. He should’ve.

 

[KJJ]

Do you have any evidence to back that up or is that an emotional response to overwhelming evidence against your argument?

Your emotional reactions to my opinions is overwhelming evidence.