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

[Hostile]

Where is it written in either the rules or the casebook that 3 feet touching the ground is all that is needed to establish a catch? Where is it written that this overrides the "going to the ground" rule?

If a Receiver gets 2 feet in on the sideline it is a catch. The 3 feet down comment was merely to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to think he didn't have the football and it was a catch. Nothing more. If it's not 2 feet down and possession, when is it a catch? 3 feet? 4 feet? 10? As soon as his feet hit the ground a 3rd time, the discussion of catch is over, or it should have been. As soon as he transferred that ball to one hand, the discussion of catch is over, or it should have been. As soon as he dove for the end zone and made a "football move" the discussion of catch is over, or it should have been. By diving to the end zone and by getting 2 feet down in bounds he has become a runner. Now the ground cannot cause a fumble for a runner going to the ground. As soon as his elbow and knee hit the ground BEFORE THE FOOTBALL EVER CAME INTO CONTACT WITH THE GROUND there is only one question left. Was he down by contact? If he was touched before or as he went down or while he was on the ground, that ball is down at approximately the 1 yard line. If he was not touched then he recovered the bobbled ball cleanly in the end zone and it is a score, because a runner who is not down by contact can still advance the football by any legal means. He can crawl, roll, sommersault, or even moonwalk into the end zone if he is not down by contact.

Just my two pieces of copper. The play never should have been over turned as called on the field. It was a screw job.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

He caught it man....you guys are ridiculous.

Blandino butchered that call. Dez controlled the ball for about 14 feet, but enough time hadn't elapsed to be a catch?

 

[OmerV]

If a Receiver gets 2 feet in on the sideline it is a catch. The 3 feet down comment was merely to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to think he didn't have the football and it was a catch. Nothing more. If it's not 2 feet down and possession, when is it a catch? 3 feet? 4 feet? 10? As soon as his feet hit the ground a 3rd time, the discussion of catch is over, or it should have been. As soon as he transferred that ball to one hand, the discussion of catch is over, or it should have been. As soon as he dove for the end zone and made a "football move" the discussion of catch is over, or it should have been. By diving to the end zone and by getting 2 feet down in bounds he has become a runner. Now the ground cannot cause a fumble for a runner going to the ground. As soon as his elbow and knee hit the ground BEFORE THE FOOTBALL EVER CAME INTO CONTACT WITH THE GROUND there is only one question left. Was he down by contact? If he was touched before or as he went down or while he was on the ground, that ball is down at approximately the 1 yard line. If he was not touched then he recovered the bobbled ball cleanly in the end zone and it is a score.

Just my two pieces of copper. The play never should have been over turned as called on the field. It was a screw job.

This is not necessarily true because if he gets 2 feet down while going to the ground he also has to maintain possession all the way through the catch. If he loses the ball and the ball hits the ground it is incomplete even though he got the 2 feet down.

 

[Hostile]

This is not necessarily true because if he gets 2 feet down while going to the ground he also has to maintain possession all the way through the catch. If he loses the ball and the ball hits the ground it is incomplete even though he got the 2 feet down.

Again, he did because he was able to shift the football to one hand only. That cannot physically be done without control of the football. The natural instinct is to grab it with both hands if you do not have it.

 

[MarcusRock]

This is not necessarily true because if he gets 2 feet down while going to the ground he also has to maintain possession all the way through the catch. If he loses the ball and the ball hits the ground it is incomplete even though he got the 2 feet down.

Again, he did because he was able to shift the football to one hand only. That cannot physically be done without control of the football. The natural instinct is to grab it with both hands if you do not have it.

If you are going to the ground it doesn't matter how many steps you take. The ground is where you're going. As with those case examples people throw around, what they have in common is that the receiver performs an act that interrupts that journey to the ground with something else. Moving the football around or waving to your mom in the crowd doesn't do this. The case plays only mention a lunge is what fulfills the time element and if you look at one of them, it says the player held the ball in one hand and THEN lunged. Doesn't say he caught it with one hand so you have to assume he did with 2. Dez had 2 feet and control, but not "long enough" to interrupt the journey to the ground. He failed at his lunge attempt which is what every major rules player has said when reviewing it and why percy avoided questions about comparisons to examples of more demonstrative lunges. But Blandino explained the why in this video. People just have to be open to accepting an answer they don't like. Therein is the rub when the majority of people wanted to see it one way.

 

[KJJ]

Blandino butchered that call. Dez controlled the ball for about 14 feet, but enough time hadn't elapsed to be a catch?

Steratore made the call with Blandino providing an extra set of eyes. Steratore was involved in several of these controversial calls Calvin Johnson, Dez and Ertz. If the call was butchered how come it was never confirmed by the league and it’s still being ruled the same way? Are they continuing to butcher the call? Is it a cover-up? Dez was clearly going to the ground during the catch process and the rule requires that a receiver maintain possession all the way through the contact of the ground. Some of you continue to disregard this. Going to the ground trumps everything, a receiver has to complete the process. This isn’t rocket science.

 

[KJJ]

He caught it man....you guys are ridiculous.

Those who continue to say he caught and keep disregarding the rule are ridiculous. What’s a catch in your backyard isn’t a catch in the NFL if a receiver is going to the ground. The rule is very clear the receiver must maintain possession of the football through the contact of the ground. That’s the rule! I would hate to play games with some of you that involve rules became many will disregard them.

 

[blindzebra]

You really don't get this and this is why no one should ever self-proclaim themselves anything before they are shown to not be what they claim. I didn't butcher anything. I notice you didn't say I was wrong, because you know I'm not. I didn't combine the 2 case plays, they are just both about time. This one is 15.95, which was presented first in this thread:

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 by contact.​

If you say the time element was completed BEFORE the lunge, then the lunge isn't necessary and he can fall flat on his face without doing anything and still meet the time checkbox if he loses the ball. That is not true and doesn't make sense. Think lightning quick, bang-bang play where the hit and journey to the ground is almost instant. If the ball comes out, that is not a catch. However, the player here does something different, other than just falling (going to the ground) by interrupting that fall with a lunge. The act of the lunge proves he had the ball "long enough" to make a football move (Note 1 in the rules). With no lunge, how do you prove "long enough" in a bang-bang play - every player that hits the ground is a catch in that case. Think. This is why Blandino said they "absolutely" looked at Dez' failed lunge attempt because it would have proved "long enough." It didn't.



Here is 8.12 that you refer to:

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.​

Again, almost the same thing is true like I explained above. If all a player has to do is touch his hand to the turf as a bracing action, then everyone who catches a pass on the way to the ground just needs to make sure they also get a knee down beforehand and can again just fall flat on their face and lose the ball with no penalty. This makes no sense in a bang-bang play. Once again, the lunge proves "long enough" which is why the other case play mentions that time is what is checked off, not the act itself which is "not part" of the catch process. Look at Blandino's video explanation and the difference in lunges he presents. Clear as freakin' day. Y'all just don't like the answer but can't bend the rules to refute it.



What you're saying here is not some new thing. Blandino and Pereira have always said this. That is the order of the rule. If you don't complete the 3-part process and you're going to the ground, the ball has to survive the ground (which is why GTG trumps an incomplete 3-part process because it is a sub for a time element that hasn't been met). Here is the video from Blandino explaining this from about 1:40 onward very clearly. Notice that he explains part c as "have the ball long enough" to make a football move. Y'all can say that Blandino is an idiot, yadda, yadda, yadda, all you want but it doesn't change the fact that he knows the rules in and out and you're scraping for something to hang on to.

So what you've proved is that you don't know the rules you purport to know. And now instead of thinking you're "schooling" someone else, you're just another one taking lessons.

All of that just to hide the fact that once again you failed to show the magic lunge in the rule book.
The part you keep conveniently leaving out is why lunging is not part of the process of the catch. Because it, along with warding off an opponent, turning up field, taking a third step, or the time to do so IS AN ACT COMMON TO THE GAME THAT TURNS A RECEIVER INTO A RUNNER !
Oh, and thanks, you once again proved that under the 2014 rules Dez caught it.

 

[blindzebra]

Where is it written in either the rules or the casebook that 3 feet touching the ground is all that is needed to establish a catch? Where is it written that this overrides the "going to the ground" rule?

Here you go, take note of the red.
In 2014 rule book: 8-1

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is
complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
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.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact
by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

The rule to illustrate a football move to become a runner in 2014:
Rule 3 section 25.2
(i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.). Note that it says etc. meaning that this is not an all inclusive list.

2015 rules:
ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and (c) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner (see 3-2-7 Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Here is 3-2-7:
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.

So in 2015 we have some changes, we get upright long enough to clearly become a runner, yet the ways you can become a runner shrinks. But Dean, I thought this was to clarify the catch rule? That is what you said, it was not a change just making it clearer.

2016:
ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and (c) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

3-2-7:
A player has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact
of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.

In 2016 they add a few more items to 3-2-7, but we still have no clarification of what upright long enough means.

2017: Is identical to 2017

For fun here is 2012 and 2013:

Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds: (a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and (b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and (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.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

3-2-7 just says act common to the game.

And then you have this from the 2014 case book:

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.

Note that there is nothing in those rules that says going to the ground takes precedence over the catch process prior to 2015.

 

[Hostile]

If you are going to the ground it doesn't matter how many steps you take. The ground is where you're going. As with those case examples people throw around, what they have in common is that the receiver performs an act that interrupts that journey to the ground with something else. Moving the football around or waving to your mom in the crowd doesn't do this. The case plays only mention a lunge is what fulfills the time element and if you look at one of them, it says the player held the ball in one hand and THEN lunged. Doesn't say he caught it with one hand so you have to assume he did with 2. Dez had 2 feet and control, but not "long enough" to interrupt the journey to the ground. He failed at his lunge attempt which is what every major rules player has said when reviewing it and why percy avoided questions about comparisons to examples of more demonstrative lunges. But Blandino explained the why in this video. People just have to be open to accepting an answer they don't like. Therein is the rub when the majority of people wanted to see it one way.

Agreed, it doesn't matter how many steps you take. But also again, I used the 3 steps comment only to demonstrate that it is ridiculous to think it wasn't a catch. On the sidelines or the end line you can have your entire foot flat on the ground. But if any portion of your 2nd foot touched the white. No catch. Two feet down with possession is a catch. It always has been that way. It never should have become all convoluted and stupid.

Dez caught the ball with 2 hands up over Sam Shields, who by the way admits he caught it and in fact called it a great catch. From 2 hands he then transferred the ball to one hand. Again, you cannot do this if you do not have control of the football. It is against basic human instinct. I do not care what Dean Blandino said or says because frankly he is a an idiot, and I should apologize to idiots everywhere for insulting them like that. No human being can take a hand away if they do not have control. They certainly can't do it and then lunge or dive. I urge anyone to try that. If you don't have the ball and you lunge or dive what do the very laws of physics tell you is going to happen to the football? It can't go toward the goal line with Dez unless he has it under his control. It would have stayed in the air and he would have spun to try and reach back for it.

Guys who say it wasn't caught want you to believe that the rules make more sense than human instinct and the laws of physics and they just don't.

Oh, and in case anyone thinks I am seeing this only as a homer. Calvin Johnson caught it. DeVonte Freeman caught it. Zach Ertz caught it. Jesse James caught it. I assure you there are players in that group that I can't stand because of who they play for.

2 feet on the ground and possession is a catch. It is just that simple and always should have been. Until someone can not have a ball and remove their hand or not have a ball and dive and somehow that ball magically follows their direct path there is nothing you or anyone else can say that is going to make sense.

Indisputable video evidence criteria was not met. You can't even show me a clear view of that ball touching the turf, and the one or two unclear ones clearly show knee and elbow already on the ground. Down by contact, or he recovered it in the end zone.

 

[MarcusRock]

All of that just to hide the fact that once again you failed to show the magic lunge in the rule book.
The part you keep conveniently leaving out is why lunging is not part of the process of the catch. Because it, along with warding off an opponent, turning up field, taking a third step, or the time to do so IS AN ACT COMMON TO THE GAME THAT TURNS A RECEIVER INTO A RUNNER !
Oh, and thanks, you once again proved that under the 2014 rules Dez caught it.

Right, that same lunge or "act common to the game" you said was not necessary to make the case players runners. Right?

A1 is a runner because he completed a,b, and c. BEFORE the lunge.

in both case plays A1 was a runner BEFORE the lunge.

So which is it? Because NOW you're saying that the lunge is the act common to the game that turns a receiver into a runner. Exactly like I said when I corrected you. See what I mean about changing stories when you get busted?

And again, how did the NFL change the rule in 2015 to cover up their Dez "mistake"? Why are you avoiding this?

 

[KJJ]

Anyone who can’t see Dez going to the ground in one piece on this play is either in extreme denial or is wearing some thick binders. A receiver has to have their feet firmly on the ground, catch the football and make a turn upfield to clearly establish themselves as runner. This was evident on the Larry Fitzgerald play, the Julius Thomas play and the Ertz play. They all had their feet on the ground, caught the football and made a turn up the field while running just prior to going to the ground. Dez was high pointing the ball up on the air and his body lean/momentum was clearly taking him to the ground. This turn he made toward the endzone was as he was falling. He was clearly on the way to the ground and was stumbling. That’s not establishing yourself as a runner. This play as well as the others involves some judgment. You guys that keep harping on the case play and rulebook are wasting your time. If any of that had validity it would have come up in discussions with officials and with the talking heads that have beaten the catch rule to death.

Every time I see the Dez play it becomes even clear that this was not a catch under the rule. Yes he caught the ball but didn’t hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground and under the rule that’s a no catch. I’m sorry but that’s how it’s been officiated since the Calvin Johnson play. Dez completed all the hard parts by out battling the defender, catching the ball and even changing hands with it while reaching for the endzone but he couldn’t survive the ground and this has been an issue for him. The going to the ground and the receiver having to survive the ground is a chink in the rule but it’s still the rule. This part of the rule will change eventually mark my words because that’s the part that’s causing most of the controversy and is driving players and fans nuts. It’s the part of the rule that many of you arguing this continue to ignore and refuse to accept.

 

[MarcusRock]

Agreed, it doesn't matter how many steps you take. But also again, I used the 3 steps comment only to demonstrate that it is ridiculous to think it wasn't a catch. On the sidelines or the end line you can have your entire foot flat on the ground. But if any portion of your 2nd foot touched the white. No catch. Two feet down with possession is a catch. It always has been that way. It never should have become all convoluted and stupid.

Dez caught the ball with 2 hands up over Sam Shields, who by the way admits he caught it and in fact called it a great catch. From 2 hands he then transferred the ball to one hand. Again, you cannot do this if you do not have control of the football. It is against basic human instinct. I do not care what Dean Blandino said or says because frankly he is a an idiot, and I should apologize to idiots everywhere for insulting them like that. No human being can take a hand away if they do not have control. They certainly can't do it and then lunge or dive. I urge anyone to try that. If you don't have the ball and you lunge or dive what do the very laws of physics tell you is going to happen to the football? It can't go toward the goal line with Dez unless he has it under his control. It would have stayed in the air and he would have spun to try and reach back for it.

Guys who say it wasn't caught want you to believe that the rules make more sense than human instinct and the laws of physics and they just don't.

Oh, and in case anyone thinks I am seeing this only as a homer. Calvin Johnson caught it. DeVonte Freeman caught it. Zach Ertz caught it. Jesse James caught it. I assure you there are players in that group that I can't stand because of who they play for.

2 feet on the ground and possession is a catch. It is just that simple and always should have been. Until someone can not have a ball and remove their hand or not have a ball and dive and somehow that ball magically follows their direct path there is nothing you or anyone else can say that is going to make sense.

Indisputable video evidence criteria was not met. You can't even show me a clear view of that ball touching the turf, and the one or two unclear ones clearly show knee and elbow already on the ground. Down by contact, or he recovered it in the end zone.

You are talking about what should be instead of what is. There is no question Dez had control of the ball and no question he had 2 (and 3) feet down. He just didn't have the football move, nor the "long enough" to have the football move as I outlined last page. The review process showed that and also clearly showed the ball hit the ground. When you apply the rule wrong on the field, replay is there to help you apply it the right way. Once going to the ground was applied and the ball hit the ground and popped out that was cut and dry. This is why catch theorists now go back and try to rewind the tape and slow it down to say this or that happened, when nothing Dez did on the way to the ground interrupted the fact that he was going to the ground. The failed lunge proved that and is why it is the focal point. If Dez could have gotten solid footing on that 3rd step, it would have changed everything. The case plays back this up.

 

[KJJ]

Steps aren’t going to matter if a receiver is falling to the ground. Dez was clearly falling and steps can be taken while stumbling to the ground but that’s not establishing yourself as a runner. That’s not running that’s stumbling and falling.

 

[Hostile]

You are talking about what should be instead of what is. There is no question Dez had control of the ball and no question he had 2 (and 3) feet down. He just didn't have the football move, nor the "long enough" to have the football move as I outlined last page. The review process showed that and also clearly showed the ball hit the ground. When you apply the rule wrong on the field, replay is there to help you apply the right one. Once going to the ground was applied and the ball hit the ground and popped out that was cut and dry. This is why catch theorists now go back and try to rewind the tape and slow it down to say this or that happened, when nothing Dez did on the way to the ground interrupted the fact that he was going to the ground. The failed lunge proved that and is why it is the focal point. If Dez could have gotten solid footing on that 3rd step, it would have changed everything. The case plays back this up.

Thank you. The rest is irrelevant to me. You cannot break the instincts of man nor usurp the laws of physics, so there is no way on this earth a no catch ruling can be justified regardless of how something is written unless it is interpreted wrong and it was, and apparently still is.

Thank you for the civil discourse.

 

[MarcusRock]

Thank you. The rest is irrelevant to me. You cannot break the instincts of man nor usurp the laws of physics, so there is no way on this earth a no catch ruling can be justified regardless of how something is written unless it is interpreted wrong and it was, and apparently still is.

Thank you for the civil discourse.

This is why people want to change the rule. And if they do, I know it'll be a cases of ex-post facto whining but the fact is the rules at the time were signed off on by all the teams before they started the season and can't be undone.

Civil is always preferred and thank you too.

 

[KJJ]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that this rule came about because receivers would appear to catch the ball and quickly lose it, either still while upright or as soon as they hit the ground. If the receiver was still upright in some cases they would be called fumbles and the argument would be that they never had complete control of the ball. Naturally if they hit the ground and lost the ball it would be called down by contact. To rectify the problem and determine whether the receiver had the ball long enough to be a completed catch they adopted this rule. Prior to this rule most of the controversy involved a receiver going to the ground. Now they force the receiver to complete a process of having to maintain the ball all the way through the contact in the ground to leave no doubt they have control of it.

Since this rule came in instant replay has gotten better. HD has gotten better and you have more camera angles where you can clearly see the receiver has full control of the football. With better technology and more camera angles they need to go back to the way they had the rule before. The rule was much less controversial back then than it is now. We can see catches and control much more clearly today. If you can’t see clear control and possession you just wave it off as a no catch. They’ve made the rule too complicated and some fans either can’t accept it or simply don’t understand it. No one wants to see a clear catch waved off or overturned because of a chink in the rule.

 

[KJJ]

It may take a few more controversial calls before the league says enough is enough and changes the rule but eventually they’ll change it. I can’t think of a rule that’s caused so much confusion, anger and frustration as this one. It’s affected Cowboys Nation the most but no one is happy with it. When you’re spending more time talking about an officiating call than the game itself that’s a problem. The league says they want consistency in the call but the rule is causing consistent controversy and confusion. There’s far too much judgment involved in making this call.

 

[blindzebra]

Right, that same lunge or "act common to the game" you said was not necessary to make the case players runners. Right?



So which is it? Because NOW you're saying that the lunge is the act common to the game that turns a receiver into a runner. Exactly like I said when I corrected you. See what I mean about changing stories when you get busted?

And again, how did the NFL change the rule in 2015 to cover up their Dez "mistake"? Why are you avoiding this?

You are without a doubt the biggest spin doctor I have ever seen, you really should go into politics.

Let's recap, you point out that the case plays both mention a lunge, and proclaim we are wrong because only a lunge can trump going to the ground.
We say that is not true and present the acts common to the game case play as proof, and supply other acts from the rule book 3.2.7 to show other acts that are also included.
You once again chime in with it says a lunge is not part of a catch, it is a separate entity, and the only thing that ends going to the ground.
We ask for a rule reference to show that, and you ignore it.
We ask again, and you ignore it some more.
I post every aspect of the catch rule from 2012 to 2017 to show how the rule changed in 2015, along with the case plays, and to point out the various acts that the NFL has used to illustrate acts common to the game.
You once again reply with magic lunge, and Dez failed to execute this magic lunge.
We reply that Blandino never mentions the magic lunge right after the Dez play, but he does say reach, football move, we looked for a football move. We also ask again for you to cite a rule supporting your magic lunge.
You supply the case plays.
I tell you that is not a rule, show me the rule that supports your interpretation of a lunge.
You supply the case plays again.
We tell you that is not what it means when it says that a lunge is not part of the catch process, that time and an act common to the game (bracing) ended the 3 step process and the receiver turned into a runner.
You still fail to give rule support, so we again show you the correct interpretation.
And you fire back with some nonsense about changing from a lunge not being an act common to the game, something that was never said. We said that in these two cases, time and the brace were the last acts as a receiver and the lunge was the first act as a runner, which is what the case plays say.
Plus you accuse me of dodging the 2015 rule change. Are you freaking kidding me? Percy and I have gone over it dozens of times. The words up right long enough never existed in the rules until 2015. And no that is not a new way of saying long enough to perform an act common to the game. Care to know why? Because it does not become part c of rule 8.1.3 it gets inserted into Item 1. Part c becomes the vague until he clearly becomes a runner. 3.2.7 only says A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent. That seems equally limited from the 2014 version of (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.) Just for fun here is 2016's A player has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.
So yes the 2015 rule changed drastically in in a way that made it work for the Dez ruling.
So now you get to ignore the facts, yet again and write CONSPIRACY!

 

[MarcusRock]

A lunge is the only thing in the case plays to justify the rulings and is what those that overturned the Dez play were looking for. I just explained how that all worked last page. The lunge is the thing that proves the "long enough" of the rule. That's what makes it "magic."

Speaking of spinning, how about you explain how your story just changed with the changing of the thread page.

And why are you using 2016's rule language? You and percy stated they changed it in 2015 as part of a coverup. You specifically used your "they forgot to remove" the caseplay in their coverup as a weak excuse when you were cornered. Explain by the rules how they mastered the CONSPIRACY! except that one glaring detail, rules master. If refs in the NFL are as emotional as you are, maybe what people say about them is true after all, lol.