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

[McKDaddy]

I'm actually ok with both calls tonight as catches (they meet my definition of what a catch should be). However, it is complete BS when comparing them to calls we see every week where they claim player didn't meet some standard of the catch rule yet they are essentially the exact same scenario we saw tonight or the ruling runs afoul of the actual language of the rule.

"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"

How was Jessie James (Pittsburgh game) not in control of the ball & making a football move to extend the ball to the goal line?

How did Dez not tuck the ball & turn up field (which would meet two of the 4 stated criteria)? Is lunging not the equivalent of taking additional steps? If so, why wouldn't it be? It is part of an athletic act common to the game.

If a guy on his knees catches the ball at the one & falls to the goal line, is he not controlling where his body goes even though he can't take "additional steps" because he is on his knees?

The whole "going to the ground" is another major part of the problem.There is a world of difference between going to the ground voluntarily and being contacted which causes you to go to the ground. I could be OK with language that held a receiver player to a higher standard when it is voluntary (ie, NO contact by defender). But when someone is being drilled by a defender which causes them to stumble for multiple steps & go down and the ball moves upon hitting the ground, they should be deemed to have completed the catch.

Bottom line - we need a whole lot more consistency in how rules are written & how they are enforced and we need to change the rules to the simplest possible interpretation of what is a catch.

 

[G2]

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.

Hilarious you think he's an Eagle troll.

 

[G2]

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.



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

Correct

 

[KJJ]

That must be why he ruled Dez caught it, and since he knows so much, and is an actual ref, and we know it wasn’t him that overturned the call.... Steratore is not a witness for your side.

Steratore wasn’t the one who ruled it a catch on the field it was one of the other officials. The play required slow-motion replay to be confirmed. It was clear on replay Dez didn’t complete the process. The Calvin Johnson play looked more like a catch than Dez’s. Steratore made the decision on the Calvin Johnson play on his own with replay. Blandino was not apart of that play. If Steratore thought Calvin Johnson didn’t complete the process he most certainly didn’t think Dez did. Many regard Steratore as the best official in the league.

 

[KJJ]

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

Explain how it was redefined? You could never see the ball clearly touch the ground on the Cobb play. It wasn’t conclusive. Besides that was a completely different play from the Dez play.

 

[percyhoward]

Dez hit immediately on 2nd step. Ertz hit after 3rd step.

Both were catches, but they were different.

While that is a difference between the two plays, contact by the opponent doesn't affect the catch process.

"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."

Both were catches though. Control + two feet + football move.

 

[CATCH17]

Steratore wasn’t the one who ruled it a catch on the field it was one of the other officials. The play required slow-motion replay to be confirmed. It was clear on replay Dez didn’t complete the process. The Calvin Johnson play looked more like a catch than Dez’s. Steratore made the decision on the Calvin Johnson play on his own with replay. Blandino was not apart of that play. If Steratore thought Calvin Johnson didn’t complete the process he most certainly didn’t think Dez did. Many regard Steratore as the best official in the league.

Dez's mistake was reaching for the endzone because if he hadn't then you Non-catch guys wouldn't have a leg to stand on. He clearly caught it and reached for the endzone.

He had the ball in 2 hands and shifted it into his left hand while falling so he could reach for the endzone.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

What makes the whole thing aggravating is that before replay that's a touchdown, since it was ruled so on the field. And the Butch Johnson catch in the SB would have been ruled incomplete had replay been used then.

I like the old rule, if you have control of the ball when you cross the goalline, it's a touchdown, just as a runner, the ground can't cause a fumble.

Now we have a rule that can't be adequately explained by any bod, lol!

 

[Kevinicus]

I'm actually ok with both calls tonight as catches (they meet my definition of what a catch should be). However, it is complete BS when comparing them to calls we see every week where they claim player didn't meet some standard of the catch rule yet they are essentially the exact same scenario we saw tonight or the ruling runs afoul of the actual language of the rule.

"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"

How was Jessie James (Pittsburgh game) not in control of the ball & making a football move to extend the ball to the goal line?

How did Dez not tuck the ball & turn up field (which would meet two of the 4 stated criteria)? Is lunging not the equivalent of taking additional steps? If so, why wouldn't it be? It is part of an athletic act common to the game.

If a guy on his knees catches the ball at the one & falls to the goal line, is he not controlling where his body goes even though he can't take "additional steps" because he is on his knees?

The whole "going to the ground" is another major part of the problem.There is a world of difference between going to the ground voluntarily and being contacted which causes you to go to the ground. I could be OK with language that held a receiver player to a higher standard when it is voluntary (ie, NO contact by defender). But when someone is being drilled by a defender which causes them to stumble for multiple steps & go down and the ball moves upon hitting the ground, they should be deemed to have completed the catch.

Bottom line - we need a whole lot more consistency in how rules are written & how they are enforced and we need to change the rules to the simplest possible interpretation of what is a catch.

One problem with the rule is the phrase "goes to the ground." It should read "Contacts the ground." That is clearly the intention of the rule as that is when a player will not have had a chance to make a move common to the game/become a runner.

Now, even with the poor wording, we know how a player becomes a runner, and they can do so while falling. Unfortunately, the NFL is both dumb and stubborn and have completely ruined the rule and how it's applied.

 

[Kevinicus]

While that is a difference between the two plays, contact by the opponent doesn't affect the catch process.

"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."

Both were catches though. Control + two feet + football move.

Agreed. One is just easier to see than the other.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

There doesn't (or didn't, in Jan 2015) have to be a lunge, only "any act" common to the game besides simply falling down.

The additional step, tucking the ball in one hand, and his reach for the goal line are all examples of common acts in the game of football.

 

[CPanther95]

Ertz became a runner before going to the ground with his lunge. You can't say that he would have definitely gone to the ground if he didn't lunge, so the going to the ground rule didn't come into play. It's quite possible that he could have just kept running after his 3 steps.

With Dez you can't says that . He was going to the ground from the second he touched the ball . There's zero chance he could have remained on his feet. He was almost parallel to the ground when his 2nd and 3rd "steps" occurred.

 

[DFWJC]

Both were catches. Period

 

[percyhoward]

You currently have, in the rule book, at the same time, two different standards for determining completion of the catch process. One of them has been around for many years, and is popularly known as the football move. So that's what most of the current field officials have been using for most of their time in the league. In 2015, the football move was taken out of the rule book, and a new standard was instituted, stating that a player must "remain upright long enough" to become a runner. This resulted in so much confusion, that the commissioner appointed a "catch committee" to "streamline and improve" the catch rule. The catch committee decided that it had been a mistake to remove the football move, so in 2016, it was put back in, with specific examples.

But the 2015 standard was not removed.

So when Riveron said that James needed to maintain possession throughout the process of going to the ground, he was going by the 2015 standard of "upright long enough." The official who made the call on the field was probably using the standard of the football move (which has been around since 1942, with the exception of that one year). On the Dez play, there is no doubt that field judge Terry Brown was going by the football move, because that was the only standard at the time.

Which standard is better?

After a receiver has control of the ball and two feet down, there's a time requirement that must be met in order to avoid the scenario in which an immediate hit that knocked the ball loose resulted in a fumble. Both standards attempt to address this time requirement. The player had to maintain control of the ball long enough to perform a football move. The football move is a clear, observable act that is either performed or not. The problem with 2015's "upright long enough" was that officials no longer had an observable act that they could look for in order to determine completion of the catch process. They had to use their own judgment in deciding on the point at which the player was no longer "upright, " and how long was long enough.

After the year without the football move, Goodell said, "We want to be able to understand better how we actually define how long they have to keep possession of the ball."

I'd say that was an understatement, and I'd venture to guess that at least some field officials simply continued to use the standard of the football move that year. In any case, the catch committee put the football move back in, specifying that "tucking the ball, turning upfield, or taking additional steps" were all things that established a player as a runner.

Take out "upright long enough" and it immediately reduces the amount of judgment that goes into these calls. I'll be very surprised if "upright long enough" isn't removed from the rule book this offseason.

 

[KJJ]

Dez's mistake was reaching for the endzone because if he hadn't then you Non-catch guys wouldn't have a leg to stand on. He clearly caught it and reached for the endzone.

He had the ball in 2 hands and shifted it into his left hand while falling so he could reach for the endzone.

Dez tried to do too much. He’s a playmaker and it’s in his nature to try and score. He had one hand on the top half of the ball, reached for the endzone and slammed it on the turf causing the ball to come loose and pop up. Those who say the ball didn’t touch the ground are being ridiculous. At least half the ball was compressed against the ground.

The positioning of Dez’s hand on the football made it impossible for the ball not to touch the ground. I can’t even believe some are stupid enough to argue that. I’ve posted pics of the ball touching the ground for three years and some are still in denial over it.

 

[percyhoward]

Dez was going to the ground from the second he touched the ball . There's zero chance he could have remained on his feet. He was almost parallel to the ground when his 2nd and 3rd "steps" occurred.

Under "upright long enough" the overturn would have been justified, yes.

Only problem is, "upright long enough" wasn't instituted until the next season. Under the 2014 rules, all Dez had to do was complete the catch process before he went to the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

Dez tried to do too much.

What did he try to do besides just catch the ball?

 

[robertfchew]

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.



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

you still don't get it do you? must maintain possession, how many times do you have to hear it? ertz did not maintain and neither did the guy in the 1st half. you're clueless

 

[coult44]

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

Nope

 

[robertfchew]

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.

rock is braindead. dez swapped hands and went for the end zone that was 10x more emphatic than what ertz did. he fell and lost control it was not a catch and neither was the first half td where the fool lost control 2x within 5 seconds.