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

[OmerV]

Okay I am not going to teach Shakespeare to carrots then. Your interpretation of the case book plays are what is wrong, and not how they show the correct way to interpret the rule. That is the issue, the case play shows that an act common to the game ends going to the ground, and even though the rule book shows MULTIPLE examples of acts common to the game, you and your cohorts are saying only a lunge does, it is incorrect, and frankly showing a complete lack of common sense.

The casebook example says it applies when a receiver comes down with one foot and only goes to the ground after that when he is hit by an opposing player. You like to conveniently ignore that, as if the NFL plugged that into the case example by accident and didn't really mean it. That's what I'm talking about - you cherry pick such that the exact language is fine with whatever portion of the case book suits you, but has to be interpreted as you see fit as to the parts that don't suit you.

 

[MarcusRock]

Now the big question is, are there any other acts that can be performed besides a lunge? I think they chose a lunge because you can only lunge if you aren't already on the ground or if you have some sort of balance. Switching the ball in your hands - you can easily do that while falling. Reaching - easily do that while falling. Taking a step - still can be done while falling. Lunging - I still think you could, but it's much harder to do. But maybe not so much for these super athletes. And is yet another total judgement call.

Why the rule itself only talks about maintaining possession through contacting the ground, but yet buried away in the case play is some mysterious "time/interruption" factor is just wrong. Something that important needs to be clearly defined.

Now, I still stand by the Dez call as made. I don't see at any point while he is going to the ground that he ever regains his balance or braces or interrupts his fall and THEN performs a lunge. He performs the lunge while still falling. I think that's what Blandino was trying to explain. I emphasize trying. But that two part process which they try to say aren't part of the same process is a complete judgement call.

Even if they don't change the rule they absolutely need to clarify and rewrite it.

The rule certainly could be explained better and I think that was part of the reasoning behind attempting to re-write the rule wording in 2015 because of the uproar about a rule that's "hard to understand" (which is why its essence didn't change as accusations say) but with all the possibilities that these athletes can perform I don't think there's a simple way to lay it all out in a way that covers everything people can think of.

Now the big question is, are there any other acts that can be performed besides a lunge? I think they chose a lunge because you can only lunge if you aren't already on the ground or if you have some sort of balance. Switching the ball in your hands - you can easily do that while falling. Reaching - easily do that while falling. Taking a step - still can be done while falling. Lunging - I still think you could, but it's much harder to do. But maybe not so much for these super athletes. And is yet another total judgement call.

Those in bold are exactly my point and what Blandino was talking about with Dez and his "momentum in going to the ground." None of those acts prevent or interrupt a player going to the ground. Would have been good to explain it that way but they had a few hours notice versus us thinking about things 3 years later and debating over the course of a few weeks. Thanks for chiming in.

 

[BlindFaith]

The rule certainly could be explained better and I think that was part of the reasoning behind attempting to re-write the rule wording in 2015 because of the uproar about a rule that's "hard to understand" (which is why its essence didn't change as accusations say) but with all the possibilities that these athletes can perform I don't think there's a simple way to lay it all out in a way that covers everything people can think of.

QUOTE="BlindFaith, post: 7909960, member: 463"]Now the big question is, are there any other acts that can be performed besides a lunge? I think they chose a lunge because you can only lunge if you aren't already on the ground or if you have some sort of balance. Switching the ball in your hands - you can easily do that while falling. Reaching - easily do that while falling. Taking a step - still can be done while falling. Lunging - I still think you could, but it's much harder to do. But maybe not so much for these super athletes. And is yet another total judgement call.

Those in bold are exactly my point and what Blandino was talking about with Dez and his "momentum in going to the ground." None of those acts prevent or interrupt a player going to the ground. Would have been good to explain it that way but they had a few hours notice versus us thinking about things 3 years later and debating over the course of a few weeks. Thanks for chiming in.[/QUOTE]

I'm still not backing down from my critique of Blandino in this. His job was to be able to recite word for word the entire rule book and case plays, to explain step by step what occurred during the play and the intent behind the rule as it applied to the play. He mixed and matched parts of the rule and case play, very much like our other local expert does.

 

[blindzebra]

The casebook example says it applies when a receiver comes down with one foot and only goes to the ground after that when he is hit by an opposing player. You like to conveniently ignore that, as if the NFL plugged that into the case example by accident and didn't really mean it. That's what I'm talking about - you cherry pick such that the exact language is fine with whatever portion of the case book suits you, but has to be interpreted as you see fit as to the parts that don't suit you.

LOL, how many pages would the case book be if every detail of every possible play was listed?

Common sense, which is in extremely short supply with you.

 

[Hostile]

This nonsense because you are using your own rules to say the refs got it wrong rather than the rules the NFL plays by. You may think a law in your town is plain wrong, but if you break it and end up in front of a judge it's not going to do you any good to claim you didn't break the law because you prefer to go by your own law rather than the one that is written.

100% correct. I am saying the rule as they applied is stupid. However, I am also saying they still got it wrong as they applied it. The reason is simple, they did not have irrefutable or indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field. This thread and hundreds of discussions like them all over the Internet are all the proof that is necessary. NFL Announcers now mock the "catch rule" and how convoluted they have made it. I have yet to come across an NFL player who thinks he did not catch it. In fact, the exact words of Sam Shields are...

“It was a catch. But the new rule and at the last minute what happened, that’s what the refs came up with. I never said he didn’t catch it. He made a hell of a catch.” Link

And I am also saying common sense should play a factor in any overrule of a play on the field. In this case it did not. You cannot pull a hand away from a ball you do not have control of. It cannot be done, by anyone. If I am watching that play, seeing that alone I say he has the ball. Common sense also tells me that if a player doesn't have a football and dives that his body is going to go and leave the football behind. The football went with him because of the laws of physics.

I do not give two squirts of piss about the interpretation of the rule because they got the very first rule of replay wrong. It was NOT irrefutable or indisputable. Without that they cannot overturn any call the officials make on the field. It happens all the time. it should have happened in this case and it didn't. At the most critical moment of a critical football game. Just plain stupid officiating and ruling.

 

[G2]

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.

On the sideline catches: If the ball hits the ground and the WR loses control is it a catch?

 

[OmerV]

LOL, how many pages would the case book be if every detail of every possible play was listed?

Common sense, which is in extremely short supply with you.

How does this explain you ignoring what the casebook actually does cover and pretending things apply that don't? How does this explain you interpreting things contrary to how they are written? Apparently common sense to you is creating an argument by claiming the rule book and case book say things they don't.

 

[blindzebra]

1. I am, for something this important.

2. Item one has to take precedence, you have to have possession of the ball on get two feet down. Now you can do that while falling, but if you are falling you have to maintain possession through contacting the ground. Unless you can interrupt the fall and perform a lunge. Which is the only act they refer to in the case plays.

3. The c part is the point of contention. From the rule book, acts common to the game are (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.). Honestly, a player in mid air can maintain control long enough to do some of those things before they even hit the ground. Does that mean they become a runner while still in the air? They can pitch it or pass it and are almost always advancing it. All while not even touching the ground. That just makes no sense.

4. I'm fixated on it because you brought up the case plays. The case plays only talk about some time element and then a lunge. Why didn't they at least have one example of a player going to the ground, does some "time" element thing and then some OTHER act common to the game? Like pitch the ball. Because you can pitch the ball while in mid air. You can't lunge while in mid air. And they should have that as an act common to the game. Lunging is certainly an act that runners do. But you have to be a runner first. That's why they say that the lunge is not part of the process. This time thing or falling interruption completes the process of the catch, but only if they can perform the lunge.

5. But it is a special thing. Its only something that you can do if you have some sort of balance. It clearly is something that you can not do while in mid air. You could throw the ball, or pitch the ball, clearly advance the ball or even possibly ward off a defender - all while flying through the air. But lunge you can not do. That is why they specifically added the lunge part, but then did not include it as part of the catch process. Its the time/balance/interruption piece that does that.

6. IMO he was clearly falling. If this all comes down to you not thinking he was falling then so be it. But then why all the debating. Would have saved a few hundred pages of debate. Just say "I don't think he was falling". At least then the points you are debating are relevant. You can then say that the steps he took made him a runner. Or that the steps, plus the lunge made him one. Or that the steps, plus the lunge plus the reach made him one. But I don't know how you can realistically say that when he had two feet down that he wasn't falling.

That is my point you are readying way too much into the lunge. The lunge is mentioned under acts common to the game correct? If a lunge is the only thing that qualifies than why does the rules include pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc. It doesn't even include lunge specifically. Lunge is lumped into all the other possible thing in that etc.

Yes I wish they'd have included something besides lunge in the case play, but that does not change the fact that they are talking about time and an act ending going to the ground and that includes a lot more than just a lunge based on what is written explicitly in 8.1.3.c and 3.2.7 of the rule book.

 

[OmerV]

On the sideline catches: If the ball hits the ground and the WR loses control is it a catch?

I know this was a bit of a rhetorical question, but since I doubt it will be acknowledged otherwise, I'll answer it. The answer is it is not a catch if the player was going to the ground.

 

[blindzebra]

How does this explain you ignoring what the casebook actually does cover and pretending things apply that don't? How does this explain you interpreting things contrary to how they are written? Apparently common sense to you is creating an argument by claiming the rule book and case book say things they don't.

The case book plays presented cover an act common to the game and how they affect going to the ground. I have not ignored a darn thing. You are reading it as a all or nothing, literal, if it does not happen like this it doesn't count, point of view. You are the one ignoring all of the other examples of an act common to the game in 8.1.3.c and 3.2.7. You know the sections of the rule that don't even say the word lunge. If lunge is the only act common to the game, why the hell isn't it listed and why is all the other stuff there?

 

[blindzebra]

On the sideline catches: If the ball hits the ground and the WR loses control is it a catch?

Incomplete example, what did the player do before going OOB?

 

[G2]

I know this was a bit of a rhetorical question, but since I doubt it will be acknowledged otherwise, I'll answer it. The answer is it is not a catch if the player was going to the ground.

Exactly. If fans are going to continue to use inaccurate comparisons "stupid questions" then need to be asked. Some fans are just unwilling or can't get possession of the facts here. Some are even coming up with their own versions of what a "football move" is. The more and more this debate goes on the more actually am in agreeance with the rule.

 

[G2]

Incomplete example, what did the player do before going OOB?

Caught the ball, two feet touch the ground inbounds.

 

[blindzebra]

Caught the ball, two feet touch the ground inbounds.

Then it is incomplete because he is still a receiver. Not really relevant to the Dez play, because there are different restrictions for the side lines and end zone, because they can't become a runner.

 

[G2]

Then it is incomplete because he is still a receiver. Not really relevant to the Dez play, because there are different restrictions for the side lines and end zone, because they can't become a runner.

It's incomplete because he didn't maintain possession of the ball after going to the ground.

 

[OmerV]

The case book plays presented cover an act common to the game and how they affect going to the ground. I have not ignored a darn thing. You are reading it as a all or nothing, literal, if it does not happen like this it doesn't count, point of view. You are the one ignoring all of the other examples of an act common to the game in 8.1.3.c and 3.2.7. You know the sections of the rule that don't even say the word lunge. If lunge is the only act common to the game, why the hell isn't it listed and why is all the other stuff there?

LOL - the entire purpose of a casebook sets up a specific scenario with a specific set of circumstances, and you are telling us to ignore that and instead apply whatever scenario and circumstances you tell us to apply. That's enough to make me chuckle a bit.

As for your comments about lunging, I didn't comment on that so I suppose you just enjoying seeing your words in print.

 

[BlindFaith]

The case book plays presented cover an act common to the game and how they affect going to the ground. I have not ignored a darn thing. You are reading it as a all or nothing, literal, if it does not happen like this it doesn't count, point of view. You are the one ignoring all of the other examples of an act common to the game in 8.1.3.c and 3.2.7. You know the sections of the rule that don't even say the word lunge. If lunge is the only act common to the game, why the hell isn't it listed and why is all the other stuff there?

Can a player throw or pitch a ball while in the air? Can they be advancing the ball while in the air? Can they reach out the ball or switch hands?

Just a simple yes or no please?

 

[blindzebra]

Can a player throw or pitch a ball while in the air? Can they be advancing the ball while in the air? Can they reach out the ball or switch hands?

Just a simple yes or no please?

Yes they can. The player is in the air during a lunge correct? Once the do a) and b) c) is an act common to the game your body position at that point is irrelevant.

 

[BlindFaith]

That is my point you are readying way too much into the lunge. The lunge is mentioned under acts common to the game correct? If a lunge is the only thing that qualifies than why does the rules include pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc. It doesn't even include lunge specifically. Lunge is lumped into all the other possible thing in that etc.

Yes I wish they'd have included something besides lunge in the case play, but that does not change the fact that they are talking about time and an act ending going to the ground and that includes a lot more than just a lunge based on what is written explicitly in 8.1.3.c and 3.2.7 of the rule book.

Oh and the lunge in the case play is clearly stated as not part of the process of the catch. But yet you have to have it since it is the only thing mentioned in those use cases.

So the act common to the game is what exactly? Time? Interrupting the fall? What?

 

[blindzebra]

It's incomplete because he didn't maintain possession of the ball after going to the ground.

Item 2: Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the
process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the
process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.
Like I said, different rule, no relevance

LOL - the entire purpose of a casebook sets up a specific scenario with a specific set of circumstances, and you are telling us to ignore that and instead apply whatever scenario and circumstances you tell us to apply. That's enough to make me chuckle a bit.

As for your comments about lunging, I didn't comment on that so I suppose you just enjoying seeing your words in print.

What sport do you officiate? Did you even know what a case book was before this thread?

The case book sets up possible scenarios, not every scenario. I notice you failed to answer why they list various acts common to the game if only those in the case book matter?
.