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

[blindzebra]

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?

It is anything a runner would do to avoid defenders and/or advance the ball. It is the intent to do something that is not part of catching a pass. Catching a pass is control, and two feet, everything else related to advancing the ball is an act common to the game and makes a receiver a runner. In the pre-2015 rules it was the act or the time to do so. I listed some things a runner does a few posts ago, I had 10 things, and I am certain there are more. The thing to ask yourself was after Dez had control and two feet landed, did he do anything that showed the intent to advance the ball? What did he do that can't be explained by momentum to the ground? For me he braced, but you could claim it was to break his fall, but that does not explain moving the ball to his dominate hand, that was nearest the end zone, pushing off is left leg where it went from bent to fully extended to get him closer to the end zone, and extending the ball toward the goal line. Those are acts a runner trying to advance the ball would do, not a receiver trying to possess a pass. That is why it was a catch.

 

[BlindFaith]

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.

So then, based on what you just said, you feel the player can become a runner while in midair?

And I didn't say anything about a lunge. Really just asked for a yes or no answer.

A player could very easily have one foot down, catch the ball and then get another foot down and still go airborne without a lunge. In that case you are saying that just about any action they do while in the air should immediately make them a runner? While still in the air?

Now I know why you want to try and shoehorn in the lunge, but if you do, you do realize that there is no mention of lunge in the rule for act common to the game and the case play says that the lunge is not part of the catch process. Unless this is just the innate knowledge only officials know.

 

[BlindFaith]

It is anything a runner would do to avoid defenders and/or advance the ball. It is the intent to do something that is not part of catching a pass. Catching a pass is control, and two feet, everything else related to advancing the ball is an act common to the game and makes a receiver a runner. In the pre-2015 rules it was the act or the time to do so. I listed some things a runner does a few posts ago, I had 10 things, and I am certain there are more. The thing to ask yourself was after Dez had control and two feet landed, did he do anything that showed the intent to advance the ball? What did he do that can't be explained by momentum to the ground? For me he braced, but you could claim it was to break his fall, but that does not explain moving the ball to his dominate hand, that was nearest the end zone, pushing off is left leg where it went from bent to fully extended to get him closer to the end zone, and extending the ball toward the goal line. Those are acts a runner trying to advance the ball would do, not a receiver trying to possess a pass. That is why it was a catch.

Again with the shifting from the case play to rule. You never addressed my case play break down. You don't explain why the lunge is specifically said to be not part of the catch process. You dont try to explain what this time element is that does complete the process as defined in the case play. You mix and match going to the ground with a player not. You dont even think Dez was going to the ground. And you think a player can become a runner in mid air.

And you preach on about schooling us? I gave you the benefit of the doubt due to the ambiguous language of the case play. Now I'm not so sure what to think of your stand.

Dez not going to the ground? Come on man.

 

[blindzebra]

Again with the shifting from the case play to rule. You never addressed my case play break down. You don't explain why the lunge is specifically said to be not part of the catch process. You dont try to explain what this time element is that does complete the process as defined in the case play. You mix and match going to the ground with a player not. You dont even think Dez was going to the ground. And you think a player can become a runner in mid air.

And you preach on about schooling us? I gave you the benefit of the doubt due to the ambiguous language of the case play. Now I'm not so sure what to think of your stand.

Dez not going to the ground? Come on man.

I have repeatedly said it. It isn't part of the catch because it is the act of a runner.
I never said Dez was not going to the ground, I am saying he did things while going to the ground that were not strictly because he was falling, he did things that advanced the ball nearer the goal line, he did things that completed 8.1.3.c and he was a runner when he hit the ground, just like the player in the case play.

 

[blindzebra]

So then, based on what you just said, you feel the player can become a runner while in midair?

And I didn't say anything about a lunge. Really just asked for a yes or no answer.

A player could very easily have one foot down, catch the ball and then get another foot down and still go airborne without a lunge. In that case you are saying that just about any action they do while in the air should immediately make them a runner? While still in the air?

Now I know why you want to try and shoehorn in the lunge, but if you do, you do realize that there is no mention of lunge in the rule for act common to the game and the case play says that the lunge is not part of the catch process. Unless this is just the innate knowledge only officials know.

Let's do a little experiment, let's just take lunge out of the case play and replace it with any of the other things listed in 8.1.3.c and 3.2.7, does that change the case play results?

 

[BlindFaith]

I have repeatedly said it. It isn't part of the catch because it is the act of a runner.

Well then read the rules again. For a catch to be completed you have to perform an act common/become a runner.

The case play says that the catch process was completed prior to the lunge. ie the lunge is not part of the process.

So what completed the catch process? And why do they insist that a lunge (not a mention of any other act) is specifically named in all of the case plays in reference to going to the ground?

I gave my explanation. You have yet to do so.

 

[percyhoward]

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?

Of course it isn't all that's needed. There's such a thing as the 3-part catch process. It's how officials determine a catch has been made. The first 2 parts were (and still are) control of the ball and two feet down. In 2014, part 3 of the catch process required that the player hold onto the ball long enough "to perform any act common to the game." This is popularly known as the football move. In simple terms, the football move was the thing that the receiver did that showed he wasn't still trying to catch the ball. And it had to come after he had control of the ball and two feet on the ground.

Informed discussion of the Dez play inevitably centers on the football move. That's because we know Dez completed the first two parts of the catch process (control + two feet down). Not even Blandino questioned that part. We know Blandino saw Dez get control of the ball and two feet down, because Blandino said
he looked for a football move. You wouldn't have any need to look for part 3 of the process if parts 1 and 2 hadn't been completed.

Where is it written that this overrides the "going to the ground" rule?

Item 1 (popularly known as the "going to the ground" rule) applies when a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass. It does not apply to players who have completed the catch process, just to those who are still in the act. We know that in 2014, a player could make a football move while falling because there was nothing in the rules about a player having to be "upright" in order to become a runner. (That didn't get added until the next year.)

Besides the rule itself, we also have casebook examples of players completing the catch process while falling, video explanations by Blandino of similar plays which show players completing the process while falling, and Blandino's own statements when asked why he overturned the catch. He said Dez's reach wasn't obvious enough to be considered a football move, because he didn't "extend the ball, or reach with two hands." If you can't complete the catch process while falling, it wouldn't matter how many hands you used or how far you extended the ball, so that's Blandino telling us that it's possible for a player to complete the catch process while falling.

 

[blindzebra]

I have said this about a 100 times too.

The act common case play says time to make a move. The one case play on going to the ground was identical to the ACCP, so time. The second case play said brace and lunge, so you could say that the brace supplied the act. In reality the line that says that it wasn't part of the catch process, does not mean that the lunge or anything else listed in the rules, has to be catch related, that is the very reason that part c is there, to separate the catch from a runner. Part c is the transition. It is something that is not part of possessing the catch, be it time or an act.

Simply put 8.1.3.a and 8.1.3.b is the act of catching, 8.1.3.c makes you a runner.

 

[percyhoward]

I have repeatedly said it. It isn't part of the catch because it is the act of a runner.
I never said Dez was not going to the ground, I am saying he did things while going to the ground that were not strictly because he was falling, he did things that advanced the ball nearer the goal line, he did things that completed 8.1.3.c and he was a runner when he hit the ground, just like the player in the case play.

People lose sight of the fact that the question isn't "What's going to the ground?" it's "What is a catch?"

 

[MarcusRock]

But I don't know how you can realistically say that when he had two feet down that he wasn't falling.

This is the essence of the catch theorists' position. They HAVE to say he wasn't going to the ground because then it is an open and shut case. So they will roll back the video to try to get "technical" while they laud Pereira for saying that replay has become too technical and to just stick with the officials' calls on the field. Two-faced opinions depending on what suits them today. Who knows what it'll be tomorrow.

Now I'm not so sure what to think of your stand.

Like I said, it's not a stand at all. It's a piñata approach to find something to hit then claim that you have to blow up the whole thing because one part of it looks funny to them. But when you detect shoehorning, there's usually a reason for that and typically, it's because the argument can't stand on its own.

 

[BlindFaith]

Let's do a little experiment, let's just take lunge out of the case play and replace it with any of the other things listed in 8.1.3.c and 3.2.7, does that change the case play results?

It changes the case plays defined by the nfl. Sure, we could just make things up, but I thought we were trying to explain the actual rules.

And since I don't know exactly what they are trying to define in the case play since there is no corresponding written rule to refer back to, it's only my supposition of intent.

But I'll play along, based on what I think they are trying to say.

That would be you can't replace the lunge. The lunge is specifically chosen because its an act that supports the interruption of going to the ground. The time element in the rule that completes the act.

And if you are going to the ground you could certainly be off your feet. That means only an act that demonstrates that you have interrupted the fall can suffice. Reaching, or shifting the ball, or pitching or passing are things you CAN do while in the air. You said so yourself. And if those acts can be done in the air, how can they possibly be used to support an interruption to the ground?

A lunge is actually an act that could be considered as an attempt to get off the ground. Hence supporting the act of interrupting the fall.

 

[percyhoward]

Well then read the rules again. For a catch to be completed you have to perform an act common/become a runner.

The case play says that the catch process was completed prior to the lunge. ie the lunge is not part of the process.

So what completed the catch process? And why do they insist that a lunge (not a mention of any other act) is specifically named in all of the case plays in reference to going to the ground?

I gave my explanation. You have yet to do so.

Runners lunge. The lunge is not an act of a receiver. The most a receiver can do is control the ball and get two feet down.

 

[percyhoward]

A lunge is actually an act that could be considered as an attempt to get off the ground. Hence supporting the act of interrupting the fall.

I now I've asked this before, but we're talking about the scenario that's listed under the heading, "Act common to the game," right?

 

[BlindFaith]

People lose sight of the fact that the question isn't "What's going to the ground?" it's "What is a catch?"

This is a direct quote from the guy you quoted.

1. If Dez did anything from landing on two feet and hitting the ground that was not 100% conclusive to be part of falling, and could be seen as attempting to advance the ball, than Dez completed part c and it was a catch

He doesn't believe it's even 100% conclusive he was going to the ground.

 

[MarcusRock]

It changes the case plays defined by the nfl. Sure, we could just make things up, but I thought we were trying to explain the actual rules.

And since I don't know exactly what they are trying to define in the case play since there is no corresponding written rule to refer back to, it's only my supposition of intent.

But I'll play along, based on what I think they are trying to say.

That would be you can't replace the lunge. The lunge is specifically chosen because its an act that supports the interruption of going to the ground. The time element in the rule that completes the act.

And if you are going to the ground you could certainly be off your feet. That means only an act that demonstrates that you have interrupted the fall can suffice. Reaching, or shifting the ball, or pitching or passing are things you CAN do while in the air. You said so yourself. And if those acts can be done in the air, how can they possibly be used to support an interruption to the ground?

A lunge is actually an act that could be considered as an attempt to get off the ground. Hence supporting the act of interrupting the fall.

Nice. This would be the point where the wingman defers to the squadron leader.

 

[blindzebra]

It changes the case plays defined by the nfl. Sure, we could just make things up, but I thought we were trying to explain the actual rules.

And since I don't know exactly what they are trying to define in the case play since there is no corresponding written rule to refer back to, it's only my supposition of intent.

But I'll play along, based on what I think they are trying to say.

That would be you can't replace the lunge. The lunge is specifically chosen because its an act that supports the interruption of going to the ground. The time element in the rule that completes the act.

And if you are going to the ground you could certainly be off your feet. That means only an act that demonstrates that you have interrupted the fall can suffice. Reaching, or shifting the ball, or pitching or passing are things you CAN do while in the air. You said so yourself. And if those acts can be done in the air, how can they possibly be used to support an interruption to the ground?

A lunge is actually an act that could be considered as an attempt to get off the ground. Hence supporting the act of interrupting the fall.

That is exactly why I asked, When you wrote this:

And since I don't know exactly what they are trying to define in the case play since there is no corresponding written rule to refer back to, it's only my supposition of intent.

That is exactly what you are already doing, by saying that only a lunge applies. You are reading too deeply into the case play instead of realizing that it is not about just the lunge it is about any act common to the game. We can infer that because we look at the case play about an act common, what 8.1.3.c says these acts can be, and further support it with 3.2.7.

You are taking the case play and working backwards without any rule support, and inferring something that is not in the rules. That is a huge difference than having rule support and then applying it to a case play that is not exact an exact match.

 

[blindzebra]

This is a direct quote from the guy you quoted.

1. If Dez did anything from landing on two feet and hitting the ground that was not 100% conclusive to be part of falling, and could be seen as attempting to advance the ball, than Dez completed part c and it was a catch

He doesn't believe it's even 100% conclusive he was going to the ground.

Wow, that is not even close to what I said, I thought you were above that kind of thing, I guess not.

 

[blindzebra]

I now I've asked this before, but we're talking about the scenario that's listed under the heading, "Act common to the game," right?

I have tried to explain it 20 different ways, they refuse to even try to understand it, but good luck. By now they should be able to be a football ref with all the rule knowledge we have supplied.

 

[percyhoward]

This is a direct quote from the guy you quoted.

1. If Dez did anything from landing on two feet and hitting the ground that was not 100% conclusive to be part of falling, and could be seen as attempting to advance the ball, than Dez completed part c and it was a catch

He doesn't believe it's even 100% conclusive he was going to the ground.

Sounds like he wants you to compare falling vs. catching a football.

Then apply it to what Dez did.

 

[BlindFaith]

Runners lunge. The lunge is not an act of a receiver. The most a receiver can do is control the ball and get two feet down.

Precisely. Runners lunge. But they have to be on the ground to do so, right? So why did they only use that 1 example in the case plays? And why did they specifically say that the lunge was not part of the process? And that what was part of the process was time, then it became brace and then it became balance? What or they inferring here?

I gave my explanation. Blidzebra hasn't. Maybe you'd like to?