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

[MarcusRock]

We are discussing a 2014 play when upright long enough was not invented yet, can't overcome that is funny.

So you stick by your "they changed the rules afterwards" CONSPIRACY!

Funny, when Pereira said that going to the ground trumped the 3-part process, he was discussing the Jesse James catch at the time and made direct reference with "... like with Dez Bryant a few years ago ..." Is Mike Pereira in on the CONSPIRACY! too? Just want to make sure there's an official conspiracy stance from your side or whether that's the fallback excuse when you don't want to admit something.

 

[blindzebra]

Participation in threads is always voluntary. Nothing mandatory about any of it. There is no mental court order binding anyone to continually disagree with another member, especially if the member doing the disagreeing expresses exasperation about incessantly disagreeing with other members discussing any given topic. There are always other topics to talk about in other threads, lol.

You mean the gun to KJJ's head is just in his mind?

 

[blindzebra]

So you stick by your "they changed the rules afterwards" CONSPIRACY!

Funny, when Pereira said that going to the ground trumped the 3-part process, he was discussing the Jesse James catch at the time and made direct reference with "... like Dez Bryant a few years ago ..." Is Mike Pereira in on the CONSPIRACY! too? Just want to make sure there's an official conspiracy stance from your side or whether that's the fallback excuse when you don't want to admit something.

They did change the rule in 2015, or can you supply the words upright long enough in the rules in 2014? Why you are looking look for not enough of a football move, magic lunge, and must gather.

The same Pereira who mentored Blandino, and the minute he stepped down did a 180 on the catch rule, that Pereira?

 

[DallasEast]

You mean the gun to KJJ's head is just in his mind?

lol.

 

[KJJ]

That is funny coming from the king of reporting posts, screaming they are picking on me.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think that part of the problem here is that the rules committee has made the catch so difficult to officiate, that it has put officiating crews in a real bind. They can not seem to get any kind of consistency on the calls, league wide. To many cases where calls contradict the rules. I think fans could get used to anything. They may not like a rule but they can get used to it, if....... it's called the same across the league. That doesn't really happen with the catch rules today

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/20/9746130/nfl-catch-rule-controversies-calvin-johnson-referees

 

[KJJ]

I think that part of the problem here is that the rules committee has made the catch so difficult to officiate, that it has put officiating crews in a real bind. They can not seem to get any kind of consistency on the calls, league wide. To many cases where calls contradict the rules.

According to the league the rule was adopted to get consistency and they’ve been very consistent in waving off or overruling catches if a receiver who’s going to the ground doesn’t survive the ground. The confusion is mostly with fans who either don’t understand what going to the ground is or they can’t accept it. Going to the ground is a leap, catch and falling to the ground all in one piece.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

According to the league the rule was adopted to get consistency and they’ve been very consistent in waving off or overruling catches if a receiver who’s going to the ground doesn’t survive the ground. The confusion is mostly with fans who either don’t understand what going to the ground is or they can’t accept it. Going to the ground is a leap, catch and falling to the ground all in one piece.

According to the League Commissioner, the rule has hurt the game and needs to be fixed. I mean, seems pretty clear to me that there is a problem there.

The problem is not the fans IMO. The problem is the complexity of the rule and the position it forces officials into. However, lets say you are right and it is all the fans. I don't believe that but for the sake of discussion, lets say you are right. The fans are the game. Without the fans, there is no game and everybody goes to the unemployment line. If the fans do not like the rule, regardless of why, then the rule is bad and it's hurting the game. It can be explained away in a thousand different ways but at the end of the day, if the Fans don't like it, then it's bad for the game. That's just the truth of it.

 

[blindzebra]

I think that part of the problem here is that the rules committee has made the catch so difficult to officiate, that it has put officiating crews in a real bind. They can not seem to get any kind of consistency on the calls, league wide. To many cases where calls contradict the rules. I think fans could get used to anything. They may not like a rule but they can get used to it, if....... it's called the same across the league. That doesn't really happen with the catch rules today

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/11/20/9746130/nfl-catch-rule-controversies-calvin-johnson-referees

The rules are very badly written, and extremely vague, and have only gotten worse. There are very few rules in sports that are black and white, fair or foul ball, out of bounds are the closest, but even those have a little grey area. Everything else is pure judgement, and when you couple judgement with vague language you are creating a ticking time bomb. This thread is full of rule citations and case plays, and very few of those posting them have any experience reading and applying rules. Getting a full understanding of rules takes time, lots of time. You have to be doing officiating, messing up calls, going back and review rules, and go on reffing and learning. The worse thing you can do to officials is change rules. All of that time developing an understanding goes away, and a new period of learning is needed. In most sports, changes are minimal, it may be a word here or there that makes the rule more clear, or a point of emphasis to get all officials on the same page. But the NFL seems to blow things up every year and that is a major problem with consistency of application. When those changes include vague language like upright long enough or time enough to do so, you further damage consistency.

 

[MarcusRock]

They did change the rule in 2015, or can you supply the words upright long enough in the rules in 2014? Why you are looking look for not enough of a football move, magic lunge, and must gather.

The same Pereira who mentored Blandino, and the minute he stepped down did a 180 on the catch rule, that Pereira?

Nothing changed in the rules but the wording. This is the question that percy avoids now after he made that slanted claim. The rule has always been control, two feet, and time. It is the same even now. You can judge a football move that makes someone "clearly a runner" or determine that time made them a runner. "Upright long enough" is just the clarification to spell out when they determine a person is going to the ground. It is a judgement call now just like it was a judgement call in 2014. The only difference is added clarification wording that CONSPIRACY! theorists attempt to latch onto for a failed stance.

 

[DogFace]

I don't know what this means.

The case plays support the call being over turned. Supports that Dez didn't regain his balance or gather himself before making the lunge. And since he didn't gather himself he must maintain possession through contacting the ground. Which he didn't. Incomplete pass.

I don't know what this means.

The case plays support the call being over turned. Supports that Dez didn't regain his balance or gather himself before making the lunge. And since he didn't gather himself he must maintain possession through contacting the ground. Which he didn't. Incomplete pass.

If I’m not mistaken you’ve said before the wording of the caseplay was not correct or the caseplay itself wasn’t correct. That is, it contradicted(not contraction which I blame my iPhone for) the Dez call not standing as a catch.

The caseplay and the Dez play were nearly identical.

 

[KJJ]

According to the League Commissioner, the rule has hurt the game and needs to be fixed. I mean, seems pretty clear to me that there is a problem there.

The problem is not the fans IMO. The problem is the complexity of the rule and the position it forces officials into. However, lets say you are right and it is all the fans. I don't believe that but for the sake of discussion, lets say you are right. The fans are the game. Without the fans, there is no game and everybody goes to the unemployment line. If the fans do not like the rule, regardless of why, then the rule is bad and it's hurting the game. It can be explained away in a thousand different ways but at the end of the day, if the Fans don't like it, then it's bad for the game. That's just the truth of it.

It’s clearly hurt the game because every time a call happens involving this rule the controversy and whining starts up again. The rule has complexities but it states very clearly that a receiver going to the ground has to survive the ground. There’s no way around it it’s a requirement. Despite how clear that’s been since 2010 fans won’t accept it. This thread is a perfect example, most here ignore the going to the ground part and keep harping that a football move was made. Going to the ground trumps a football move. Despite the rules the game will continue to thrive. We’ve had a number of rule changes over the years to try and improve the safety of the game. In some ways a few of those rules have hurt the game. No one including the league likes the catch rule but they’re trying to get consistency with the call. You have a lot of very intelligent and very rich people putting their heads together trying to figure out how to rectify this issue.

The problem is receivers have become so freakish they can perform all kinds of acrobatics in mid air while catching a football. Which is another reason this rule needs to be changed. If a clear catch is made a receiver going to the ground and losing the ball when contacting the ground shouldn’t waive a catch off. They say the ground can’t cause a fumble, well the ground shouldn’t cause a clearly completed pass to be incomplete. If they put an end to a receiver who’s going to the ground having to survive the ground it will eliminate the biggest controversy in the rule and make everyone a lot happier with it.

 

[blindzebra]

Nothing changed in the rules but the wording. This is the question that percy avoids now after he made that slanted claim. The rule has always been control, two feet, and time. It is the same even now. You can judge a football move that makes someone "clearly a runner" or determine that time made them a runner. "Upright long enough" is just the clarification to spell out when they determine a person is going to the ground. It is a judgement call now just like it was a judgement call in 2014. The only difference is added clarification wording that CONSPIRACY! theorists attempt to latch onto for a failed stance.

Time or do an act common to the game is not the same as upright long enough BEFORE going to the ground which is what 2015 said, two completely different concepts, in two completely different sections of the rule. Then to use the two Dez plays to illustrate it was even more silly, because his body position was identical in both plays, and the only difference was his ability to use his right leg to propel himself, in the NY game he could, in GB his right leg was tangled with Shields, so he could only push off his left leg. The acts common to the game were identical, a lunge and a reach. There is no not enough of a lunge or not enough of a reach. You yourself admitted Dez lunged and reached in GB, but you could only see it in slow motion. Who the hell cares? That is the point of replay, they overturn and confirm all the time on slow motion, super slow motion, zoomed in views, multiple camera angles, putting angles together, etc. it is never done from one angle at full speed.

 

[DogFace]

Yes, he is down by contact if the reason he went to the ground was because the defender knocked him to the ground after one foot came down. You can't skip to the result as if the scenario that the stated result refers to isn't applicable. Hell, if we are going to do that he doesn't have to even catch it, we can just skip to the part that says "down by contact" and call it good.

As for the ref judging, yes, the ref does have to make judgments. That's part of the job. And it's not an accident the casebook example says it's the contact that causes him to go to the ground rather than the scenario being based on the receiver going to the ground at any point for any reason. If that's what they meant they would have said it that way because it would take out a lot of the element of judgment. The only reason to word it the way they did was to differentiate the rule as it relates to a player that is going down on his own as opposed to one that comes down in control and is then knocked to the ground.

I don’t think it’s relelvent, but the ref on the field did rule Dez down by contact.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It’s clearly hurt the game because every time a call happens involving this rule the controversy and whining starts up again. The rule has complexities but it states very clearly that a receiver going to the ground has to survive the ground. There’s no way around it it’s a requirement. Despite how clear that’s been since 2010 fans won’t accept it. This thread is a perfect example, most here ignore the going to the ground part and keep harping that a football move was made. Going to the ground trumps a football move. Despite the rules the game will continue to thrive. We’ve had a number of rule changes over the years to try and improve the safety of the game. In some ways a few of those rules have hurt the game. No one including the league likes the catch rule but they’re trying to get consistency with the call. You have a lot of very intelligent and very rich people putting their heads together trying to figure out how to rectify this issue.

The problem is receivers have become so freakish they can perform all kinds of acrobatics in mid air while catching a football. Which is another reason this rule needs to be changed. If a clear catch is made a receiver going to the ground and losing the ball when contacting the ground shouldn’t waive a catch off. They say the ground can’t cause a fumble, well the ground shouldn’t cause a clearly completed pass to be incomplete. If they put an end to a receiver who’s going to the ground having to survive the ground it will eliminate the biggest controversy in the rule and make everyone a lot happier with it.

I do not believe that Officials have been all that consistent, especially on the largest stages. However, that's here nor there. The point of all of this is that fans do not like it. All the rest really doesn't matter. All those rich, smart people, you would think that it would be pretty easy to figure out. Go back to a rule that the players, coaches, officials and fans liked more.

 

[OmerV]

I don’t think it’s relelvent, but the ref on the field did rule Dez down by contact.

You are right, he did, and I understand why he did, but the reason instant replay exists is because the original viewpoint and the original call isn't always right.

 

[blindzebra]

I do not believe that Officials have been all that consistent, especially on the largest stages. However, that's here nor there. The point of all of this is that fans do not like it. All the rest really doesn't matter. All those rich, smart people, you would think that it would be pretty easy to figure out. Go back to a rule that the players, coaches, officials and fans liked more.

It gets worse because the replay officials are not consistent either. Way too many times that the official on the field got it right and it gets overturned or they get it wrong and it stands after review.

 

[blindzebra]

You are right, he did, and I understand why he did, but the reason instant replay exists is because the original viewpoint and the original call isn't always right.

And we have seen plenty of times where the call on the field is correct and the replay official got it wrong.

 

[MarcusRock]

Time or do an act common to the game is not the same as upright long enough BEFORE going to the ground which is what 2015 said, two completely different concepts, in two completely different sections of the rule. Then to use the two Dez plays to illustrate it was even more silly, because his body position was identical in both plays, and the only difference was his ability to use his right leg to propel himself, in the NY game he could, in GB his right leg was tangled with Shields, so he could only push off his left leg. The acts common to the game were identical, a lunge and a reach. There is no not enough of a lunge or not enough of a reach. You yourself admitted Dez lunged and reached in GB, but you could only see it in slow motion. Who the hell cares? That is the point of replay, they overturn and confirm all the time on slow motion, super slow motion, zoomed in views, multiple camera angles, putting angles together, etc. it is never done from one angle at full speed.

Does the 2015 rule have a part a, b, and c? That is where you determine if someone is "clearly a runner" either by act or time (the 2nd question percy avoided). The Blandino video clearly shows the difference between Dez' 2 attempts at a lunge. The one in GB fell flat, so to speak and is nowhere close to the one he executed against the Giants earlier that year, nor any other examples of a lunge presented in this thread or the other recent threads on this topic (that was the 1st question percy avoided and has left off trying to claim Dez' attempted lunge as a football move since then). Full speed video is nothing more than proving that Dez was going to the ground the whole way and nothing he did prevented him from doing that (the question from BlindFaith that YOU avoid).

 

[OmerV]

If I’m not mistaken you’ve said before the wording of the caseplay was not correct or the caseplay itself wasn’t correct. That is, it contradicted(not contraction which I blame my iPhone for) the Dez call not standing as a catch.

The caseplay and the Dez play were nearly identical.

Again, the case play and the Dez play are nearly identical IF a person believes Dez came down in control and then went to the ground because of contact from the opponent. If that's what you believe happened, then you can apply that case play. I don't believe that's how it happened. I believe he was going to the ground the whole way, so in my perception of the play the case play does not fit the bill. As I've said before, if it's just a matter of perception, that's cool. Reasonable people sometimes see things differently. But if it comes down to ignoring a portion of the circumstances specifically set out in the case play in order to force the scenario to fit, I can't go along with that.