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

[MarcusRock]

So you would rather have no replay and have several bad calls that could potentially have playoff/SB implications and effect players/coaches/GM’s jobs then have to watch an extra 20-30 minutes of tv?

I wonder how the Chargers fans feel about that after Hochuli cost them a playoff spot with a blown call. I don’t think it was reviewable (maybe it was, I’m sure the troll favt checker can chime in) which made it even worse. This website would blow up if that happened to the Cowboys.

Yeah, even with replay reversals that are correct, there's always fans of teams who refuse to "live with" the result anyway. That's the point at which they start debating whether the evidence was "conclusive enough" to warrant an overturn. Oh, look at what thread we're in, lol.

I'm all for adjusting replay if it makes it quicker, not because of fans whining because they didn't get the result they wanted out of it.

 

[Aviano90]

So you would rather have no replay and have several bad calls that could potentially have playoff/SB implications and effect players/coaches/GM’s jobs then have to watch an extra 20-30 minutes of tv?

I wonder how the Chargers fans feel about that after Hochuli cost them a playoff spot with a blown call. I don’t think it was reviewable (maybe it was, I’m sure the troll favt checker can chime in) which made it even worse. This website would blow up if that happened to the Cowboys.

Over what we have today, yes, I would. I don't expect everyone to agree, nor do I care to change anyone's opinion, but I can't stand replay now.

 

[aria]

Over what we have today, yes, I would. I don't expect everyone to agree, nor do I care to change anyone's opinion, but I can't stand replay now.

Lol, guess I can’t argue with that, fair enough

 

[KJJ]

Over what we have today, yes, I would. I don't expect everyone to agree, nor do I care to change anyone's opinion, but I can't stand replay now.

Replay has always been around and being able to use it to correct missed calls has clearly improved the game. Replay can work for you or against you and it worked against us with the Dez play.

 

[blindzebra]

Drastic? LOL.

If you look at the 7 changing stories catch theorists have told over the years you'll see the answer to your question in never-ending changing story number 2:

1. “The ball never hit the ground”
Check the reverse angle

2. “No, no, Dez was running and got tripped”
Contact from a defender is irrelevant in going to the ground

3. “No, no, Dez reached or lunged or something”
He intended to lunge but did not execute

4. “No, no, Dez performed a bajillion football moves before that though”
Going to the ground trumps the 3-part process (unless they do something other than fall per A.R. 8.12 & 15.95)

5. “No, no, the replay wasn’t conclusive. The call should have stood.”
Replay confirmed that going to the ground should have been applied instead

6. “No, no, they took away the A.R. rule enabling an act on the way to the ground after the fact”
The rule was there in 2014 and 2015.

7. “No, no, they changed the catch rule in 2015 so refs can’t look for football moves”
A ref can judge that one has performed acts or had time to “clearly become a runner.” Same as before. Same rule, different wording.

8. "Oh yeah? Well, CONSPIRACY!"
Of course! How did we miss that?

Repeating yourself, as I recall I completely destroyed half that moronic list the last time you posted it.

That turn covered about 5 or 6 feet. So again, why did two players who jumped, extended for the ball, landed, and fell did one fall in a straight line a good five feet from the side line and the one with the ball end up a foot from it? Shields was almost a yard in front of Dez when they landed from their jumps but ended up a yard behind Dez when they landed on the ground, what caused that?

 

[BlindFaith]

So in the caseplay the “braces himself” is the part where you felt the player gathered himself?
Probably. I feel Dez did try to brace for the impact with his right hand which, of course, at one time was on the ball. Taking your hand off the ball to attempt a brace seems like a football move. I thought it was posted that the rules didn’t state the 3 part process could not be completed on the was to the ground.

One other point is Part 3 of the catch process rule used the example-if the player has time to pitch the ball.

Do you think Dez could’ve pitched it or he had time?
Seems as though rather than reaching out with one hand in an attempt to get more yardage he had time to pitch it.

Braces is used in one, regains balance is used in another. Simply maintains possession long enough is used in yet another. It is the one that simply says maintains possession long enough that I was getting hung up on as being in contradiction with the actual going to the ground rule. But it you put the three into the same context, IMO the intent is that if the player starts to go to the ground, but yet "gathers" themselves in a meaningful way for long enough, and then performs a lunge, then they will make an exception to the going to the ground and deem it a catch, assuming at the point of the lunge. So its not make a football move while falling. It's making an act to interrupt the fall or gather that actually completes the catch process. But the ambiguous addition in the case plays of performing a lunge is present in all. Not one case plays refers to any other act. And this additional act is clearly not called out as part of the process. Why is that? What are they trying to communicate here by defining it that way?

You can question whether or not other things qualify other than a lunge. The case plays only refer to a lunge as being the act. I believe they chose lunge because it is the only act a runner can do. They could also protect themselves or ward off contact. That would also tie into them having the ability to gather themselves. A reach is an act anyone can do. You don't have to be a runner to reach. You can reach while in mid air. Can you protect or ward off contact while in mid air? Possibly. But far more of a judgement call.

The case plays do bring into question whether those specific scenarios only deal with players who have been forced into the ground via contact. The language is certainly in the case plays to suggest that.

A catch can be completed while on the ground. That is obvious. That is becoming a runner.

What's at question here is if a player can complete the catch while falling. The first part of this is a judgement call if the player is actually falling in the first place. If he is deemed to be falling, then IMO, the case plays elude to if the player can regain their balance or gather themselves enough to act as a runner and then perform the lunge ( the only act clearly defined as fulfilling this requirement ), then it becomes a catch and therefore does not require the player to maintain control through contacting the ground.

The determination on the Dez call was that he was clearly going to the ground and at NO point regained his balance or gathered himself in a demonstrable way PROCEEDING the "lunge" he made. And its even disputable that the action he made was a lunge, or a reach or all just a jumbled bunch of actions he made. But the key here is that it doesn't matter what "football" move he made. He never regained balance or gathered himself first.

 

[OmerV]

A receiver can turn while falling due to their great athletic ability. Receivers are freaks. Dez did some impressive things while heading to the ground but the ball didn’t survive the ground. No one can defy gravity regardless of their athletic ability.

A person can actually turn their body while in mid air, but that doesn't make him a runner.

 

[blindzebra]

Drastic turn? I don't think drastic means what you think it means. Even so, people who stumble don't necessarily stumble in perfectly straight line. When a foot gives way a person tends to fall in the direction of that foot.

LOL, Dez' foot was pointing away from the side line when he landed, but nice try.

That turn covered about 5 or 6 feet. So again, why did two players who jumped, extended for the ball, landed, and fell did one fall in a straight line a good five feet from the side line and the one with the ball end up a foot from it? Shields was almost a yard in front of Dez when they landed from their jumps but ended up a yard behind Dez when they landed on the ground, what caused that?

 

[Bleedblue1111]

Replay has always been around and being able to use it to correct missed calls has clearly improved the game. Replay can work for you or against you and it worked against us with the Dez play.

The replay didn't work against us on the Dez play, as much as the moron evaluating the replay did.

 

[BlindFaith]

I'm pretty sure we all have heard the saying..."beating a dead horse"? As much as ALL of us who believe Dez, caught that pass, it really makes not one damn bit of difference now.
What we should be discussing, is how this team gets better, and reclaims their status after 20 plus years of mediocre BS....I'll be damned if I am going to congratulate the stinking Feagles on another SB win... lord forbid!

Honestly, it wouldn't be as many pages as it is if it weren't for folks chiming in asking why is it so many pages. But thanks for your contribution.

 

[blindzebra]

Braces is used in one, regains balance is used in another. Simply maintains possession long enough is used in yet another. It is the one that simply says maintains possession long enough that I was getting hung up on as being in contradiction with the actual going to the ground rule. But it you put the three into the same context, IMO the intent is that if the player starts to go to the ground, but yet "gathers" themselves in a meaningful way for long enough, and then performs a lunge, then they will make an exception to the going to the ground and deem it a catch, assuming at the point of the lunge. So its not make a football move while falling. It's making an act to interrupt the fall or gather that actually completes the catch process. But the ambiguous addition in the case plays of performing a lunge is present in all. Not one case plays refers to any other act. And this additional act is clearly not called out as part of the process. Why is that? What are they trying to communicate here by defining it that way?

You can question whether or not other things qualify other than a lunge. The case plays only refer to a lunge as being the act. I believe they chose lunge because it is the only act a runner can do. They could also protect themselves or ward off contact. That would also tie into them having the ability to gather themselves. A reach is an act anyone can do. You don't have to be a runner to reach. You can reach while in mid air. Can you protect or ward off contact while in mid air? Possibly. But far more of a judgement call.

The case plays do bring into question whether those specific scenarios only deal with players who have been forced into the ground via contact. The language is certainly in the case plays to suggest that.

A catch can be completed while on the ground. That is obvious. That is becoming a runner.

What's at question here is if a player can complete the catch while falling. The first part of this is a judgement call if the player is actually falling in the first place. If he is deemed to be falling, then IMO, the case plays elude to if the player can regain their balance or gather themselves enough to act as a runner and then perform the lunge ( the only act clearly defined as fulfilling this requirement ), then it becomes a catch and therefore does not require the player to maintain control through contacting the ground.

The determination on the Dez call was that he was clearly going to the ground and at NO point regained his balance or gathered himself in a demonstrable way PROCEEDING the "lunge" he made. And its even disputable that the action he made was a lunge, or a reach or all just a jumbled bunch of actions he made. But the key here is that it doesn't matter what "football" move he made. He never regained balance or gathered himself first.

I have gone over this several times already, but what the hell maybe this time it will sink in.

If something is the only thing that can do something in the rules it will explicitly say that in the rule. In case plays if it is an either or thing you will see an a) or b) scenario where a player did or didn't do the required action, with two rulings at the end.

 

[OmerV]

LOL, Dez' foot was pointing away from the side line when he landed, but nice try.

That turn covered about 5 or 6 feet. So again, why did two players who jumped, extended for the ball, landed, and fell did one fall in a straight line a good five feet from the side line and the one with the ball end up a foot from it? Shields was almost a yard in front of Dez when they landed from their jumps but ended up a yard behind Dez when they landed on the ground, what caused that?

What are you, a robot whose joints are permanently cemented where they only point one direction? Any normal person can walk down the street alternating whether their foot points left or right with each step and never change directions. A foot pointing a certain way isn't a drastic change in direction - that requires a body actually turning and propelling itself a different way, At most Dez's body slightly faded toward the sideline. There wasn't anything that any reasonable person could even remotely refer to as a drastic change of direction.

As for why they jumped 5 feet from the sideline and landed a foot from it, that's called a pass route. Were you somehow under the impression that receivers always run their routes exactly parallel the sideline, and when the jump for a ball they always jump perfectly parallel to the sideline regardless of the location of the ball?

 

[blindzebra]

What are you, a robot whose joints are permanently cemented where they only point one direction? Any normal person can walk down the street alternating whether their foot points left or right with each step and never change directions. A foot pointing a certain way isn't a drastic change in direction - that requires a body actually turning and propelling itself a different way, At most Dez's body slightly faded toward the sideline. There wasn't anything that any reasonable person could even remotely refer to as a drastic change of direction.

You are the one who said people tend to fall in the direction their foot was facing, remember? Or were you in such a rush to disagree that you tried to use it against me? Bravo, you took a shot at yourself. Actually a reasonable person would question why two players doing practically the same thing would land in such different manors.

Here is a clue...it was because one of them was making football moves trying to score, and the other just fell under his momentum to the ground.

 

[OmerV]

You are the one who said people tend to fall in the direction their foot was facing, remember? Or were you in such a rush to disagree that you tried to use it against me? Bravo, you took a shot at yourself. Actually a reasonable person would question why two players doing practically the same thing would land in such different manors.

Here is a clue...it was because one of them was making football moves trying to score, and the other just fell under his momentum to the ground.

No, I didn't say that. I said people tend to fall in the direction of a foot that gives way. In other words, if your left leg gives out, you would fall to that side.

There are several things you are ignoring. One is that pass routes do not necessarily run exactly parallel to the sideline. Another is that when a player jumps for a ball, he doesn't necessarily jump in a direction that is perfectly parallel to the sideline. Accordingly, a "drastic" change in direction isn't require for the landing spot to be a somewhat different distance from the sideline than the spot where the jump started.

But here is another important thing you are ignoring - the middle of Dez's body actually did land about the same distance from the sideline as where his jump took off from - and in fact his feet were actually probably further away from the sideline than where his feet were when he jumped. His body came down at an angle such that his head was closer to the sideline that it was from where he jumped, the feet were further away, and the mid section was about the same distance.

 

[KJJ]

A person can actually turn their body while in mid air, but that doesn't make him a runner.

According to a few here it does. According to at least one fan as soon as Dez’s left foot landed on the ground that was a step. From the air to the ground was a step. lol Some are practically saying he was a running in midair. A few continue to try and count and create steps when steps don’t matter when a receiver is going to the ground.

 

[KJJ]

The replay didn't work against us on the Dez play, as much as the moron evaluating the replay did.

Two officials evaluated the play and one of those officials was involved in the Calvin Johnson play. Blandino wasn’t involved in the Johnson play, Steratore was the only one who viewed it on replay and he alone made that call. Millions of people have evaluated the Dez play over the past three years and everyone who works for the league and gets paid to talk football agrees the final call was correct under the rule. I’ve read a number of your posts and you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to this rule. You’re as in the dark about this rule as anyone I’ve seen.

 

[OmerV]

And...? Why should you potentially lose any of your abilities to challenge if you’re right?

It doesn't matter if we agree with that rule, that's just the way it is. But the reason is because the league wants to limit how much the game is delayed because of challenges. They are trying to balance the need to correct mistakes with keeping the game viewer friendly.

 

[blindzebra]

Two officials evaluated the play and one of those officials was involved in the Calvin Johnson play. Blandino wasn’t involved in the Johnson play, Steratore was the only one who viewed it on replay and he alone made that call. Millions of people have evaluated the Dez play over the past three years and everyone who works for the league and gets paid to talk football agrees the final call was correct under the rule. I’ve read a number of your posts and you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to this rule. You’re as in the dark about this rule as anyone I’ve seen.

LOL, everyone who talks about football agrees? That is funny. The king of generalizations just added king of hyperbole.

 

[OmerV]

The thread title tells you the problem with this fan base. Most see no difference between the Dez and Ertz play when there’s significant differences. Anyone who can’t decipher those two plays is never going to grasp anything about this rule.

This one baffles me too. Even if a person believes Dez did enough to establish possession before going to the ground, if they are reasonable they would be able to admit that Dez leaped in the air, and Ertz did not, and that 2 of the "steps" that Dez took were actually his feet coming to the ground after the leap, whereas with Ertz there were three steps where he was clearly running upright with no indication of stumbling or falling before he got hit. .

 

[BlindFaith]

I have gone over this several times already, but what the hell maybe this time it will sink in.

If something is the only thing that can do something in the rules it will explicitly say that in the rule. In case plays if it is an either or thing you will see an a) or b) scenario where a player did or didn't do the required action, with two rulings at the end.

Clearly the case plays are implying something that is not explicitly stated or definitively clarified in the rules themselves. I've said this a hundred times.

But you can't on one hand say it has to be in the rules and then on the other say that there are thousands of things that aren't directly in the rules.

Can we just leave it at the rules are poorly written and at the very least they need to be rewritten and clarified? I honestly don't care if you think it was a catch or not. I at least now know why its was called the way it was called. There are multiple judgement calls that have to be made during this process. Trying to eliminate or extremely clarify those is required. Personally, I have issue with the Fitz call. Let's talk about that one. To me it is much more boarder line than the Dez catch. I could argue all day that he was going to the ground the whole time. But I could also see how his turning upfield was a demonstrable act to be deemed as "gathering" himself.

The more I think about it, let's just make a catch two feet down and possession. Less reviews, everyone will know what a catch is. I don't care if you go out of bounds or not. And we live with all the fumbles that will happen.

Until of course the fans are upset with all the fumbles that happen and demand giving a receiver more time to protect themselves either while standing or when falling. Then we will change them back to what we have now.

As Periera said, yes, it would be great to allow what looks like a catch to be a catch. But at what cost? No one is disagreeing that what Dez did looked like a catch. It's the protections put in place to ensure that if as he's falling the ball comes out that it isn't a fumble. That is the essence of this whole debate. Protection to the receiver. What should be a catch vs what should be a fumble. And there is no easy answer to that.

I personally like the idea of protecting the player. I don't want to see more fumbles. I'd rather live with an incomplete pass vs a turnover. All Dez had to do was hang onto the ball. He could have easily done that without trying to do more. Same with Fitz. He could have easily tucked the ball away and not reached for MORE. We are all taught to do just that. Tuck the ball away. Protect the ball. And receivers are adjusting to this. They are doing this now. I saw several examples in the Super Bowl where it was very clear that they knew this was the rule and ensured they secured the ball.

So what is easier to do? Tell players to simply hold on to the ball and not make all of these extra moves while falling or to change the rules to allow them to make all of these extra moves while falling but have it result in a fumble if the ball comes loose while doing so?