Twitter: New catch rule going into effect

[MarcusRock]

That would only require removing the sentence they added in 2015, after the Dez overturn.

"A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner."

The rest of Item 1 doesn't say anything about the player having to be upright in order to complete the catch process.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground.
A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. 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. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Except that sentence is only to define when a player is considered "going to the ground" which had never existed until then. Didn't change the rule at all, only defined a player going to the ground.

 

[MarcusRock]

It will mean that an act common to the game can complete the process while a player is going to the ground.

And they know there will be problems with this and why they haven't released those details yet.

It's the time element that will be hard to identify for a ref. Steps will be easy. Even switching hands. The Dez play would be very easy to rule on.

But what about the guys who just dive and don't make any other move? Is it just when they contact the ground?

The other thing about time that has always been the case is when a receiver is prevented from doing so by a defender with an immediate bear hug, for example. In that case, an official has had to determine the receiver had the ball "long enough" to either "perform an act common to the game" OR "clearly become a runner" OR whatever other wording there's been over the years. So if they can deem "long enough" now with a player on their feet, they probably will now expand that standard to cases where a player goes to the ground.

 

[BlindFaith]

Surviving the ground has been around for a while, but having to complete the catch process while upright wasn't introduced until 2015.

According to you and a handful of your supporters. The rest of the football world disagrees.

 

[BlindFaith]

That would only require removing the sentence they added in 2015, after the Dez overturn.

"A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner."

The rest of Item 1 doesn't say anything about the player having to be upright in order to complete the catch process.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground.
A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. 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. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

I'm not doing this again Percy.

 

[percyhoward]

Except that sentence is only to define when a player is considered "going to the ground" which had never existed until then. Didn't change the rule at all, only defined a player going to the ground.

Prior to 2015, they determined that a player had become a runner if he completed the catch process before he hit the ground. That "upright long enough" sentence was added to show that from that point on, a player couldn't complete the catch process and become a runner unless he was upright for a certain amount of time.

Huge change. It meant that plays that had been ruled catches would now be incomplete.

If they go back to before 2015, when you could complete the catch process while falling, then they accomplish what they want to accomplish. The Dez catch stands, because he lunged and reached before he hit the ground. The James catch stands for the same reason.

 

[BlindFaith]

The other thing about time that has always been the case is when a receiver is prevented from doing so by a defender with an immediate bear hug, for example. In that case, an official has had to determine the receiver had the ball "long enough" to either "perform an act common to the game" OR "clearly become a runner" OR whatever other wording there's been over the years. So if they can deem "long enough" now with a player on their feet, they probably will now expand that standard to cases where a player goes to the ground.

I'm sure they will. But now we are back to the magic stop watch.

At least a player on their feet had two feet down. A player in midair may not have completed that. What if the first thing to touch is a knee and then a mili second later they hit the ground and the ball pops out.

Is that enough time? And is that a fumble if he's not down by contact?

 

[percyhoward]

What if the first thing to touch is a knee and then a mili second later they hit the ground and the ball pops out.

Is that enough time? And is that a fumble if he's not down by contact?

It's not enough time, and it should be incomplete. If he hasn't completed the catch process by the time he hits the ground, then he has to maintain control after he hits the ground.

That was the original purpose of Item 1 -- to show that the time requirement had been met when the player held onto the ball after contacting the ground. Item 1 (as it existed before the infamous "upright long enough" sentence was pasted into it) was a good rule. They knew what they were doing when they came up with it in 2011. The problem began in 2015 when they expanded its jurisdiction to include any player who wasn't upright.

 

[MarcusRock]

Prior to 2015, they determined that a player had become a runner if he completed the catch process before he hit the ground. That "upright long enough" sentence was added to show that from that point on, a player couldn't complete the catch process and become a runner unless he was upright for a certain amount of time.

Huge change. It meant that plays that had been ruled catches would now be incomplete.

If they go back to before 2015, when you could complete the catch process while falling, then they accomplish what they want to accomplish. The Dez catch stands, because he lunged and reached before he hit the ground. The James catch stands for the same reason.

"Huge change" that everyone said was no change:

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...anges-and-points-of-emphasis-to-watch-in-2015
"Let's be clear. The rule that disallowed an apparent catch by Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the NFC divisional playoffs, and another by Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2009, remains unchanged in substance. The NFL did modify its wording, however, in hopes of making the rule make more sense to players, fans and media members in cases where a player is falling while in the process of making a catch."

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy
"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rule-and-it-might-actually-be-more-confusing/
"The interesting part here is that Dez Bryant's no-catch, the thing that sparked the rule change, would still be a no-catch under the new rule."
​

Do you have support that says all this is a lie?

 

[BlindFaith]

It's not enough time, and it should be incomplete. If he hasn't completed the catch process by the time he hits the ground, then he has to maintain control after he hits the ground.

That was the original purpose of Item 1 -- to show that the time requirement had been met when the player held onto the ball after contacting the ground. Item 1 (as it existed before the infamous "upright long enough" sentence was pasted into it) was a good rule. They knew what they were doing when they came up with it in 2011. The problem began in 2015 when they expanded its jurisdiction to include any player who wasn't upright.

I agree that it's probably not enough time. I'm curious to see how they handle it.

 

[BlindFaith]

Huge change that everyone said was no change:

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...anges-and-points-of-emphasis-to-watch-in-2015
"Let's be clear. The rule that disallowed an apparent catch by Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the NFC divisional playoffs, and another by Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2009, remains unchanged in substance. The NFL did modify its wording, however, in hopes of making the rule make more sense to players, fans and media members in cases where a player is falling while in the process of making a catch."

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy
"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rule-and-it-might-actually-be-more-confusing/
"The interesting part here is that Dez Bryant's no-catch, the thing that sparked the rule change, would still be a no-catch under the new rule."
​

Do you have support that says all this is a lie?

The bookmark wars are on! lol

 

[MarcusRock]

I'm sure they will. But now we are back to the magic stop watch.

At least a player on their feet had two feet down. A player in midair may not have completed that. What if the first thing to touch is a knee and then a mili second later they hit the ground and the ball pops out.

Is that enough time? And is that a fumble if he's not down by contact?

I agree, not time enough but yes, now the magic stopwatch would be in effect. A receiver's best course of action would be to stumble as long as possible to get that "long enough" head nod from an official. So the subjectivity (and resulting controversy) will still remain as it always has, just in a different form. Therefore, CONSPIRACY! will never die. Lol.

 

[Alexander]

I am surprised at the number of people who still actively care about it.

There will be no retroactive award that gives Dez the catch.

If it did, I might see the excitement.

 

[percyhoward]

Huge change that everyone said was no change.

If you believe there was no change, then you're saying there was no reason to declare Dez's reach "not obvious enough."

If you believe that an obvious enough reach would have made it a catch, then you're admitting that the rule changed.

You seem to go back and forth between two contradictory positions.

 

[MarcusRock]

If you believe there was no change, then you're saying there was no reason to declare Dez's reach "not obvious enough."

If you believe that an obvious enough reach would have made it a catch, then you're admitting that the rule changed.

You seem to go back and forth between two contradictory positions.

But you didn't answer my question. Do you have support outside of CowboysZone and other associated Cowboys fan blogger sites, etc. that there was a "huge change" to the rule from 2014 to 2015 in the manner you speak of? I just posted support that says it didn't change.

 

[blindzebra]

But you didn't answer my question. Do you have support outside of CowboysZone and other associated Cowboys fan blogger sites, etc. that there was a "huge change" to the rule from 2014 to 2015 in the manner you speak of? I just posted support that says it didn't change.

Coming from a guy posting press release articles.

The 2013 explanations vs 2015 explanations. The case plays. The 2013 Julius Thomas catch vs the 2017 Jessie James non-catch. That is proof of a rule change.

 

[percyhoward]

It looks like they determine going to the ground just before the receiver hits the ground to see if those Article 3 requirements have been satisfied (control, 2 feet, football move) prior. As Blandino says in the video you posted, if that doesn't happen in that order and you're going to the ground, the ball must survive impact. It didn't. The 2 hand quote is clearly an example, not a rule interpretation, and not all-inclusive because of course a receiver can use 1 hand to reach if he has control. Most receivers use 2 to guarantee control.

So in this quote, Blandino clearly states that Dez is not a runner and hasn't established possession due to lack of a football move so he cannot be down by contact. He also answers the question that you wouldn't in saying that Dez' reach was not obvious enough so Dez' momentum to the ground looked like one continuous process, which is what I also said having not seen this quote before. Again, back to the video you posted, Blandino gives the exact same explanation in describing Johnson's no catch. It's consistent. So it was no reach from Blandino, no reach from Pereira, the videos you yourself produced show the difference in reaches. No reach = no catch unless the ball survives the ground.

If you believe there was no change, then you're saying there was no reason to declare Dez's reach "not obvious enough."

If you believe that an obvious enough reach would have made it a catch, then you're admitting that the rule changed.

 

[MarcusRock]

If you believe there was no change, then you're saying there was no reason to declare Dez's reach "not obvious enough."

If you believe that an obvious enough reach would have made it a catch, then you're admitting that the rule changed.

Is this a new-fangled way of saying, "No I don't have any support outside of what I created to shoehorn a catch that wasn't"?

 

[blindzebra]

Is this a new-fangled way of saying, "No I don't have any support outside of what I created to shoehorn a catch that wasn't"?

Dodge and deflect.

The 2013 explanations vs 2015 explanations. The case plays. The 2013 Julius Thomas catch vs the 2017 Jessie James non-catch. That is proof of a rule change.

 

[percyhoward]

It looks like they determine going to the ground just before the receiver hits the ground to see if those Article 3 requirements have been satisfied (control, 2 feet, football move) prior.

No reach = no catch unless the ball survives the ground.

 

[MarcusRock]

Dodge and deflect.

The 2013 explanations vs 2015 explanations. The case plays. The 2013 Julius Thomas catch vs the 2017 Jessie James non-catch. That is proof of a rule change.

Is your name percy? I asked him a question that I'm seeking an answer for. He doesn't need his parrots, lemmings, and chameleons (liars to the lay person) answering for him. He posts better than them all anyway.