Tate's Catch v. Dez's Non-catch Catch

[cowboys2233]

Some rules aren't going to be objective. Holding calls are not objective, pass interference calls are not objective, but false starts and face masks are objective. Do I think a catch should be an objective call, sure I do, but I'm not qualified to know how to interpret what a catch is and isn't and I don't think anyone else on here is either.

Why not? You're not qualified to interpret what a catch is? We need to leave that up to "experts?" Why? It's easy to come up with an objective rule, they had one in place for years before this ridiculousness, they still have one in place in college football.

Two feet down in bounds, possession of ball. A still picture would be able to definitively determine each and every controversial catch. Is the ball clearly secure (i.e. not bobbling) when two feet (or some other part of the body that is decided is the same, like an elbow, knee, etc.) are on the ground? That's it -- and every one of these calls is easy to make. Megatron's non-catch in the endzone a couple of years ago? TD. Dez's non-catch last year? Caught ball, down at the one. This play? Touchdown. See? Easy.

 

[KJJ]

And the refs ruled that he did not have possession. That's why it was ruled an interception. Then Blandino stepped in and changed it because he's a liar and a scumbag. Nobody, not even the officiating shill Perreira, thought it was a catch. But it got Blandinoed into being one.

According to Blandino he gives the ref his opinion and allows the ref to make the final call but you have to figure if the Vice President of Officiating sees a play a certain way the ref is probably going to go with his view if he values his job. lol If the league is going to have an extra set of eyes look at a play those extra set of eyes should be another ref and allow the head ref to make the final call. It would be a lot easier overriding another refs opinion than the Vice President of Officiating. No matter how advanced technology becomes judgement will always be involved on plays that aren't clear cut.

Not even super slo-mo freeze frame HD replay can conclusively support a catch or non catch on some of these plays judgement will still be involved. If they deem a receiver a runner after 2-3 steps the receiver still has to have full control of the ball for it to be a catch. Blandino said Tate was in the process of completing his 3rd step therefore making him a runner but he never looked like he had complete control of the ball. A hundred people could look at that play and not everyone will see it the same way because it still comes down to judgement.

 

[Wayne02]

Why not? You're not qualified to interpret what a catch is? We need to leave that up to "experts?" Why? It's easy to come up with an objective rule, they had one in place for years before this ridiculousness, they still have one in place in college football.

Two feet down in bounds, possession of ball. A still picture would be able to definitively determine each and every controversial catch. Is the ball clearly secure (i.e. not bobbling) when two feet (or some other part of the body that is decided is the same, like an elbow, knee, etc.) are on the ground? That's it -- and every one of these calls is easy to make. Megatron's non-catch in the endzone a couple of years ago? TD. Dez's non-catch last year? Caught ball, down at the one. This play? Touchdown. See? Easy.

What about when you get two feet down while falling down simultaneously, and the ball pops loose when you hit the ground? I don't know if that is a catch or not.

 

[KJJ]

What about when you get two feet down while falling down simultaneously, and the ball pops loose when you hit the ground? I don't know if that is a catch or not.

That wouldn't be a catch because the receiver is "going to the ground" therefore they must hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Regardless if a receiver gets both feet down if they're going to the ground they have to complete a process.

 

[LandryFan]

If not a TD, it should've been Cowboys ball at the one inch line because one could argue that Dez was down by contact which is what the on field official called.

Precisely. The Head of Officiating made the determination that it was "indisputable" that Dez did not make a football move and used that as rationale to overturn the call. That play was the very definition of "disputable" and could very aptly be used in a training video for when not to overturn the initial ruling, regardless of whether it was ruled complete or incomplete.

 

[Nightman]

Not true because Tate wasn't going to the ground so whether the play happened in the endzone or in the field of play it still would have been ruled the same if the refs deemed he had control of the football. When a receiver is "going to the ground" during a catch they have to complete a process of maintaining possession of the ball through the ground. When a receiver is not going to the ground during a catch it's a completed catch as soon as possession/control is established whether they're in the endzone or in the field of play.

The CHI player started the tackle before Tate established possession, that means( by every call they have made so so far) he was going to the ground and had to maintain control.

If they were at midfield it would be ruled an INT and not a fumble. If the CHI defenders dropped the ball I seriously doubt they would call that a fumble.

 

[cowboys2233]

What about when you get two feet down while falling down simultaneously, and the ball pops loose when you hit the ground? I don't know if that is a catch or not.

Under my objective rule, it would be a catch -- the player has two feet on the ground and possession of the ball, falling down or otherwise. Player had possession before falling to the ground. Easy.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

Some rules aren't going to be objective. Holding calls are not objective, pass interference calls are not objective, but false starts and face masks are objective. Do I think a catch should be an objective call, sure I do, but I'm not qualified to know how to interpret what a catch is and isn't and I don't think anyone else on here is either.

this is true. however, holding the officials and league accountable is healthy. especially when their interpretations are getting transparently inconsistent, vague and confusing.

 

[Fletch]

I don't get the uproar over the tate catch. He had it a while before he fumbled it. It was already a td to me. I think it was the right call.

Dude, you're the same poster that said you don't really watch the Cowboys any more (which is unheard of if you're a Cowboys fan). Now you agree with the call in the Detroit game?

I'm gonna need you to hand over your man card. All privileges are revoked until further notice.

 

[Wayne02]

Under my objective rule, it would be a catch -- the player has two feet on the ground and possession of the ball, falling down or otherwise. Player had possession before falling to the ground. Easy.

Well who is to say that should be an objective call? Not everyone thinks that you should be given a catch if the ball pops loose when you're hitting the ground simultaneously while getting 2 feet down. There is nothing easy about that.

 

[cowboys2233]

Well who is to say that should be an objective call? Not everyone thinks that you should be given a catch if the ball pops loose when you're hitting the ground simultaneously while getting 2 feet down. There is nothing easy about that.

Yes, but that's a different thing altogether. Under my rule, the interpretation is clear, even if not everyone agrees with the essence of the rule itself. I think most, if not all, could live with that because you would have a clear ruling every time.

 

[Wayne02]

Yes, but that's a different thing altogether. Under my rule, the interpretation is clear, even if not everyone agrees with the essence of the rule itself. I think most, if not all, could live with that because you would have a clear ruling every time.

That's true, but of course the problem comes in of how do you get that rule to be the objective rule of a catch? I wish it were that simple.

 

[KJJ]

The CHI player started the tackle before Tate established possession, that means( by every call they have made so so far) he was going to the ground and had to maintain control.

If they were at midfield it would be ruled an INT and not a fumble. If the CHI defenders dropped the ball I seriously doubt they would call that a fumble.

Tate was not going to the ground while attempting to make the catch that's clear cut none of the experts have disputed that but he didn't appear to have complete control of the ball when he lost it. That's what's being disputed. If they were at mid field the final ruling would have been a completed pass. Where the play occurred on the field wouldn't have changed that.

 

[KJJ]

The league could never explain to anyone's satisfaction what a "football move" or a "move common to the game" is so they did away with it. Now they're having trouble explaining when exactly a receiver becomes a runner. They're starting to count steps but a receiver still has to have full control of the ball regardless how many steps they take to complete the process of a catch. There has to be clear possession and Tate didn't appear to have clear possession so the play should have stayed as called on the field.

 

[loublue22]

It's VERY simple, the rules already state that if you make a "football move", then it's a catch. It just needs to be made a rule that reaching out with control of the ball (which is what Dez did and was the only reason he fumbled) is explicitly considered a football move. Dez was punished for fighting for every yard, you can't have that.

 

[JDSmith]

If Tate had enough control to rule that a TD then we deserve the fumble when ODB coughed up the ball. He had just as little control while he was running as Tate showed. He took steps, he just never fully controlled the ball while doing so. And they ruled it an incomplete pass rather than a fumble. Tate took steps, he just never fully controlled the ball while doing so. They ruled it an interception because it popped up and a defender caught it. And then Blandino stepped in and decided it was a TD.

 

[cowboys2233]

It's VERY simple, the rules already state that if you make a "football move", then it's a catch. It just needs to be made a rule that reaching out with control of the ball (which is what Dez did and was the only reason he fumbled) is explicitly considered a football move. Dez was punished for fighting for every yard, you can't have that.

There are a billion little movements that a player could make that could be interpreted either way. Was that a purposeful lunge he took, or was it because the defender was pushing him that way? Was that little twist a football move or was it momentum? No, the problem with the rule is that they injected something into it that is impossible to objectively measure.

 

[Nightman]

Tate was not going to the ground while attempting to make the catch that's clear cut none of the experts have disputed that but he didn't appear to have complete control of the ball when he lost it. That's what's being disputed. If they were at mid field the final ruling would have been a completed pass. Where the play occurred on the field wouldn't have changed that.

There is no way that play is a called a completed pass at midfield, the Bears ended up with it before Tate hit the ground.

At midfield the play isn't over until he hits the ground or his forward momentum is stopped. It is a fumble or an INT.

Just admit it is called differently every time. The Eifert, Dez , CJohnson, Maclin, Freeman, Tate calls are all inconsistent.

 

[KJJ]

It's VERY simple, the rules already state that if you make a "football move", then it's a catch. It just needs to be made a rule that reaching out with control of the ball (which is what Dez did and was the only reason he fumbled) is explicitly considered a football move. Dez was punished for fighting for every yard, you can't have that.

A "football move" or "move common to the game" has been removed from the rulebook because the NFL could never explain to anyone satisfaction what exactly a "football move" or "move common to the game" is. On the Dez play it's consistent if a receiver is going to the ground they must hang on to the ball through the contact of the ground. There's a process to completing every catch and when a receiver is going to the ground that's the process.

 

[KJJ]

There is no way that play is a called a completed pass at midfield, the Bears ended up with it before Tate hit the ground.

At midfield the play isn't over until he hits the ground or his forward momentum is stopped. It is a fumble or an INT.

Just admit it is called differently every time. The Eifert, Dez , CJohnson, Maclin, Freeman, Tate calls are all inconsistent.

I misspoke had the play happened in the field of play it would've been an INT because Tate wasn't tackled. In the endzone a play is over and ruled a TD as soon as a catch is confirmed.