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

[Yakuza Rich]

the advanced part is BS and one of the reasons why its so screwed up. If you are in the end zone how can you advance? POSSESSION which should be based on controlling the ball should be the key- which is WHAT it was before the NFL got stupid with megatron. If you control the ball and have either both feet on the ground or part of the lower body then its a catch.

It's not screwed up, IMO.

The Calvin Johnson situation was not a catch.

Why?

Because he COULD NOT ADVANCE THE FOOTBALL (sorry if I'm screaming, I just really despise Dean Blandino).

After the Dez game I wrote a post saying that the CJ Rule does not apply because CJ could not advance the ball so the rule changes to the CJ Rule set in place. Dez could advance the ball and DID advance the football and therefore the CJ Rule does not apply and it was a catch.

Blandino even admitted that Dez did advance the football but in his words he 'did not advance it far enough.'

One problem....the rule book never states or implies anything about 'advancing it far enough.' Simply put, the rule IS a GOOD RULE, but Blandino is a buffoon and still doesn't understand the rule. The entire 'advancing the ball far enough' was him making up a rule that doesn't exist.

The part that is BS is that Blandino is horribly incompetent. And he's never refereed a game on any level before. HE is the one that has confused the situation, not the rule book.






YR

 

[CT Dal Fan]

This whole thing is driving me crazy. Years ago we just watched football. Now we watch these guys make spectacular plays and then we sit and wait to see if the ball moved an inch against a guys gut, or touched part of the ground, whether he took two or three or no steps, or whatever.

Dez Bryant made a fantastic play against the Packers last January. Tony Romo made a career-defining, clutch throw on 4th down in the playoffs. And because of inane, half-baked NFL rules, neither ever happened. It was simply an incomplete pass.

 

[percyhoward]

If he had the motive, he would. If he didn't, he probably would not. Catch a pass and fail to see a defender coming, the time can be there but motive may not be.

If he's not in the end zone, he has a motive to advance the ball, which is a football move.

I'm just saying, I think time was part 3 before and it still is now. From what I can remember from back when I looked at it, the change in the rule really just moved away from a "football move" to "establishing oneself as a runner", which is really no change at all.

Yes, it's about a certain amount of time passing. But doing away with the "football move" as the determining factor completely removed the observable (and much more objective) standard, and replaced it with a subjective one -- the replay official's judgment of whether enough time has passed. The part about being an established runner is a matter of semantics. You could interpret a runner as someone who is upright with possession of the ball, but according to the old rules a runner was simply a player who had completed all three parts of the catch process. IOW, a player who has obviously already caught the ball. He's therefore a no longer a receiver, which makes him a runner by default.

 

[mattjames2010]

Why is it a terrible way to look at it? Just because my opinion is different than yours? I've moved and I have seen the call go both ways this year. That tells me it's pretty inconsistent but I can do nothing about it so I will focus on other things. I have different priorities, I guess, than to carry feel bads from a game that happened LAST YEAR.

You understand this is about more than just one game "LAST YEAR", right?

 

[blindzebra]

This is really simple.

Blandino changed the catch rule to cover up the wrongful overturn in GB. In 2014 all a receiver had to do is get 2 feet down, have control, and have time to or make a football move. The NFL casebook is proof that going to the ground does not trump the catch process. The rule was not made easier to understand, as claimed, IT WAS ALTERED to cover up what happened in GB.

Dez' play was 100% a catch by the 2014 rules, it was ruled incomplete because of the heat Blandino got because of the party bus and the DET game. Nothing that comes from the NFL Officiating Office can be accepted without an ocean full of salt.

 

[The Ominous]

They are making this stuff up as they go along.

It reminds me of the show L O S T

 

[conner01]

Blandino explained it's not the same as the Dez Bryant play because the receiver wasn't going to the ground.

I find the distinction questionable, as the receiver did end up going to the ground in the same manner Bryant was going to the ground - a defender prompted them both going to the ground. Neither would have fallen if not contacted by a defender.

If Tate is an established runner here, simply because he wouldn't have fallen if not contacted by a defender, the same logic should have applied to Bryant.

I don't think it's the same as dez
But I also don't think he ever controlled the ball and should have been an int

 

[ryanbabs]

This is a touchdown:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/10/gol...ption-bears-lions-explanation-nfl-rules-catch

But this is an incomplete pass:

http://thebiglead.com/2015/01/11/de...h-overturned-by-referees-cowboys-get-screwed/

Discuss.

Beating a dead horse, but if you're saying Tate caught the ball but did not require to "complete the play" well then you're saying he caught it. In that case, in theory, Dez also caught it. Makes no sense that he would be required to finish just because he happened not to be in the end zone. A catch is a catch is a catch. Ignorant rules that effect too many outcomes.

 

[nathanlt]

As angry as we all were about it last year, it is time to move on...

Absolutely not. The mediocre quality of poorly written rules that ended Dallas season last year has spread throughout every game, every week. It is deplorable, and is ruining the game. Vagueness does not produce consistency when it comes to officiating.

 

[foofighters]

Absolutely not. The mediocre quality of poorly written rules that ended Dallas season last year has spread throughout every game, every week. It is deplorable, and is ruining the game. Vagueness does not produce consistency when it comes to officiating.

So what are you going to do to change rules?

 

[VirusX]

I still do not see why it matters if the receiver has control of the ball and two feet or one body part goes to the ground why he has to maintain control?

Once control is established and feet/body are in play it should be a catch. If the person hits the ground and the ball pops out without being touched it should be a fumble.

Same on the sideline. Toe tap and hits out of bounds and loses the ball. Still a catch but a fumble that cannot be recovered same as if a running back fumbles and the ball and the ball goes out of bounds.

This whole process makes no sense to me. Why the hell do they have to maintain control upon contact with the ground for it to be a catch?

You'd think with a pass happy league they would want more catches etc... When in reality they want to make this rule absurd so it can catch the attention of the media and create controversy therefore making headlines and free advertisement.

 

[KJJ]

Beating a dead horse, but if you're saying Tate caught the ball but did not require to "complete the play" well then you're saying he caught it. In that case, in theory, Dez also caught it. Makes no sense that he would be required to finish just because he happened not to be in the end zone. A catch is a catch is a catch. Ignorant rules that effect too many outcomes.

Dez was required to complete the play because he was "going to the ground" just like Calvin Johnson was required to complete the play despite being in the endzone. It makes no difference if a player is in the field of play or the endzone if they're "going to the ground" they must hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Many here clearly don't understand the rules while others refuse to accept them and prefer to make up their own rules on how these plays should be called. Every receiver has to complete a process but the process is different for a receiver who's deemed "going to the ground." On the Tate TD the process he had to complete was to establish himself as a runner and establish control of the ball. He may have established himself as a runner but he never established control of the ball in my opinion. It never appeared he had the ball secured for it to be ruled a completed catch. Tate wasn't "going to the ground" during the process of trying to make the catch so his play is different than the Dez and Calvin Johnson play.

A play isn't over in the endzone if a receiver "is going to the ground" there's a process they have to complete that's different than the process Tate had to complete. It's very simple to understand these rules if a person isn't blinded by bias and has an understanding of what's considered "going to the ground" and what isn't. The officials have been very consistent on waving catches off and reversing catches if a player is "going to the ground" during a catch and doesn't hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Tate's play involved a lot of judgement and judgement will never be eliminated from the game because not everyone sees things the same way. It's very close on some of these calls which makes them debatable. Not even slo-mo HD freeze frame replay can totally clear some of these plays up up so judgment has to be used. The main issue with Tate's play was it was called an int on the field and it should have stayed as called because on replay it didn't appear Tate had the ball secured when he lost it.

The league has stated that a call on the field can't be reversed unless it's "conclusive" on replay that the call on the field was wrong. It's hilarious to watch so many here continue to drive themselves nuts over the call on Dez because they refuse to accept the rule or they simply don't understand the rule and what they're seen in replay. Bias can cause the eyes of FANS to play tricks on them and miss things that replay clearly shows. Some claim Dez was never "going to the ground" while others claim the ball never touched the ground or came loose despite CONCLUSIVE video evidence. LOL If some can't even admit the most obvious accepts of that play it's no wonder many continue to pound their heads over it 9 months later and will continue to pound their heads over it for years to come.

 

[blindzebra]

Want to add in the KJJ is wrong...as usual...the going to the ground item is not the determining factor unless the three part catch process is not or has not been met. There is nothing in the rules that state that the catch process must be completed before you start going to the ground, in fact they say quite the opposite:

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out. Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The pass is complete. When the receiver hits the ground in the end zone, it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of the catch. Since the ball crossed the goal line, it is a touchdown. If the ball is short of the goal line, it is a catch, and A2 is down by contact.

Very similar to GB, in fact Dez did even more that isn't part of the catch process to establish himself a runner. He turned, stepped, changed the ball to one hand, braced and reached.

 

[Zekeats]

To be fair, Tate didn't go to the ground (or start to go) until after the ball was out of his hands and he tried to reach for it and tripped. This would all be after the point he would have been deemed a runner (apparently). Nobody is very clear on exactly when someone becomes a runner anymore, it's whatever the particular official wants it to be.

So basically Dez would have been better off tossing it to the ref before he went down.

 

[Zekeats]

Dez was required to complete the play because he was "going to the ground" just like Calvin Johnson was required to complete the play despite being in the endzone. It makes no difference if a player is in the field of play or the endzone if they're "going to the ground" they must hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Many here clearly don't understand the rules while others refuse to accept them and prefer to make up their own rules on how these plays should be called. Every receiver has to complete a process but the process is different for a receiver who's deemed "going to the ground." On the Tate TD the process he had to complete was to establish himself as a runner and establish control of the ball. He may have established himself as a runner but he never established control of the ball in my opinion. It never appeared he had the ball secured for it to be ruled a completed catch. Tate wasn't "going to the ground" during the process of trying to make the catch so his play is different than the Dez and Calvin Johnson play.

A play isn't over in the endzone if a receiver "is going to the ground" there's a process they have to complete that's different than the process Tate had to complete. It's very simple to understand these rules if a person isn't blinded by bias and has an understanding of what's considered "going to the ground" and what isn't. The officials have been very consistent on waving catches off and reversing catches if a player is "going to the ground" during a catch and doesn't hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Tate's play involved a lot of judgement and judgement will never be eliminated from the game because not everyone sees things the same way. It's very close on some of these calls which makes them debatable. Not even slo-mo HD freeze frame replay can totally clear some of these plays up up so judgment has to be used. The main issue with Tate's play was it was called an int on the field and it should have stayed as called because on replay it didn't appear Tate had the ball secured when he lost it.

The league has stated that a call on the field can't be reversed unless it's "conclusive" on replay that the call on the field was wrong. It's hilarious to watch so many here continue to drive themselves nuts over the call on Dez because they refuse to accept the rule or they simply don't understand the rule and what they're seen in replay. Bias can cause the eyes of FANS to play tricks on them and miss things that replay clearly shows. Some claim Dez was never "going to the ground" while others claim the ball never touched the ground or came loose despite CONCLUSIVE video evidence. LOL If some can't even admit the most obvious accepts of that play it's no wonder many continue to pound their heads over it 9 months later and will continue to pound their heads over it for years to come.

And Golden was going to the ground too!

 

[dfense]

Pretty simple. Tate crossed goal line with possession, two feet down. TD.

Plus I had him in fantasy so......

 

[LandryFan]

Dez was required to complete the play because he was "going to the ground" just like Calvin Johnson was required to complete the play despite being in the endzone. It makes no difference if a player is in the field of play or the endzone if they're "going to the ground" they must hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Many here clearly don't understand the rules while others refuse to accept them and prefer to make up their own rules on how these plays should be called. Every receiver has to complete a process but the process is different for a receiver who's deemed "going to the ground." On the Tate TD the process he had to complete was to establish himself as a runner and establish control of the ball. He may have established himself as a runner but he never established control of the ball in my opinion. It never appeared he had the ball secured for it to be ruled a completed catch. Tate wasn't "going to the ground" during the process of trying to make the catch so his play is different than the Dez and Calvin Johnson play.

A play isn't over in the endzone if a receiver "is going to the ground" there's a process they have to complete that's different than the process Tate had to complete. It's very simple to understand these rules if a person isn't blinded by bias and has an understanding of what's considered "going to the ground" and what isn't. The officials have been very consistent on waving catches off and reversing catches if a player is "going to the ground" during a catch and doesn't hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground. Tate's play involved a lot of judgement and judgement will never be eliminated from the game because not everyone sees things the same way. It's very close on some of these calls which makes them debatable. Not even slo-mo HD freeze frame replay can totally clear some of these plays up up so judgment has to be used. The main issue with Tate's play was it was called an int on the field and it should have stayed as called because on replay it didn't appear Tate had the ball secured when he lost it.

The league has stated that a call on the field can't be reversed unless it's "conclusive" on replay that the call on the field was wrong. It's hilarious to watch so many here continue to drive themselves nuts over the call on Dez because they refuse to accept the rule or they simply don't understand the rule and what they're seen in replay. Bias can cause the eyes of FANS to play tricks on them and miss things that replay clearly shows. Some claim Dez was never "going to the ground" while others claim the ball never touched the ground or came loose despite CONCLUSIVE video evidence. LOL If some can't even admit the most obvious accepts of that play it's no wonder many continue to pound their heads over it 9 months later and will continue to pound their heads over it for years to come.

You think the Tate call was incorrectly overturned because of the initial ruling on the field and lack of conclusive evidence to overturn the call, if I'm reading you correctly.
My gripe with the Dez call is the same as your gripe on the Tate call. I feel that Dez caught and had control of the ball (he switched the ball to his left hand with complete control), got two feet down (three, actually), and made a football move (lunged for the end zone with a partial extension of the ball toward the goal line). That's apparently the way the official who was right on top of the play saw it, because he ruled it a catch. That is (was) a play you simply do not overturn no matter whether it was initially ruled complete or incomplete. That's my gripe on the play. Now if I'm misunderstanding the rule as it was written last year, then I stand corrected and accept it for what it is. Am I off base here?

 

[blindzebra]

You think the Tate call was incorrectly overturned because of the initial ruling on the field and lack of conclusive evidence to overturn the call, if I'm reading you correctly.
My gripe with the Dez call is the same as your gripe on the Tate call. I feel that Dez caught and had control of the ball (he switched the ball to his left hand with complete control), got two feet down (three, actually), and made a football move (lunged for the end zone with a partial extension of the ball toward the goal line). That's apparently the way the official who was right on top of the play saw it, because he ruled it a catch. That is (was) a play you simply do not overturn no matter whether it was initially ruled complete or incomplete. That's my gripe on the play. Now if I'm misunderstanding the rule as it was written last year, then I stand corrected and accept it for what it is. Am I off base here?

He is the one that does not understand the rule.

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out. Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The pass is complete. When the receiver hits the ground in the end zone, it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of the catch. Since the ball crossed the goal line, it is a touchdown. If the ball is short of the goal line, it is a catch, and A2 is down by contact.

Which was correctly ruled on the field, and then overturned incorrectly by Blandino, because of the heat he took over the DET game and the resurfacing party bus.

 

[dallasfan4lizife]

It's not screwed up, IMO.

The Calvin Johnson situation was not a catch.

Why?

Because he COULD NOT ADVANCE THE FOOTBALL (sorry if I'm screaming, I just really despise Dean Blandino).

After the Dez game I wrote a post saying that the CJ Rule does not apply because CJ could not advance the ball so the rule changes to the CJ Rule set in place. Dez could advance the ball and DID advance the football and therefore the CJ Rule does not apply and it was a catch.

Blandino even admitted that Dez did advance the football but in his words he 'did not advance it far enough.'

One problem....the rule book never states or implies anything about 'advancing it far enough.' Simply put, the rule IS a GOOD RULE, but Blandino is a buffoon and still doesn't understand the rule. The entire 'advancing the ball far enough' was him making up a rule that doesn't exist.

The part that is BS is that Blandino is horribly incompetent. And he's never refereed a game on any level before. HE is the one that has confused the situation, not the rule book.

YR

It's extremely convoluted and open ended. Your post backs that up while you still say it's a good rule. You've got some serious issues man

 

[KJJ]

And Golden was going to the ground too!

You're one of those who doesn't understand what "going to the ground" infers. To be deemed "going to the ground" a receiver must be "going to the ground" during the process of making the catch and Tate was not. He didn't going to the ground until he was being tackled after he had already had the ball and took several steps.