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

[LandryFan]

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.

Thank you. I guess my complaint is more with the review process than the actual rule. I recall that before last season started the league announced that they were going to refrain from overturning calls made on the field unless there was "indisputable" evidence to overturn them and leave the officiating to the on-field officials to the max extent possible (I'm paraphrasing here). Then along comes Blandino and overturns a call that was called correctly on the field. At the very least it was disputable, which should have been the basis to let the ruling on the field stand.

 

[KJJ]

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.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

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?

You're misunderstanding the rule. Dez did everything you said the problem was he was "going to the ground" and that trumps control of the ball, a football move, elbow/knee touching the ground and everything else. When a receiver is "going to the ground" they MUST hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground and Dez didn't despite all the other things he did that would normally make it a legal catch. There's a PROCESS a receiver has to complete when "going to the ground" and Dez didn't complete the process. The reason they called it a catch on the field was because the ref never saw the ball come loose when it contacted the ground it took replay to see it.

 

[blindzebra]

I have presented proof that going to the ground does not trump the catch process.

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.

This is why the move common to the game went poof because it shows conclusively that Blandino enforced the rule incorrectly to get people off his back about favoring Dallas because of the party bus.

 

[LandryFan]

That's exactly what I'm saying.





You're misunderstanding the rule. Dez did everything you said the problem was he was "going to the ground" and that trumps control of the ball, a football move, elbow/knee touching the ground and everything else. When a receiver is "going to the ground" they MUST hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground and Dez didn't despite all the other things he did that would normally make it a legal catch. There's a PROCESS a receiver has to complete when "going to the ground" and Dez didn't complete the process. The reason they called it a catch on the field was because the ref never saw the ball come loose when it contacted the ground it took replay to see it.

Roger everything you said. The only other thing I would question is the part about going to the ground. It appeared to me that he was going to the ground because of contact by the defender...I seriously thinks he deeps his feet without the contact. Does that make a difference in having to maintain control through contact with the ground? If you say it makes a difference but that the defender wasn't the reason he was going to the ground, then I would respond that that is a disputable judgment call that should not have been overturned.

 

[KJJ]

He is the one that does not understand the rule.

You've claimed the league doesn't understand the rule. LOL

 

[Kevinicus]

You've claimed the league doesn't understand the rule. LOL

When the competition committee is split, then it's apparent there is confusion in the league about the rule.

 

[LandryFan]

When the competition committee is split, then it's apparent there is confusion in the league about the rule.

I recall them stating that they were concerned with "unintended consequences" if they simplified the rule (possession with two feet down). I wonder if weekly controversy is an "intended consequence"? Personally, I can deal with the consequences, whatever they may be, of changing the rule to possession with two feet down, but this ongoing confusion of not knowing how the officials are going to rule on any given catch where the ball bobbles or comes out at some point is a crazy way to roll, IMO.

 

[Kevinicus]

I recall them stating that they were concerned with "unintended consequences" if they simplified the rule (possession with two feet down). I wonder if weekly controversy is an "intended consequence"? Personally, I can deal with the consequences, whatever they may be, of changing the rule to possession with two feet down, but this ongoing confusion of not knowing how the officials are going to rule on any given catch where the ball bobbles or comes out at some point is a crazy way to roll, IMO.

Yeah, they were worried about some nonsense that would very rarely, if ever, actually happen, and even if it did, would completely be the player's fault.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

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

?

It's not convoluted if you read the rule in the rule book at the time it occurred. It is very succinct and the rule is cut and dry.

I don't know how I can make it simpler to understand. The rule shows point blank that it was a catch. It's Blandino who made it convoluted and open ended. The rule book specifically stated that if the ball is advanced, it is now a catch and can no longer be incomplete. The Calvin Johnson rule only applies when the ball has not been advanced such as the player being in the end zone (i.e. Johnson) or the player 'dotting the i's' with a catch going out of bounds.

I'll try to put it this way:

Rule in the rule book = good, not convoluted and not open ended.

Blandino = incompetent, water carrier for the NFL who has NEVER REFEREED A GAME ON ANY LEVEL BEFORE, who doesn't know the rule and therefore is badly misinterpreting a good rule.

An example of this is in this country, stealing more than $500 is a felony. So let's say a person steals $499.99 and the prosecutor claims that should be a felony because that $499.99 should be rounded up to $500. The law is actually very clear that is a misdemeanor, but the prosecutor is saying that the law is ambiguous and open ended instead of just admitting that they are wrong. The rule isn't the problem, it's the dumb prosecutor that is the problem. Blandino is the idiot prosecutor.





YR

 

[KJJ]

Roger everything you said. The only other thing I would question is the part about going to the ground. It appeared to me that he was going to the ground because of contact by the defender...I seriously thinks he deeps his feet without the contact. Does that make a difference in having to maintain control through contact with the ground? If you say it makes a difference but that the defender wasn't the reason he was going to the ground, then I would respond that that is a disputable judgment call that should not have been overturned.

You have to fully understand what "going to the ground" means and many here don't understand it including you. It's hard to explain it to those who just don't get it. When a receiver jumps to make a catch as they're coming down with the ball if they don't have solid footing due to their momentum they'll end up on the ground that's considered "going to the ground." Any receiver who jumps to make a catch and falls to the ground after making the catch is considered "going to the ground."

Most receivers who leap to make a catch usually fall down once their feet hit the ground because they're concentrating on making the catch and their feet aren't stable when contacting the ground due to their momentum and they fall. WRs can leap high into the air and when they're concentrating on the football and their momentum is taking them forward towards the football while battling a defender it's very difficult for them to land on the ground with solid footing which results in them falling to the ground.

Dez was going to fall to the the ground whether he and the defender made contact or not because his "momentum" was taking him to the ground the replay clearly shows this. No one no can defy gravity not even Dez Bryant. Some seem to think that a receiver who catches the ball and begins running and is then tackled is considered going to the ground. They're WRONG! If some don't have a clear understanding of what "going to the ground" is they'll never have a complete understanding of what is and isn't a legal catch.

 

[LandryFan]

You have to fully understand what "going to the ground" means and many here don't understand it including you. It's hard to explain it to those who just don't get it. When a receiver jumps to make a catch as they're coming down with the ball if they don't have solid footing due to their momentum they'll end up on the ground that's considered "going to the ground." Any receiver who jumps to make a catch and falls to the ground after making the catch is considered "going to the ground."

Most receivers who leap to make a catch usually fall down once their feet hit the ground because they're concentrating on making the catch and their feet aren't stable when contacting the ground due to their momentum and they fall. WRs can leap high into the air and when they're concentrating on the football and their momentum is taking them forward towards the football while battling a defender it's very difficult for them to land on the ground with solid footing which results in them falling to the ground.

Dez was going to fall to the the ground whether he and the defender made contact or not because his "momentum" was taking him to the ground the replay clearly shows this. Some seem to think that a receiver who catches the ball and begins running and is then tackled is considered going to the ground. They're WRONG! If some don't have a clear understanding of what "going to the ground" is they'll never have a complete understanding of what is and isn't a legal catch.

Thanks for taking time to explain.
I just went back and rewatched the play. IMO, Dez would not have fallen had the defender not tripped him (I'm not talking about illegal tripping, the defender fell in front of Dez's legs). I understand both sides of this debate, and neither argument seems unreasonable to me. I guess I will always maintain that there was no indisputable evidence to overturn the ruling on the field.

 

[KJJ]

Thanks for taking time to explain.

Did it help or did I waste my time? LOL

 

[LandryFan]

Did it help or did I waste my time? LOL

Oh, it helped, and I truly appreciate the effort you took to explain. I added some to my reply to you, though, that will probably make you think I'm dense and unsalvageable, but after rewatching the play, I really think Dez stays upright if the defender doesn't fall in front of him. Google the play yourself and look at the point where Dez catches the ball and gets tripped and tell me if you think he had no chance to keep his feet.

 

[blindzebra]

Roger everything you said. The only other thing I would question is the part about going to the ground. It appeared to me that he was going to the ground because of contact by the defender...I seriously thinks he deeps his feet without the contact. Does that make a difference in having to maintain control through contact with the ground? If you say it makes a difference but that the defender wasn't the reason he was going to the ground, then I would respond that that is a disputable judgment call that should not have been overturned.

Seriously don't pay any attention to what he is saying about this rule, he is wrong!

In 2014 the catch rule was as follows:

A player catches the ball if that player A) Gets two feet down in bounds B) Has control of the ball C) Has time to or makes a move common to the game.

That is the catch process, period.

Now you have exceptions:

Item 1: Going to the ground - If a player goes to the ground in the process of making a catch, with or without contact with a defender, the player must maintain control through contact with the ground.

Now KJJ will have you believe this is all powerful, but I bolded the key part. What that means is if parts A-C are not met they must maintain control. Note that it in no way, shape, or form says met before going to the ground starts.

This leads to the following casebook play from the NFL casebook:

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.

This is the part that KJJ will ignore because it shows he is wrong. Note how the process of the catch continued simultaneously with going to the ground and when all 3 parts were met, going to the ground became moot.

Before GB going to the ground had never been applied like it was that day. There was no rule basis to overturn the call on the field. It was ruled incorrectly either because of not knowing the rule (unlikely), misapplying the rule (possibly), or doing so deliberately (highly likely). I think deliberately is most likely for two reasons:

1. The party bus. TMZ broke the story during the summer and it resurfaced after the Detroit playoff game and Blandino was accused of favoring Dallas in the game because of the party bus. This point is strengthened by the Cobb catch before half time that bounced but was upheld on review.

2. The fact that we heard that the rule wasn't going to change, yet it was drastically changed, not coincidentally what was changed was what made the play in GB a catch.

 

[KJJ]

When the competition committee is split, then it's apparent there is confusion in the league about the rule.

There's always going to be a split with everything especially with rules. There isn't anything involving rules that are going to make everyone happy. All rules involve judgment and the league is trying to remove as much judgement as possible which is why they make receivers complete a step by step process to determine a legal catch. No one is going to be 100% happy with any rule they're all flawed especially with human beings making the calls.

No one is perfect and everyone has their own personal judgment just sift through these threads and see how everyone thinks these calls should be made. Everyone has an opinion and sees calls differently. Not even the refs see calls the same way just listen to the former refs they have in the booth who disagree with some of the calls.

 

[LandryFan]

Seriously don't pay any attention to what he is saying about this rule, he is wrong!

In 2014 the catch rule was as follows:

A player catches the ball if that player A) Gets two feet down in bounds B) Has control of the ball C) Has time to or makes a move common to the game.

That is the catch process, period.

Now you have exceptions:

Item 1: Going to the ground - If a player goes to the ground in the process of making a catch, with or without contact with a defender, the player must maintain control through contact with the ground.

What that means is if parts A-C are not met they must maintain control. Note that it in no way, shape, or form says met before going to the ground starts.

This is the part that KJJ will ignore because it shows he is wrong. Note how the process of the catch continued simultaneously with going to the ground and when all 3 parts were met, going to the ground became moot.

Before GB going to the ground had never been applied like it was that day. There was no rule basis to overturn the call on the field. It was ruled incorrectly either because of not knowing the rule (unlikely), misapplying the rule (possibly), or doing so deliberately (highly likely). I think deliberately is most likely for two reasons:

1. The party bus. TMZ broke the story during the summer and it resurfaced after the Detroit playoff game and Blandino was accused of favoring Dallas in the game because of the party bus. This point is strengthened by the Cobb catch before half time that bounced but was upheld on review.

2. The fact that we heard that the rule wasn't going to change, yet it was drastically changed, not coincidentally what was changed was what made the play in GB a catch.

What I bolded above is what I thought to be the case. I don't claim to be a rules expert...I'm just a long time fan who has played some and watched a LOT of football. I consider myself to be a fan with above average knowledge, at the very least. When rules are made that even an average fan can't interpret, then it's time to change that rule, IMO. I just rewatched that play five times. He definitely had control, he definitely had two feet down in bounds, and he definitely made a move common to the game (IMO). He then was contacted by the defender that caused him to go to the ground (not that that matters, apparently). It looked like a duck, walked like a duck, and it quacked like a duck, but turns out it was a buzzard. But in the end, it was indisputably an incomplete pass. Okie dokie, then.

 

[KJJ]

Oh, it helped, and I truly appreciate the effort you took to explain. I added some to my reply to you, though, that will probably make you think I'm dense and unsalvageable, but after rewatching the play, I really think Dez stays upright if the defender doesn't fall in front of him. Google the play yourself and look at the point where Dez catches the ball and gets tripped and tell me if you think he had no chance to keep his feet.

I've watched the play over and over and over and Dez was going to the ground before he ever came down. His momentum had him going to the ground it's INDISPUTABLE! He had his sights on the goal line and scoring and had no choice but to lung because he was "going to the ground." He had ZERO chance of maintaining his footing on that play he would have ended up on the ground no matter what.

 

[blindzebra]

What I bolded above is what I thought to be the case. I don't claim to be a rules expert...I'm just a long time fan who has played some and watched a LOT of football. I consider myself to be a fan with above average knowledge, at the very least. When rules are made that even an average fan can't interpret, then it's time to change that rule, IMO. I just rewatched that play five times. He definitely had control, he definitely had two feet down in bounds, and he definitely made a move common to the game (IMO). He then was contacted by the defender that caused him to go to the ground (not that that matters, apparently). It looked like a duck, walked like a duck, and it quacked like a duck, but turns out it was a buzzard. But in the end, it was indisputably an incomplete pass. Okie dokie, then.

Going to the ground still applies to the Dez play, but the key is the catch process does not stop because of it. When Dez turned and stepped part C was met. When Dez switched the ball to one hand part C was met, and as the case play that I posted showed, when he braced and reached part C was met and going to the ground went away.

 

[LandryFan]

I've watched the play over and over and over and Dez was going to the ground before he ever came down. His momentum had him going to the ground it's INDISPUTABLE! He had his sights on the goal line and scoring and had no choice but to lung because he was "going to the ground."

I understand. We just disagree on that. But I sincerely appreciate that you took time to back/explain your opinion.

 

[blindzebra]

I've watched the play over and over and over and Dez was going to the ground before he ever came down. His momentum had him going to the ground it's INDISPUTABLE! He had his sights on the goal line and scoring and had no choice but to lung because he was "going to the ground." He had ZERO chance of maintaining his footing on that play he would have ended up on the ground no matter what.

And by rule it did not matter one bit.

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.