The Calvin Johnson Rule Does Not Apply

[percyhoward]

Nice selective quoting of Blandino in your signature - the part of his quote which does not address THIS play and contains an enormous "IF THAT'S THE CASE."

On THIS play he said this...Clearly falling down. Not tripping by Packer DB in any form.

If two feet down and contact that sends you to the ground means you caught the ball on one play, then it means you caught the ball on the next. Unless there was a rule change in between that we don't know about.

And if you don't think Dez was tripped, you haven't looked at the play very carefully.

 

[percyhoward]

Can anyone show where in the NFL Rule Book it says that a football move can't be made when the ball handler is out of balance?

If the receiver catches the ball and gets both feet down, and then is contacted, it's ruled that he has had enough time to perform an act common to the game (a "football move"), and has completed the process of the catch.

That interpretation of the rule comes from Blandino himself, because that's how he explained why Gresham didn't have to maintain possession of the ball after hitting the ground. When explaining the Dez play, Blandino doesn't mention anything about the contact (Shields' trip).

Blandino had already ruled that Dez had to maintain possession after hitting the ground for it to be a catch, so he has to leave contact out of the discussion, or else open up Pandora's box.

 

[percyhoward]

He was falling... immediately. It was an intrinsic and unavoidable part of his attempt He could not stay up. THAT is the key to the rule. Always has been.

Very simply, the call on the field was that Dez was down by contact. In order to overturn that call, there needed to be indisputable evidence that he was not.

 

[percyhoward]

Others have mentioned this, but I think many are still unclear about it: Because he got both feet down and then was contacted, Dez did not have to make a football move.

The rule states that the receiver only needs to hold the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. It's worded this way because if the player is tackled immediately after both feet are down, he obviously didn't have enough time to make a football move. That's why it doesn't say something like, "the player must hold the ball for two seconds," for example. Because of the tackle and the force of hitting the ground, the ball might not be in his possession for the prescribed amount of time, as was the case with Gresham's catch.

 

[Kevinicus]

He doesn't even have to make a football move, he just has to possess it long enough to make one. Is anyone going to argue that he traveled 12 feet, turned his body, took a 3rd step, and stretched out, but enough time didn't pass?

Edit: I guess I should have read the last page before posting. Percy beat me to it.

 

[Derinyar]

The two main problems in the call are simple. One did Dez complete the three steps needed in the basic rule. The NFL and officals pretty much said that he completed A and B because they were talking about C. The implication by their statements is that if Dez makes a "football move" the pass is complete because he completed the process outlined in the basic rule of a completed catch. Since they determined, in their judgement, that he didn't make enough of a stretch for a football move, then you go to Item 1, which allows for an exception to the basic rules of catching a ball and means you don't have to complete a football move to have a completed catch as long as you maintain full control through contact with the ground.

I'll give that if you don't find the evidence of a football move the pass is incomplete, Dez lost control when he hit the ground and I think there's enough evidence of the ball on the turf to make it incomplete. The problem is that they set about the review, by their statements, in the wrong way. They set out to prove that Dez made a football move. That's not what they needed to do, they had to prove that Dez doesn't make a football move. Very thin distinction but makes it much harder on them to over turn the correct way. Either way any rule that makes something like that not be a catch is poorly worded at the best, and flat out wrong at the worst.

 

[III]

He had to stop stumbling first.
It doesn't say anywhere in the rule book that you have to stop stumbling.

It does say that *any* act that advances the ball forward is an 'act common to the game' and that is considered a completed catch. In fact, Blandino and Perriera have been caught saying the same thing on other plays as the Chicago Tribune has noted.

TRUE ENOUGH THAT "STUMBLING" DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE RULE BOOK. THIS IS WHY GOVERNING BODIES AND OFFICIALS MEET IN THE OFFSEASON - TO DISCUSS SPECIFIC INSTANCES. WHAT RESULTS IS A GROWING DOCUMENT OFTEN REFERRED TO AS "DECISIONS." STUMBLING AND FALLING ARE INCLUDED IN "GOES TO THE GROUND IN THE ACT OF CATCHING A PASS." THIS PLAY WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BE DISCUSSED AT THIS YEAR'S MEETING AND MAY EVEN RESULT IN A RULES TWEAK. AS FOR NOW, ALL EXPERTS SEEM TO AGREE THAT THE CORRECT CALL WAS ULTIMATELY MADE.

His act was the desperate and ill advised act of a stumbler who forgot that securing the ball is more important than lunging.He did secure the ball. The ball only came lose when it hit the ground...after he extended his body AND his left arm. That's advancing the ball. That's an act common to the game (by the definition of the rule) and that's a catch.

EVIDENTLY HE DID NOT SECURE THE BALL - AGAINST IMPACT. THE FACT THAT, AS YOU SAY, "THE BALL ONLY CAME LOOSE WHEN IT HIT THE GROUND" SHOWS HE HAD NOT SECURED IT.

He fell to the ground because he could not stay up. He also tried to break his fall with his right hand ... which he should have kept on the ball while falling.Doesn't make a difference

He advanced the ball. That's an act common to the game according to the rule book. That's a catch.

Doesn't make a difference if you fall to the ground. Doesn't make a difference if you try to break your fall. Once you make a move to advance the football the falling to the ground rule (CJ Rule) does not apply.

YOUR "DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF YOU FALL TO THE GROUND" IS HILARIOUS. NOW THERE IS NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT BREAKING YOUR FALL BUT IT SURE MADE A DIFFERENCE IN THIS PLAY. IT'S THE REASON DEZ COUGHED IT UP. IT'S THE SAME REASON HE WENT OB WITH HIS PINKY LAST YEAR AGAINST THE GIANTS. DUDE HAD TO BREAK HIS FALL IN STEAD OF KEEPING BOTH HANDS ON THE BALL AND TAKING HIS LUMPS.

This happens every week in practically every game and is always called this way.​

Nope.

Chicago Tribune pointed out instances dating back to 2010 when they weren't called that way and Perierra and Blandino cited the rule properly...the player had made a move to advance the ball and that is a 'football move' and is a catch.

IT'S EITHER CALLED THIS WAY OR THEY ADMIT THEIR MISTAKE LATER IN THE WEEK WHEN WHAT WE SAW HAPPENS.

BTW - I HATE the Cowboys but respect them greatly. I sure wish we had your O-line.​

It's obvious that you hate Dallas. This play was your Super Bowl. I just like to point out how wrong you are and like allowing you to contradict yourself and not know the rules. It gives us evidence of the future that you don't know anything about football and shoots down your credibility.

SADLY (FOR US) OUR SUPER BOWL WAS THIS YEAR AT YOUR PLACE ON MNF. MY SUPERIOR REASONING SKILLS AND CORRECTNESS ON THIS ISSUE FORTIFY THE CREDIBILITY THAT YOU DENY WITH YOUR BLUE COLORED GLASSES.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

TRUE ENOUGH THAT "STUMBLING" DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE RULE BOOK. THIS IS WHY GOVERNING BODIES AND OFFICIALS MEET IN THE OFFSEASON - TO DISCUSS SPECIFIC INSTANCES. WHAT RESULTS IS A GROWING DOCUMENT OFTEN REFERRED TO AS "DECISIONS." STUMBLING AND FALLING ARE INCLUDED IN "GOES TO THE GROUND IN THE ACT OF CATCHING A PASS." THIS PLAY WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BE DISCUSSED AT THIS YEAR'S MEETING AND MAY EVEN RESULT IN A RULES TWEAK. AS FOR NOW, ALL EXPERTS SEEM TO AGREE THAT THE CORRECT CALL WAS ULTIMATELY MADE.



EVIDENTLY HE DID NOT SECURE THE BALL - AGAINST IMPACT. THE FACT THAT, AS YOU SAY, "THE BALL ONLY CAME LOOSE WHEN IT HIT THE GROUND" SHOWS HE HAD NOT SECURED IT.



YOUR "DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF YOU FALL TO THE GROUND" IS HILARIOUS. NOW THERE IS NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT BREAKING YOUR FALL BUT IT SURE MADE A DIFFERENCE IN THIS PLAY. IT'S THE REASON DEZ COUGHED IT UP. IT'S THE SAME REASON HE WENT OB WITH HIS PINKY LAST YEAR AGAINST THE GIANTS. DUDE HAD TO BREAK HIS FALL IN STEAD OF KEEPING BOTH HANDS ON THE BALL AND TAKING HIS LUMPS.



IT'S EITHER CALLED THIS WAY OR THEY ADMIT THEIR MISTAKE LATER IN THE WEEK WHEN WHAT WE SAW HAPPENS.



SADLY (FOR US) OUR SUPER BOWL WAS THIS YEAR AT YOUR PLACE ON MNF. MY SUPERIOR REASONING SKILLS AND CORRECTNESS ON THIS ISSUE FORTIFY THE CREDIBILITY THAT YOU DENY WITH YOUR BLUE COLORED GLASSES.

Apparently, this guy doesnt get it. Be objective. We have Blue colored glasses, but you have Burgandy....

Look at it objectively. Watch the play. listen to the explanations.

Then ask yourself. Does a replay official have enough to over turn the call on the field? without any doubt what so ever?

If that play is NOT challenged. No one says a word....no one.

 

[III]

All smart *** stuff aside, I honestly think this is the issue:

If a guy grabs a ball in stride and 2 feet touch the ground in bounds, it's pretty much all over.

OTOH, when a guy grabs the ball but cannot stay upright, with or without contact, he is now "going to the ground" and all the talk about a "football move" is moot.

To me, and the experts, Dez was clearly going to the ground after high pointing the ball. If he was, case closed. If he was not, you have an argument.

As an aside, I'm see confusion between an infraction known as tripping and incidental leg entanglement which does even draw a PI flag much less a personal foul for tripping.

One final thing - I probably won't be around for a while (I know good riddance). Thanks for having me.

Hail to the Commanders! No, Danny! No!

 

[Jenky]

TRUE ENOUGH THAT "STUMBLING" DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE RULE BOOK. THIS IS WHY GOVERNING BODIES AND OFFICIALS MEET IN THE OFFSEASON - TO DISCUSS SPECIFIC INSTANCES. WHAT RESULTS IS A GROWING DOCUMENT OFTEN REFERRED TO AS "DECISIONS." STUMBLING AND FALLING ARE INCLUDED IN "GOES TO THE GROUND IN THE ACT OF CATCHING A PASS." THIS PLAY WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY BE DISCUSSED AT THIS YEAR'S MEETING AND MAY EVEN RESULT IN A RULES TWEAK. AS FOR NOW, ALL EXPERTS SEEM TO AGREE THAT THE CORRECT CALL WAS ULTIMATELY MADE.



EVIDENTLY HE DID NOT SECURE THE BALL - AGAINST IMPACT. THE FACT THAT, AS YOU SAY, "THE BALL ONLY CAME LOOSE WHEN IT HIT THE GROUND" SHOWS HE HAD NOT SECURED IT.



YOUR "DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF YOU FALL TO THE GROUND" IS HILARIOUS. NOW THERE IS NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT BREAKING YOUR FALL BUT IT SURE MADE A DIFFERENCE IN THIS PLAY. IT'S THE REASON DEZ COUGHED IT UP. IT'S THE SAME REASON HE WENT OB WITH HIS PINKY LAST YEAR AGAINST THE GIANTS. DUDE HAD TO BREAK HIS FALL IN STEAD OF KEEPING BOTH HANDS ON THE BALL AND TAKING HIS LUMPS.



IT'S EITHER CALLED THIS WAY OR THEY ADMIT THEIR MISTAKE LATER IN THE WEEK WHEN WHAT WE SAW HAPPENS.



SADLY (FOR US) OUR SUPER BOWL WAS THIS YEAR AT YOUR PLACE ON MNF. MY SUPERIOR REASONING SKILLS AND CORRECTNESS ON THIS ISSUE FORTIFY THE CREDIBILITY THAT YOU DENY WITH YOUR BLUE COLORED GLASSES.

LOL, superbowl at week 8.

 

[tyke1doe]

OTOH, when a guy grabs the ball but cannot stay upright, with or without contact, he is now "going to the ground" and all the talk about a "football move" is moot.

That's basically the issue in a nutshell. And that's why the call was ruled not a catch.

 

[Everson24]

I think it looks different in real-time versus slow motion.

In real time speed there is nothing but forward momentum and falling. I think folks are reaching here.

Blandino told NFL Network that "you have to watch this play in full speed". Why? Because the slow motion replay clearly shows Dez making multiple football moves and it is damaging to their case. What a bunch of dirty cheats and liars.

 

[sb220]

You act like he is Neo from the Matrix or something. If you cant see these "bullet dodging" moves full speed, then obviously the refs are just agents trying to keep the One down

 

[speedkilz88]

That's basically the issue in a nutshell. And that's why the call was ruled not a catch.

That is not going by the rules. So yeah if you throw out the rules you can call it whatever you want.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

That is not going by the rules. So yeah if you throw out the rules you can call it whatever you want.

which is what they did...........................................

my question is Why?

 

[speedkilz88]

which is what they did...........................................

my question is Why?

That would be speculative. One possibility is just bias because everyone has it to some degree no matter what they claim. But the prior outcry from the Detroit game surely could have influenced the Bumdeano guy along with the Cowboys bang bus pic that was rereleased by TMZ.

 

[MagicMan]

Blandino told NFL Network that "you have to watch this play in full speed". Why? Because the slow motion replay clearly shows Dez making multiple football moves and it is damaging to their case. What a bunch of dirty cheats and liars.

That defeats the purpose of reviewing plays by the NFL then........how stupid of a remark is that. The official on the field 3 feet away saw it in full speed and made the call himself----which is actually confirmed by the replay. So why overturn it. Everyday is something else with these bozos.

 

[DogFace]

That's basically the issue in a nutshell. And that's why the call was ruled not a catch.

Read the Percyhoward explanations at the top of this page. It will help you understand the rule. It also references the Gresham play from Cincinnati which demonstrats the inconsistent application of rules.

 

[sb220]

Gresham play was blown dead due to forward progress. It does show that forward progress calls are wildly inconsistent

 

[Everson24]

That defeats the purpose of reviewing plays by the NFL then........how stupid of a remark is that. The official on the field 3 feet away saw it in full speed and made the call himself----which is actually confirmed by the replay. So why overturn it. Everyday is something else with these bozos.

And yet I waste most of my Sunday afternoons in the fall watching every play, only to have these same bozos end a very promising season. What a shame. I need to give up this corrupt game.