The NFL's Official Change to What Is A Catch: Dez Bryant play rule rewritten *merge*

[Joefrl]

Of course, we already know what is meant by going to the ground, so again, there is no reason to speculate. If you really want to understand these plays, look into the league's official explanations. Catch up with the rest of us information-wise. You'll be better able to address the points being made, and you won't be at such a disadvantage in the debate.

Disadvantage? Hardly.
I have been watching football since about Superbowl X. I have been pretty much reading the rule book since then as well. I can almost recite many of them by memory. I have gone through all of the changes of the catch rule, since it used to be identical to Baseball. So, I understand the logic behind all of the changes that have been made to catch rule. If you and I disagree on an interpretation, chances are I am right.

 

[nathanlt]

Item 1 , as written, says since he dropped the ball due to the force of his arms hitting the ground, it is an incomplete pass. Same as a straight out dive, no different.

Funny how the phrase "the force of arms hitting the ground" is not WRITTEN IN THE RULE.

Item 1, as WRITTEN, first, does not apply, since it was a catch 10 times over before the ball came loose.

Secondly, if it did apply, it still would be a catch, because nothing is precisely defined to go beyond DOWN BY CONTACT.

CATCH, BY RULE.

 

[Joefrl]

Dez turned his body more than 90 degrees to sheild off the defender.
Dez performed 7 football moves.
Dez had time enough to make a football move.
Dez got each elbow down before the ball came loose.
Dez caught the ball TEN different ways, not just one.

Watch the play.
Read the rules, ignore the speeches.
Don't discuss next years rule with Dez 's CATCH.

Let's see, A football move is defined as running (didn't have a chance), pitching the ball to a teammate (didn't have a chance), breaking a tackle (nope) making a tackler miss (maybe) diving for more yardage (nope).
None of that other stuff is what they are looking for, elbows or any other body part touching the ground is not a football move. Your argument is weak my friend.
Also:
Note 1: If there is any question by the covering official(s) as to whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it always will be ruled incomplete.

 

[nathanlt]

Through contact with the ground means the rule applies until one is DONE contacting the ground. Until one is through contacting the ground.

Show me the written language that says when the player is DONE contacting the ground.

Due to gravity, a player is always contacting the ground, technically. A poorly written rule defaults to known concepts in the rule book.

Otherwise, speculation from official to official, and personal interpretation of a vague phrase is the norm. Consistency is impossible with that,there's no point in having a rule book at all if speculation and personal opinion is the rule.

 

[Joefrl]

Funny how the phrase "the force of arms hitting the ground" is not WRITTEN IN THE RULE.

Item 1, as WRITTEN, first, does not apply, since it was a catch 10 times over before the ball came loose.

Secondly, if it did apply, it still would be a catch, because nothing is precisely defined to go beyond DOWN BY CONTACT.

CATCH, BY RULE.

Every time you say even if Item 1 applies it is still complete, you are making yourself sound stupid:

Item 1: Player going to the ground: If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass, he must maintain control of the ball THROUGHOUT the process of contacting the ground. If he loses control of the ball and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete.

He did lose control, and the ball did hit the ground.

Note 1: If there is any question by the covering official(s) as to whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it always will be ruled incomplete.

 

[Joefrl]

Show me the written language that says when the player is DONE contacting the ground.

Due to gravity, a player is always contacting the ground, technically. A poorly written rule defaults to known concepts in the rule book.

Otherwise, speculation from official to official, and personal interpretation of a vague phrase is the norm. Consistency is impossible with that,there's no point in having a rule book at all if speculation and personal opinion is the rule.

Your last paragraph is correct, and yes speculation from official to official is the norm, because there is no default.

There is generally something written in every rule book that if something happens that is not covered by the rules in the book, the offical or referee or umpire has the power to rule the way he thinks is best and fairest. That's the only default there is.

 

[nathanlt]

Every time you say even if Item 1 applies it is still complete, you are making yourself sound stupid:

Item 1: Player going to the ground: If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass, he must maintain control of the ball THROUGHOUT the process of contacting the ground. If he loses control of the ball and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete.

He did lose control, and the ball did hit the ground.

Note 1: If there is any question by the covering official(s) as to whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it always will be ruled incomplete.

Throughout the process means until the process is complete.

The process is complete when the player is down by contact. No other end to the process is defined, therefore no official explanation has been given, in WRITTEN form, in the rule book.

You can't make up what you want the rule to say. It doesn't say beyond down by contact. Therefore, it reverts to down by contact, since that ends the process of every other situation, and is established by the NFL? The lack of specificity, is burden of the rule writer to define more precisely, lacking that, you MUST fall back to known concepts.

The bolded portion is met by the initial ruling of a CATCH on the field.

 

[nathanlt]

Your last paragraph is correct, and yes speculation from official to official is the norm, because there is no default.

There is generally something written in every rule book that if something happens that is not covered by the rules in the book, the offical or referee or umpire has the power to rule the way he thinks is best and fairest. That's the only default there is.

No, this isn't the NBA. a catch is specifically defined, and Dez made it ten times over. You watch, this is going to be a clown show this year, with refs making horrible calls when it comes to catches. Blandino keeps staring at his Giants posters, waiting to overrule legal catches.

He is incompetent and needs to be fired. He thinks gibberish in the rule book is going to produce consistency on the field. The only thing dumber is people trying to defend things that aren't in the RULES.

 

[nathanlt]

Let's see, A football move is defined as running (didn't have a chance), pitching the ball to a teammate (didn't have a chance), breaking a tackle (nope) making a tackler miss (maybe) diving for more yardage (nope).
None of that other stuff is what they are looking for, elbows or any other body part touching the ground is not a football move. Your argument is weak my friend.
Also:
Note 1: If there is any question by the covering official(s) as to whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it always will be ruled incomplete.

Much speculation about the football move, but the 2012 rule book actually gives examples. Dez transferred the ball from one hand to the other. Dez warded off his opponent by rotating his body more than 90 degrees. he planked off of his third step. He reached for the goal line. He certainly had enough time to do a football move, because he did make multiple football moves. So, it was a CATCH.

The covering official called it a catch. The comedian of officiating is not a covering official. In fact Blandino has never been a referee.

Any other official who had a question about it couldn't have read the rule book, is incompetent.
The catch all note you keep presenting could eliminate writing a rule book at all. The incompetent Blandino might prefer that.

 

[nathanlt]

Your last paragraph is correct, and yes speculation from official to official is the norm, because there is no default.

There is generally something written in every rule book that if something happens that is not covered by the rules in the book, the offical or referee or umpire has the power to rule the way he thinks is best and fairest. That's the only default there is.

nice job avoiding SHOWING me the written language about DONE contacting the ground. It doesn't exist.

 

[nathanlt]

Your last paragraph is correct, and yes speculation from official to official is the norm, because there is no default.

There is generally something written in every rule book that if something happens that is not covered by the rules in the book, the offical or referee or umpire has the power to rule the way he thinks is best and fairest. That's the only default there is.

So, by default the covering official called it a catch. He followed the language in the rule book. It was a CATCH. BY RULE. not by chance, joe frl s opinion, or a question.

BY RULE, IT WAS A CATCH.

 

[blindzebra]

Down by contact has no baring on the Dez play other than it was called that way correctly on the field.

I don't see why the catch rule is so hard to understand. There are 2 key definitions at work receiver and runner in the Dez play and how the rule is intended to be applied. Simply put a player is a receiver in the act of catching until he does 3 things at any point in the process before hitting the ground: Control, 2 feet in bounds, Time to or makes a move common to the game. If a player is going to the ground and one or more of those 3 are missing when they hit the ground, they are still in the act of catching so they must maintain control through that contact. The key to the entire rule is that the 3 point process applies until the player hits the ground. This is exactly what Blandino said in the video percyhoward provided. So during any pass play the receiver becomes a runner once points A-C are met. Item 1 only becomes the end of the process if a falling player never completes all 3 requirements for a catch. Those requirements apply until the player makes initial contact with the ground, and at that point, AND ONLY AT THAT POINT, they must maintain possession throughout the contact with the ground.

 

[Joefrl]

Now let me be at least the second person in this thread to refer you to the Gresham catch in the 2013 playoffs. All the information we need is out there.

Then watch the Grisham play in the Bengals chargers playoff game and you'll see this very example ruled a catch.

I believe he actually lost it before he even hit.

Just saw it,
The Gresham catched should have been ruled incomplete. It was identical to one of the Calvin Johnson plays which was ruled correctly, incomplete. Both lost the ball as soon as it hit the ground and part C of a completed pass was never accomplished.

 

[nathanlt]

Down by contact has no baring on the Dez play other than it was called that way correctly on the field.

I don't see why the catch rule is so hard to understand. There are 2 key definitions at work receiver and runner in the Dez play and how the rule is intended to be applied. Simply put a player is a receiver in the act of catching until he does 3 things at any point in the process before hitting the ground: Control, 2 feet in bounds, Time to or makes a move common to the game. If a player is going to the ground and one or more of those 3 are missing when they hit the ground, they are still in the act of catching so they must maintain control through that contact. The key to the entire rule is that the 3 point process applies until the player hits the ground. This is exactly what Blandino said in the video percyhoward provided. So during any pass play the receiver becomes a runner once points A-C are met. Item 1 only becomes the end of the process if a falling player never completes all 3 requirements for a catch. Those requirements apply until the player makes initial contact with the ground, and at that point, AND ONLY AT THAT POINT, they must maintain possession throughout the contact with the ground.

Because of the vagueness of what throughout contact with the ground actually means, you must default to the the ending of advancing the ball. That is down by contact.

Otherwise, the player can no longer advance the ball, yet the catch is still in question? Legitimately, the contact with the ground has no end if down by contact does not define the end of the process. Gravity forces all of us, to endure a lifelong process of contacting the ground.

It seems to be a provocative exaggeration, but it is not. Lacking a defined end to the process, in writing, is huge. It is at that point that the rules themselves contain the defined end. Down by contact stops every other process, so it is the only NFL APPROVED concept that makes sense.

 

[nathanlt]

Just saw it,
The Gresham catched should have been ruled incomplete. It was identical to one of the Calvin Johnson plays which was ruled correctly, incomplete. Both lost the ball as soon as it hit the ground and part C of a completed pass was never accomplished.

Or the Dez CATCH should have not been overturned. None of us believe that "chances are joe is right". Don't put your own words into the written rule book.

 

[DogFace]

Just saw it,
The Gresham catched should have been ruled incomplete. It was identical to one of the Calvin Johnson plays which was ruled correctly, incomplete. Both lost the ball as soon as it hit the ground and part C of a completed pass was never accomplished.

I'm still waiting on an answer to my question I've asked now four times. Regarding the Dez catch.

"Ok all together now"
Why were Blandino and Steretore looking for the football move if it didn't matter because he was falling?????

 

[Joefrl]

I'm still waiting on an answer to my question I've asked now four times. Regarding the Dez catch.

"Ok all together now"
Why were Blandino and Steretore looking for the football move if it didn't matter because he was falling?????

Had to figure this one out like a puzzle: They must have ruled Shields never touched him. Therefore, he pretty much did have until he touched the ground with something other than hands and feet to make a football move. Did he pitch the ball to a teammate? No. Did he dive or lunge? Maybe. Did he avoid a tackle? No. These are the things they were looking for per 8-3-C.

 

[Joefrl]

Or the Dez CATCH should have not been overturned. None of us believe that "chances are joe is right". Don't put your own words into the written rule book.

Throughout the process means until the process is complete.

The process is complete when the player is down by contact. No other end to the process is defined, therefore no official explanation has been given, in WRITTEN form, in the rule book.

You can't make up what you want the rule to say. It doesn't say beyond down by contact. Therefore, it reverts to down by contact, since that ends the process of every other situation, and is established by the NFL? The lack of specificity, is burden of the rule writer to define more precisely, lacking that, you MUST fall back to known concepts.

The bolded portion is met by the initial ruling of a CATCH on the field.

You are right that the Dez play should have never been reversed by replay, regardless of the call on the field. Indisputable evidence? I think we proved there is no indisputable evidence in the last few days!

Because of the vagueness of what throughout contact with the ground actually means, you must default to the the ending of advancing the ball. That is down by contact.

Otherwise, the player can no longer advance the ball, yet the catch is still in question? Legitimately, the contact with the ground has no end if down by contact does not define the end of the process. Gravity forces all of us, to endure a lifelong process of contacting the ground.

It seems to be a provocative exaggeration, but it is not. Lacking a defined end to the process, in writing, is huge. It is at that point that the rules themselves contain the defined end. Down by contact stops every other process, so it is the only NFL APPROVED concept that makes sense.

1) Just because you don't understand the phrase "Throughout the process of contacting the ground", doesn't mean you can just insert a different rule in it's place.
2) Here's where you didn't complete the logical thought: As long as the catch is in question, the receiver CAN indeed advance the ball! If Dez bobbled the ball all the way to the ground for example, and then while lying on the ground finally secured the catch, he can get up and run with the ball, even if he originally tripped over Shields!
The contact in "Down by contact" has to happen after all 3 parts of a catch are done. In other words, after receiver becomes a runner.

 

[nathanlt]

You are right that the Dez play should have never been reversed by replay, regardless of the call on the field. Indisputable evidence? I think we proved there is no indisputable evidence in the last few days!

1) Just because you don't understand the phrase "Throughout the process of contacting the ground", doesn't mean you can just insert a different rule in it's place.
2) Here's where you didn't complete the logical thought: As long as the catch is in question, the receiver CAN indeed advance the ball! If Dez bobbled the ball all the way to the ground for example, and then while lying on the ground finally secured the catch, he can get up and run with the ball, even if he originally tripped over Shields!
The contact in "Down by contact" has to happen after all 3 parts of a catch are done. In other words, after receiver becomes a runner.

1) You cannot insert your imagination into the vagueness of the written rule. I referenced a well defined concept for ending a process to reduce the ambiguity of when the process ends. It's the only way to avoid personal interpretation and imagination, like you would rather do.

2) Even in your imagined interpretation of the rule, Dez is somehow both definitively down at the half yard line, because of his right elbow touching, but it takes a few more seconds of motion to figure out if he actually caught the ball. That's insane. The catch is in question only until Dez makes the football move of warding off the defender, which you left out of your football move, examples. it was written as an example of a football move, but, go ahead, pretend it doesn't exist. You have to live in wild imagination to state that Dez didn't CATCH it.

Receiver or runner doesn't matter. If the ball is secured, and it was Dez was down by contact, whether he was a receiver or runner, due to the ambiguity of the rule. There really is no controversy to whether or not he caught it. The only controversy is that Blandino TAMPERED with the game.

 

[Joefrl]

1) You cannot insert your imagination into the vagueness of the written rule. I referenced a well defined concept for ending a process to reduce the ambiguity of when the process ends. It's the only way to avoid personal interpretation and imagination, like you would rather do.

2) Even in your imagined interpretation of the rule, Dez is somehow both definitively down at the half yard line, because of his right elbow touching, but it takes a few more seconds of motion to figure out if he actually caught the ball. That's insane. The catch is in question only until Dez makes the football move of warding off the defender, which you left out of your football move, examples. it was written as an example of a football move, but, go ahead, pretend it doesn't exist. You have to live in wild imagination to state that Dez didn't CATCH it.

Receiver or runner doesn't matter. If the ball is secured, and it was Dez was down by contact, whether he was a receiver or runner, due to the ambiguity of the rule. There really is no controversy to whether or not he caught it. The only controversy is that Blandino TAMPERED with the game.

I did say "did Dez avoid a tackler? Maybe
That's the only reasonable argument you do have. Unfortunately:
Note 1: If there is any question by the covering official(s) as to whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it always will be ruled incomplete.