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

[Joefrl]

Post this rule.

We already went through this "upright long enough" 2015 and "long enough to make a football move" 2014.

If you put them together you have "upright long enough to make a football move".

 

[Joefrl]

Show one example of a rule or play indicating that a player has to be upright to make a football move.

"Item 2 Sideline catches: If a player goes to the ground out of bounds (with or without contact by a opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete". Again notice that it makes no difference what happens between control of the ball and hitting the ground.

 

[blindzebra]

Nobody can be this freaking dumb, he is clearly a troll that should get banned.

 

[percyhoward]

A.R. 8.9 While in midair, a receiver firmly takes hold of a pass, but loses possession of the ball when his shoulder lands on the ground with or without being contacted by an opponent.
Ruling: Pass is incomplete. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights with the ground in order to complete the reception.
Notice in the above, the receiver caught the ball in midair and fell straight to the ground. Also notice that it does not matter what happened between controling the ball and hitting the ground.

All that says is that you can't get to part C (football move) without first completing A and B (control and two feet down). No one disputes this.

Post this rule that says you can't make a football move while falling AFTER completing A and B.

 

[percyhoward]

"Item 2 Sideline catches: If a player goes to the ground out of bounds (with or without contact by a opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete". Again notice that it makes no difference what happens between control of the ball and hitting the ground.

Remember, your argument is that you can't make a football move while falling. All that says is that the three-part process doesn't apply to sideline catches. No one disputes this one either.

We already know they don't look for a football move if the player is falling OOB or in the end zone. I am asking you to show us something that backs up what you claim the overturn of the Dez catch was based on. That means control with two feet, in the field of play, but no football move to consider "because he was falling."

 

[percyhoward]

We already went through this "upright long enough" 2015 and "long enough to make a football move" 2014.

Yeah, and that's exactly why they had to say they considered the football move. At the time, there was no rule that mentioned being upright as a prerequisite for making such a move.

Which is why you haven't been able to find it.

 

[DogFace]

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.

Like I said. You are assuming. They never ruled that and never said they did. They looked for another move because it doesn't matter if you're falling or not when. If you complete the 3 steps at any point it's a catch.
He had time to pitch. He did dive and lunge. He tried to avoid a tackle. It does not matter if he did. It matters if he had time. And he clearly did.

 

[DogFace]

What happens when one loses his balance? That's right, he starts going to the ground.

No. Sometimes one regains balance and runs or variety of other things. Losing balance doesn't mean you fall.

 

[DogFace]

A.R. 8.9 While in midair, a receiver firmly takes hold of a pass, but loses possession of the ball when his shoulder lands on the ground with or without being contacted by an opponent.
Ruling: Pass is incomplete. Receiver must hold onto the ball when he alights with the ground in order to complete the reception.
Notice in the above, the receiver caught the ball in midair and fell straight to the ground. Also notice that it does not matter what happened between controling the ball and hitting the ground.

Poor example that is not close to the Dez play. Apparently it didn't matter because he fell to the ground and his shoulder hit first. Not three feet arm Etc.

This could be an indication to you that you're wrong.

 

[DogFace]

Nobody can be this freaking dumb, he is clearly a troll that should get banned.

"Item 2 Sideline catches: If a player goes to the ground out of bounds (with or without contact by a opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete". Again notice that it makes no difference what happens between control of the ball and hitting the ground.

I will ask the same question that you won't answer from Percy.

Could you Please post the rule that says a player can't make a football move if he is falling?

Please don't use the phrase common sense ever again. Thank you.

 

[percyhoward]

My take is the same as their take, I just use better words.

Using your better words then, defend your (and their) take.

"In order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line."

Receivers normally catch the ball with two hands, then switch the ball to one hand when they run, because that's what runners normally do. There is no rule that says you have to reach with two hands to break the plane of the goal line, or to reach the line of gain. One-handed reaches result in first downs and touchdowns on a weekly basis in the NFL. Why then, would a player need to reach with two hands in order to establish himself as a runner?

In week 1 of 2013, Victor Cruz reached with one hand and was awarded the catch, even though the ball came loose on contact with the ground. Pereira later said the catch should not have counted, NOT because of the one-handed reach, but because he didn't complete the catch process (only one foot down). Two former officiating supervisors both thought it was a catch. NO ONE mentioned the fact that Cruz only reached with one hand.
http://www.footballzebras.com/2013/09/12/7903/

Here's what Pereira said after the Dez non-catch: "If you're going to the ground, you have to prove that you have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game and do so," said Pereira. "And part of that is stretching all the way out and to me even though he moved the ball a little bit forward, they are not going to consider that a football act."
http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pereira-dez-bryant-reversal-2015-1http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pereira-dez-bryant-reversal-2015-1

If there really existed a rule that the reach had to be with two hands, why didn't Pereira just say so? Clearly, all he's looking at is the extension. There exists no requirement that the reach be with two hands. Nowhere prior to the Dez non-catch will you find a rule that says you must reach with two hands in order for it to be considered a football move. This was simply made up on the spot by Blandino.

Now, on to the "extending it for the goal line" requirement. Pereira said Dez needed to stretch "all the way out," and Blandino said Dez needed to "extend for the goal line." I want you to look at this picture.

Look at the direction in which Dez is falling, and look where the goal line is. He is not falling toward the goal line. He's falling toward a point between the pylon and the 1-yard line. If he stretches "all the way out" and extends his arm (as both Blandino and Pereira have suggested), he ends up pointing the ball toward the one-foot line. No player in his right mind is going to try to reach for the one-foot line. He is naturally reaching toward the goal line, which is back to his left, and which involves bending his elbow. Both Blandino and Pereira assumed he was falling toward the goal line, and so both of them said he should have extended his arm. They're both wrong.

Using your "better words," explain how they were right.

 

[Joefrl]

Using your better words then, defend your (and their) take.

"In order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line."

Receivers normally catch the ball with two hands, then switch the ball to one hand when they run, because that's what runners normally do. There is no rule that says you have to reach with two hands to break the plane of the goal line, or to reach the line of gain. One-handed reaches result in first downs and touchdowns on a weekly basis in the NFL. Why then, would a player need to reach with two hands in order to establish himself as a runner?

In week 1 of 2013, Victor Cruz reached with one hand and was awarded the catch, even though the ball came loose on contact with the ground. Pereira later said the catch should not have counted, NOT because of the one-handed reach, but because he didn't complete the catch process (only one foot down). Two former officiating supervisors both thought it was a catch. NO ONE mentioned the fact that Cruz only reached with one hand.
http://www.footballzebras.com/2013/09/12/7903/

Here's what Pereira said after the Dez non-catch: "If you're going to the ground, you have to prove that you have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game and do so," said Pereira. "And part of that is stretching all the way out and to me even though he moved the ball a little bit forward, they are not going to consider that a football act."
http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pereira-dez-bryant-reversal-2015-1http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pereira-dez-bryant-reversal-2015-1

If there really existed a rule that the reach had to be with two hands, why didn't Pereira just say so? Clearly, all he's looking at is the extension. There exists no requirement that the reach be with two hands. Nowhere prior to the Dez non-catch will you find a rule that says you must reach with two hands in order for it to be considered a football move. This was simply made up on the spot by Blandino.

Now, on to the "extending it for the goal line" requirement. Pereira said Dez needed to stretch "all the way out," and Blandino said Dez needed to "extend for the goal line." I want you to look at this picture.

Look at the direction in which Dez is falling, and look where the goal line is. He is not falling toward the goal line. He's falling toward a point between the pylon and the 1-yard line. If he stretches "all the way out" and extends his arm (as both Blandino and Pereira have suggested), he ends up pointing the ball toward the one-foot line. No player in his right mind is going to try to reach for the one-foot line. He is naturally reaching toward the goal line, which is back to his left, and which involves bending his elbow. Both Blandino and Pereira assumed he was falling toward the goal line, and so both of them said he should have extended his arm. They're both wrong.

Using your "better words," explain how they were right.

His other hand and his helmet are closer to the goal line than the ball. If he a reached for the goal, the ball would be closer to the goal line than anything else.

 

[blindzebra]

That picture is the bracing BEFORE HE REACHED.

 

[Joefrl]

I will ask the same question that you won't answer from Percy.

Could you Please post the rule that says a player can't make a football move if he is falling?

Please don't use the phrase common sense ever again. Thank you.

I've answered that many times. Item 1, Item 2, A.R. 8.9. Read these 3. None of them have an exception written by them for a football move after starting "going to the ground". It does not matter what happens between "going to the ground" and "settleing there".

 

[Joefrl]

Poor example that is not close to the Dez play. Apparently it didn't matter because he fell to the ground and his shoulder hit first. Not three feet arm Etc.

This could be an indication to you that you're wrong.

Again, it does not matter what happens between controling the ball in midair and losing it on the ground.

 

[Joefrl]

No. Sometimes one regains balance and runs or variety of other things. Losing balance doesn't mean you fall.

I didn't say he fell (past tense), I said losing balance means he starts "going to the ground" (present tense). Sure one could regain balance, Dez did not.

 

[blindzebra]

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.

There is the rule applied where parts B and C were completed after the going to the ground began. That is from the official NFL Case Book and clearly says that A-C can all occur after a player falls as long as all 3 are complete before he lands.

 

[Joefrl]

Yeah, and that's exactly why they had to say they considered the football move. At the time, there was no rule that mentioned being upright as a prerequisite for making such a move.

Which is why you haven't been able to find it.

I told you,
"long enough to make a football move" is the same as "upright long enough".

 

[percyhoward]

His other hand and his helmet are closer to the goal line than the ball. If he a reached for the goal, the ball would be closer to the goal line than anything else.

You mean like this? That picture was only to give you an idea of the angle.

 

[percyhoward]

I told you,
"long enough to make a football move" is the same as "upright long enough".

This makes no sense whatsoever, unless you believe that saying "upright" is the same as not saying "upright."