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

[Joefrl]

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.

Sorry that is not what AR 8.12 says. This could be correct however, but in this example, The receiver stopped the fall. Dez never did.

 

[Kevinicus]

Stop feeding the troll guys. It's just embarrassing at this point.

 

[percyhoward]

Sorry that is not what AR 8.12 says. This could be correct however, but in this example, The receiver stopped the fall. .

And which part of the catch process was the act of stopping the fall? There are only three choices.

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game.

 

[Joefrl]

And which part of the catch process was the act of stopping the fall? There are only three choices.

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game.

The brace was the act of stopping the fall.

 

[Joefrl]

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

You are the one that is not making sense.

 

[Joefrl]

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

Here it looks like he is reaching for the sideline, or the pylon.

 

[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.

When one reaches, there arm or arms are straight out. Dez never straightened is arm out.

 

[percyhoward]

The brace was the act of stopping the fall.

Right, and which part of the catch process was the brace? There are only three choices.

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game.

 

[Joefrl]

Right, and which part of the catch process was the brace? There are only three choices.

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game.

None of the above. By bracing and stopping the fall, One now has another chance to have time to make a football move, then C can be satisfied.

If he starts "going to the ground" again before he has a chance to do a football move, the brace means nothing.

 

[percyhoward]

None of the above. By bracing and stopping the fall, One now has another chance to have time to make a football move, then C can be satisfied.

In the example, the lunge was simultaneous with the brace, so what was the football move that made it a catch?

 

[Joefrl]

And which part of the catch process was the act of stopping the fall? There are only three choices.

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to
perform any act common to the game.

2004 Chicago Bears Bernard Berrian. This was the very first time the "football move" rule was inforced. At least it was the first time I ever heard of it. Very similar to the Greshan play except Berrian caught the ball clean, no juggle, 2 feet on the ground in the end zone. He was immediately tackled after that and dropped the ball when he hit the ground.
They ruled Item 1 applied because Berrian did not have a chance to make a football move BEFORE he was "in the act of being tackled". Incomplete pass.

 

[percyhoward]

When one reaches, their arms are straight out.

You've got an itch on your left elbow. Try to reach it by sticking your right arm straight out.

 

[DallasEast]

http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/Breaking%20News_zpsaleeykpi.jpg

http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/chart%20and%20more_zpsngbahs0q.jpg

Thread update: Intelligent posts outnumber non-intelligent posts by more than three to one.​

 

[DogFace]

I don't

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".

Right. Because the requirements for a catch, the 3 step process, supersedes these rules and doesn't apply if the requirements are met.

That's why there is no rule stating one can't make a football move while going to the ground. There are countless examples of players making moves while "falling" This, again, is why they were looking for a football move after the fall started and before it was complete.

The 3 step process can be completed while going to the ground. This is why you can't find where the rules say it can't.

 

[DogFace]

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.

I say losing ones balance means they are about to regain balance and stay upright.

You're losing more credibility by dismissing Blindzebra's example and saying it was different.

Are you really now saying Dez didn't braces himself?
I feel that's not able to be argued by a reasonable person. It's very clear.

 

[Joefrl]

I say losing ones balance means they are about to regain balance and stay upright.

You're losing more credibility by dismissing Blindzebra's example and saying it was different.

Are you really now saying Dez didn't braces himself?
I feel that's not able to be argued by a reasonable person. It's very clear.

Losing ones balance (going down) is the complete opposite of gaining or regaining ones balance (going up).

Watch the flight of the ball from the time Dez controlled it until the time it hit the ground. It moved in a downward path the whole time. If Dez had braced himself, the ball would have stopped moving downward at that point, maybe even moved upward some. Never happened, no brace.

 

[Joefrl]

I don't


Right. Because the requirements for a catch, the 3 step process, supersedes these rules and doesn't apply if the requirements are met.

That's why there is no rule stating one can't make a football move while going to the ground. There are countless examples of players making moves while "falling" This, again, is why they were looking for a football move after the fall started and before it was complete.

The 3 step process can be completed while going to the ground. This is why you can't find where the rules say it can't.

Item 1 says it can't be completed when going to the ground very clearly. It says if one is going to the ground in the act of catching a pass, he must hold to the ball when he hits the ground, period. And, there are no exceptions.

 

[Joefrl]

You've got an itch on your left elbow. Try to reach it by sticking your right arm straight out.

What does an itch have to do with sticking your arm straight out while holding the football?

 

[Joefrl]

In the example, the lunge was simultaneous with the brace, so what was the football move that made it a catch?

The lunge. So.........what?

 

[nathanlt]

Item 1 says it can't be completed when going to the ground very clearly. It says if one is going to the ground in the act of catching a pass, he must hold to the ball when he hits the ground, period. And, there are no exceptions.

You are referring of course, to the language in the Joefrl rulebook, not the NFL rulebook. What a way to waste your 100th post. Initially, you were on the receiving end of some excellent commentary and insight into the many shortcomings of the NFL's application of rules. These shortcomings turned what was a catch, BY RULE, into gibberish as to why Blandino took the catch away. You've received clear, indisputable examples as to why it was a catch.

However, you've ignored them all. As you continue to babble endlessly, realize that a lack of response to your future comments, doesn't mean that you are right. You will not acknowledge iron-clad proof that Dez's catch should never have been overturned. Ignoring what is right in front of your face is your choice, but don't expect anyone to take your babbling seriously.

You're done.