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

[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.

Dez's fall was never stopped, even for a brief moment.
Like I said before, the only reasonable argument you have, is the lunge......But that is a very weak argument, especially since he may have been already going down. That's why they decided it wasn't enough.
No brace, no reach. Geez, he may have tried to brace, but his arm crumbled underneath him. Then I think he smartly tried to protect the ball. That's why he didn't reach. He knew it was the right call, because in the post game interview he exclaimed "CHANGE THAT RULE!

 

[Joefrl]

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.

No, I am simply reading the rules to you right out of the official case book, the most up to date one two, I am not backtracking to an old book, I am only reading out of the most current book.
You keep choosing to ignore Item 1. Sorry, can't do that.

 

[blindzebra]

Just in case anyone is wondering the Case Book is not put out every year, the case play I posted is the current Case Book for the 2014 season. Every case play in the book dealing with a player going to the ground is consistent with that being the deciding factor only if parts A-C are absent before the player makes contact with the ground. The first section of the 2014 Rule Book has rule changes and nowhere in that section was a change to the catch rules.

Rules-Section-Article | Description

• 1-3 | Extends uprights an additional five feet above the cross bar.
• 4-3-2, 4-4 | The game clock will remain running after a quarterback sack outside two minutes of either half.
• 12-2-1, 12-2-6, 3-5 | Prohibits a blocker from rolling up on the side of the leg(s) of a defender.
• 14-3-5, 14-4-2, 3 | Changes spot of enforcement for certain defensive fouls committed behind the line of scrimmage to the previous spot. Changes spot of enforcement for defensive fouls committed during a running play before a change of possession, and for post-possession fouls committed by the receiving team during punts.
• 15-2-3 | Allows Referee to consult with members of the NFL Officiating department during replay reviews.
• 15-2-4 | Expands reviewable plays to include recovery of a loose ball in the field of play.

 

[DogFace]

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.

Let's discuss bracing oneself. The ball would not have to stop moving down. That's just stupid. Sorry but it is and it's not logical. Your favorite word. If you brace yourself you simply slow your momentum. That's all bracing means in this instance. He put his hand out and braced to keep from slamming to the ground as hard and to reach further towards the goal line.

Brace: to make your body stiff or strong to do something that requires a lot of physical effort.

 

[DogFace]

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.

Exactly. The part you're not getting, and again the reason the OFFICIALS were looking for more of a football move, is the going to the ground doesn't matter if the 3 step process is started and finished before getting to the ground. It only applies if the 3 steps weren't met.

 

[percyhoward]

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

The point is that you're confusing "stretching" for "reaching." When you stretch, yes you do hold your arm straight out. When you reach, the position of your arm depends completely on what you're reaching for. Dez is falling toward the sideline with the ball in his left hand.

Holding his arm straight out (stretching) moves the ball closer to the sideline.

Reaching for the goal line involves bending his elbow. He's clearly reaching for the goal line. You even said he appears to be reaching for the pylon or sideline. Doing the math, there is no reason he would be reaching for the sideline, so that only leaves the pylon. Reaching for the pylon is a football move.

When Blandindo says Dez needed to "extend the ball for the goal line," he is assuming (incorrectly) that Dez is falling toward the goal line. Falling toward the goal line is the only way that "extending" his arm could move the ball closer to the goal line. Pereira makes the same mistake by saying the football move involves "stretching all the way out."

Think about this, because they didn't. Pereira, like Blandino, has this classic image in his mind of a player stretching out to break the plane of the goal line. What they're both missing is that, in this image, the player is always falling toward the goal line. The football move involves trying to break the plane, period. No matter where the player is in relation to the plane. It is illogical to say the player has to "extend his arm" for the goal line no matter where the goal line is. What makes it a football move isn't how the image looks, it's that he's trying to score. So the only way it needs to look is that it needs to look like he's trying to score.

Draw a line that extends his arm straight out, and that line points wide left of the plane. Because Shields' leg whip took Dez's right leg out from under him, this is not the classic image that they have in their minds of a player falling toward the goal line. Extending the arm doesn't improve his chances of scoring as much as keeping his elbow bent. That's why he's keeping his elbow bent. He's trying to score, not get out of bounds.

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

If the lunge was simultaneous with the brace that broke the fall, then he was still falling when he lunged. The brace is only mentioned to distinguish the lunge from the natural act of falling. We already know that you can perform other acts that are common to the game, and that are easily distinguishable from a fall. One of those is reaching for the goal line, which we know you can do while falling.

We know this, because no one who should know (Blandino, Steratore, Pereira) who has talked about the play has said, "a player must be upright in order to perform the reach." No rule says this either. Only you are saying that.

You still can't explain why both the current and former VP's of Officiating would go into such detail talking about a reach that doesn't matter, instead of simply telling us that it didn't matter.

 

[Joefrl]

Exactly. The part you're not getting, and again the reason the OFFICIALS were looking for more of a football move, is the going to the ground doesn't matter if the 3 step process is started and finished before getting to the ground. It only applies if the 3 steps weren't met.

I remember, back in the day when one only had to control the ball and get two feet down in bounds and you had a catch.
If a receiver with control, got his feet down and then immediately got hit by linebacker, and the ball was knocked loose, that was a fumble. The NFL wanted that called an incomplete pass, so they created part C (time to make a move). A&B have always had to happen before the receiver began to fall or item 1 applies. Then they added part C, which logically also would have to happen before the receiver begins to fall, or the original purpose of part C would be entirely defeated.
The NFL does not want that type of play called a fumble, Dez play included, defensive contact or not. They want those types of plays called incomplete.

 

[Joefrl]

Let's discuss bracing oneself. The ball would not have to stop moving down. That's just stupid. Sorry but it is and it's not logical. Your favorite word. If you brace yourself you simply slow your momentum. That's all bracing means in this instance. He put his hand out and braced to keep from slamming to the ground as hard and to reach further towards the goal line.

Brace: to make your body stiff or strong to do something that requires a lot of physical effort.

The brace would have to STOP the momentum though. Slowing ones momentum would never qualify as a football move, and it sure didn't look like he slowed his any.

 

[Joefrl]

The point is that you're confusing "stretching" for "reaching." When you stretch, yes you do hold your arm straight out. When you reach, the position of your arm depends completely on what you're reaching for. Dez is falling toward the sideline with the ball in his left hand.

Holding his arm straight out (stretching) moves the ball closer to the sideline.

Reaching for the goal line involves bending his elbow. He's clearly reaching for the goal line. You even said he appears to be reaching for the pylon or sideline. Doing the math, there is no reason he would be reaching for the sideline, so that only leaves the pylon. Reaching for the pylon is a football move.

When Blandindo says Dez needed to "extend the ball for the goal line," he is assuming (incorrectly) that Dez is falling toward the goal line. Falling toward the goal line is the only way that "extending" his arm could move the ball closer to the goal line. Pereira makes the same mistake by saying the football move involves "stretching all the way out."

Think about this, because they didn't. Pereira, like Blandino, has this classic image in his mind of a player stretching out to break the plane of the goal line. What they're both missing is that, in this image, the player is always falling toward the goal line. The football move involves trying to break the plane, period. No matter where the player is in relation to the plane. It is illogical to say the player has to "extend his arm" for the goal line no matter where the goal line is. What makes it a football move isn't how the image looks, it's that he's trying to score. So the only way it needs to look is that it needs to look like he's trying to score.

Draw a line that extends his arm straight out, and that line points wide left of the plane. Because Shields' leg whip took Dez's right leg out from under him, this is not the classic image that they have in their minds of a player falling toward the goal line. Extending the arm doesn't improve his chances of scoring as much as keeping his elbow bent. That's why he's keeping his elbow bent. He's trying to score, not get out of bounds.


If the lunge was simultaneous with the brace that broke the fall, then he was still falling when he lunged. The brace is only mentioned to distinguish the lunge from the natural act of falling. We already know that you can perform other acts that are common to the game, and that are easily distinguishable from a fall. One of those is reaching for the goal line, which we know you can do while falling.

We know this, because no one who should know (Blandino, Steratore, Pereira) who has talked about the play has said, "a player must be upright in order to perform the reach." No rule says this either. Only you are saying that.

You still can't explain why both the current and former VP's of Officiating would go into such detail talking about a reach that doesn't matter, instead of simply telling us that it didn't matter.

You can collect everything they say and see so many contradictions, just read the book.

 

[Joefrl]

Just in case anyone is wondering the Case Book is not put out every year, the case play I posted is the current Case Book for the 2014 season. Every case play in the book dealing with a player going to the ground is consistent with that being the deciding factor only if parts A-C are absent before the player makes contact with the ground. The first section of the 2014 Rule Book has rule changes and nowhere in that section was a change to the catch rules.

Rules-Section-Article | Description

• 1-3 | Extends uprights an additional five feet above the cross bar.
• 4-3-2, 4-4 | The game clock will remain running after a quarterback sack outside two minutes of either half.
• 12-2-1, 12-2-6, 3-5 | Prohibits a blocker from rolling up on the side of the leg(s) of a defender.
• 14-3-5, 14-4-2, 3 | Changes spot of enforcement for certain defensive fouls committed behind the line of scrimmage to the previous spot. Changes spot of enforcement for defensive fouls committed during a running play before a change of possession, and for post-possession fouls committed by the receiving team during punts.
• 15-2-3 | Allows Referee to consult with members of the NFL Officiating department during replay reviews.
• 15-2-4 | Expands reviewable plays to include recovery of a loose ball in the field of play.

There is nothing in the 2014 case book that suggests that part C can be done after the receiver starts going to the ground. 8-3-item 1 says the opposite is true.
Back before C existed, A&B always had to be done before one started to fall, or item 1 applied. The point of adding C in was so some passes were called incomplete instead of fumble. It stands to reason then, that C as well would have to be done before one starts to fall, otherwise the original purpose for C would be defeated.

 

[blindzebra]

There is no 2014 case book.

There were no rule changes to the catch rules in 2014.

There is not now, or ever has been, anything in any rule or case book saying A-C must be completed before going to the ground.

The case play I have posted several times now has the following sequence:

Player catches ball and lands on 1 foot with control (part A), gets contacted by opponent and begins going to the ground, gets 2nd foot down (part B), braces and reaches for the B and C occurred AFTER THE RECEIVER STARTED GOING TO THE GROUND.

 

[DandyDon52]

To overrule a call on the field the evidence is supposed to be "incontrovertible" a head ref said one time that it means you have to be sure the call was wrong.
The play he said this on was one where a player stepped out of bounds on a td run.
In replays his toe was in, but it looked like his heel part might have touched the sideline, it was hard to tell if it did or not, so the call stood as a td.

The dez play should have stood since it was not clear in replay, and with complicated rules, that it was not a catch.
Had it been ruled inc, I would say same thing, it was not clear.

Blandino seemed to think it was clear and he could be "sure" I think he thought there was no football move, which is debatable and is not clear either way.
If no football move, then ball did move as it hit the ground, and came out of his hands as he rolled over, and I think those 2 things are what
They overturned it on.
Dez messed up by not securing the ball with 2 hands and just going to ground , there was no need to score or extend.
On 4th down the main thing is to make a "clear catch" nothing else if beyond the line to gain.

 

[Joefrl]

There is no 2014 case book.

There were no rule changes to the catch rules in 2014.

There is not now, or ever has been, anything in any rule or case book saying A-C must be completed before going to the ground.

The case play I have posted several times now has the following sequence:

Player catches ball and lands on 1 foot with control (part A), gets contacted by opponent and begins going to the ground, gets 2nd foot down (part B), braces and reaches for the B and C occurred AFTER THE RECEIVER STARTED GOING TO THE GROUND.

That is not in either case book I have access to. And I notice you are not saying where to find it.

 

[blindzebra]

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/26_2012_Official_CaseBook.pdf

And there were no rule changes in 2013 or 2014 to the catch rules, so the 2012 case plays are correct for the 2014 season.

 

[percyhoward]

You can collect everything they say and see so many contradictions, just read the book.

No, you don't just read the case book and go back and forth comparing a fan's interpretations of imaginary plays. Maybe you do if you just like the back and forth.

But if the point is really to understand the overturn, that's going to come from those responsible. What were they thinking when they said it wasn't a catch? They've answered that question without any contradiction.

 

[Joefrl]

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/26_2012_Official_CaseBook.pdf

And there were no rule changes in 2013 or 2014 to the catch rules, so the 2012 case plays are correct for the 2014 season.

2012 case play. If they dropped it from the 2014 book, that means it does not apply any more. Anything that applies would still be in the book in 2014. Probably because they realised it was incorrect, or a typo......

 

[blindzebra]

2012 case play. If they dropped it from the 2014 book, that means it does not apply any more. Anything that applies would still be in the book in 2014. Probably because they realised it was incorrect, or a typo......

Yet more proof that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

You keep misquoting from the NFL Rule Book.

A Rule Book is a listing of the rules for the game.

A Case Book is a supplement to the Rule Book that has descriptions of plays to illustrate how the rules are meant to be applied. Case Books are not always published every year because for the most part the rules do not change that much from year to year. The last NFL Case Book is from 2012 and there were no changes to the rules for what is or isn't a catch in 2013 or 2014. It was not dropped, it was not a typo, it is the correct way to apply the 3 point process with a player going to the ground...and it shows beyond any doubt that they misapplied the catch rules in GB.

In any case this will be the last post from me in this thread. It is clear that you are just a 2nd account from KJJ trolling this thread for giggles. Too bad the mods have not seen fit to ban both accounts for breaking the forum rules.

 

[DogFace]

I remember, back in the day when one only had to control the ball and get two feet down in bounds and you had a catch.
If a receiver with control, got his feet down and then immediately got hit by linebacker, and the ball was knocked loose, that was a fumble. The NFL wanted that called an incomplete pass, so they created part C (time to make a move). A&B have always had to happen before the receiver began to fall or item 1 applies. Then they added part C, which logically also would have to happen before the receiver begins to fall, or the original purpose of part C would be entirely defeated.
The NFL does not want that type of play called a fumble, Dez play included, defensive contact or not. They want those types of plays called incomplete.

Well you've been shown examples with clear explanations from us and the officials contradicting your interpretation. Like the Gresham play.

So show us some rulings that explain how it wasn't a catch because part of the 3 step process was completed while falling.

 

[DogFace]

The brace would have to STOP the momentum though. Slowing ones momentum would never qualify as a football move, and it sure didn't look like he slowed his any.

This is the definition of brace: to make your body stiff or strong to do something that requires a lot of physical effort.

You can't make words mean exactly what you want.

 

[DogFace]

There is no 2014 case book.

There were no rule changes to the catch rules in 2014.

There is not now, or ever has been, anything in any rule or case book saying A-C must be completed before going to the ground.

The case play I have posted several times now has the following sequence:

Player catches ball and lands on 1 foot with control (part A), gets contacted by opponent and begins going to the ground, gets 2nd foot down (part B), braces and reaches for the B and C occurred AFTER THE RECEIVER STARTED GOING TO THE GROUND.

Just quoted you to highlight again how this example says it very clearly. It's even bold printed for those with selective reading habits.