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

[TwoDeep3]

Two questions for anyone who believes the overturn was correct. I'm not expecting any answers to either one of them, so surprise me.

What are the three requirements for a catch?

Why don't these requirements apply to this play?

Continuation to the ground, which puts into play the requirement of control. If you ignore this in your argument, then you have a point. But this is where they hung their hat on the overturn.

Because he went to the ground, and they saw that as one movement. Ergo the control to the ground aspect came into play and why they overturned.

 

[percyhoward]

Really tried not responding to this but I couldn't resist because that play to Thomas was brought up months ago along with the video which I tried to locate but couldn't. I'm not going to get into a lengthy argument over this play because it will end up a waste of time but it's completely different from the Calvin Johnson and Dez play because Thomas never left the ground to make the catch.

There is nothing in the rule (old or new) about leaving the ground. Try to find it.

"A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass(with or without contact by an opponent),he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the End zone. If he loses control of the ball and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

He caught the ball with both feet on the ground then AFTER making the catch turned to dive into the endzone and lost the ball after it hit the ground. He ALREADY established the catch and control and was never going to the ground so that was a catch. That play is DIFFERENT from the Johnson and Dez play because they went up for the ball and were going to the ground as they were coming down so they had to complete a process.

The Johnson play happened in the end zone and didn't require a football move (he couldn't tuck it away and run with it), so he had to maintain control after hitting the ground. IOW, the three-part catch process doesn't apply. So the Johnson play is out.

But the Thomas and Dez plays are quite similar. Again, there is nothing in the rule (new or old) about having "both feet on the ground." You can't add your words to the rule, you really have to just look at the rule, word for word, and see what applies to the play.

control: Thomas ✓ Dez ✓
both feet down: Thomas ✓ Dez ✓
reach: Thomas ✓ Dez ✓
loose ball on contact: Thomas ✓ Dez ✓
catch: Thomas ✓ Dez X

 

[percyhoward]

Continuation to the ground...

This is from the NFL rulebook. Where do you see "continuation to the ground?"

A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is in bounds:
(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 (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it,
advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

 

[TwoDeep3]

And C doesn't apply since they ruled he was going to the ground. Which you insist on debating. But they ruled it as continuation to the ground. Now post that rule and see how it negates C, which means control is a must.

 

[MRV52]

Can someone tell me at what point exactly was dezs catch considered incomplete?

When Blandino reviewed it.

 

[percyhoward]

And C doesn't apply since they ruled he was going to the ground.

Here's the important part you're missing. Note the wording.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground.

That article of the rule only applies when the player is still in the act of catching a pass. You can't declare someone to still be in the act of catching a pass just because you say so. That takes us back to my first question. "What are the three requirements for catching a pass?"

One of the three listed requirements (a, b, or c) must not have been met. That's the only way the pass hasn't been caught yet.

Which requirement wasn't met? Or, if these three requirements don't apply to this play, why don't they?

 

[KJJ]

There is nothing in the rule (old or new) about leaving the ground. Try to find it.

True, but leaving the ground results in players going to the ground due to not being able to maintain their footing. Thomas had both feet on the ground and caught the ball then made a turn for the endzone. Once he caught the ball and turned that was a CATCH because he wasn't going to the ground during that process.

 

[Kevinicus]

That's a distinction without a difference.

There is a very real difference. One is saying the rule is just a bad rule. One is saying it was applied when it shouldn't have been.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Here's the important part you're missing. Note the wording.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground.

That article of the rule only applies when the player is still in the act of catching a pass. You can't declare someone to still be in the act of catching a pass just because you say so. That takes us back to my first question. "What are the three requirements for catching a pass?"

One of the three listed requirements (a, b, or c) must not have been met. That's the only way the pass hasn't been caught yet.

Which requirement wasn't met? Or, if these three requirements don't apply to this play, why don't they?

The act of catching a pass is subordinate to going to the ground. You are assessing the caught pass rule, and ignoring they see this as one move to the ground. You stop the play at the point it agrees with your interpretation of the rule.

Yet the play continued, and he went to the ground.

It's similar to suggesting the shooter of Kennedy didn't kill him if you stop the Zapruder film at frame 175. He had not been shot by that frame, ergo, the shooter didn't really kill the President.

Yet the film went on, just like the play went on. And while you pick out a point that agrees with the rules you posted, and I agree, if that is where the play stopped.

But it did not. He went to the ground. The ball was jarred loose by the ground. The ball rolled up over his hand. He rolled into the end zone and caught the ball in the air.

Ground moved the ball during a continuation to the ground.

No catch. It takes the whole play into consideration, and not just what you agree with. Percy, I respect the Hell out of you. But in this case, you are dead wrong.

 

[KJJ]

There is nothing in the rule (old or new) about leaving the ground. Try to find it.



The Johnson play happened in the end zone and didn't require a football move (he couldn't tuck it away and run with it), so he had to maintain control after hitting the ground. IOW, the three-part catch process doesn't apply. So the Johnson play is out.

The Johnson play like Dez's play required both players to hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground because both were going to the ground. Thomas was never going to the ground when he caught the ball his feet were planted firmly on the ground. Once he made the catch he turned then started to go to the ground. That play was completely different than Johnson's play and Dez's play. We argued the Thomas play months ago and I'm not going to rehash it any further.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

When Blandino reviewed it.

The crazy thing is... When the play happened in real time. I told my father, "oh no, they are going to take it (the catch) away from us".

He said, "no"

I was so sure. Hated that feeling.

 

[JoeKing]

There is a very real difference. One is saying the rule is just a bad rule. One is saying it was applied when it shouldn't have been.

...and either way it was ruled(incorrectly or not), incomplete. A distinction without a difference.

 

[percyhoward]

The act of catching a pass is subordinate to going to the ground.

This is 100% correct. Players still in the act of catching a pass have different rules when they are going to the ground. That doesn't mean that we assume any player going to the ground to still be in the act of catching a pass.

You are assessing the caught pass rule, and ignoring they see this as one move to the ground. You stop the play at the point it agrees with your interpretation of the rule.

I'm looking at the three requirements for a catch and deciding whether or not the pass had been caught already before I go into what happens when it hasn't been caught yet. I accept that they see this as one move to the ground, and ask what specific evidence there might be that this is the case. "One move to the ground" means he didn't do anything else but simply go down. Didn't tuck the ball in one arm, didn't take another step, didn't lunge, didn't reach. That's a lot to have to ignore in order to make it all one move.

It's similar to suggesting the shooter of Kennedy didn't kill him if you stop the Zapruder film at frame 175. He had not been shot by that frame, ergo, the shooter didn't really kill the President.

No, because the fact that he hadn't pulled the trigger yet didn't inevitably make him innocent of the crime. The fact that Dez completed the catch process, did however inevitably make the application of the "going to the ground" item of the rule unnecessary, and indeed wrong. You don't have to ignore the rest of the play at all. You only have to consider what impact the rest of the play had on the catch, which was none.

And I appreciate the kind words.

 

[Kevinicus]

...and either way it was ruled(incorrectly or not), incomplete. A distinction without a difference.

The difference is people are mostly complaining about something different from what you said. Thinking a rule is stupid is valid, but rules must be followed. Complaining that a rule was applied when it shouldn't be and the the Cowboys were screwed is something altogether. There is a clear distinction and difference, even if the outcome was the same. The complaining is about the very fact that the outcome should not have been without a difference.

 

[percyhoward]

The Johnson play like Dez's play required both players to hang onto the ball through the contact of the ground because both were going to the ground.

The item about going to the ground applied to Johnson because there was no football move to be made -- he was in the end zone. Again, what possible football move could you expect Johnson to make? Spiking the ball over the crossbar?

 

[JoeKing]

The difference is people are mostly complaining about something different from what you said. Thinking a rule is stupid is valid, but rules must be followed. Complaining that a rule was applied when it shouldn't be and the the Cowboys were screwed is something altogether. There is a clear distinction and difference, even if the outcome was the same. The complaining is about the very fact that the outcome should not have been without a difference.

We can play with words all day my friend. I get the gist of your point. Okay? Now please try to understand mine. At the end of the day all the complaining about the ruling and how it was applied, amounts to nothing 6 months after the fact. The rule was re-written with the Dez non-catch in mind. The distinctions of what is and isn't a catch has been redefined but it makes no difference in the big scheme of things because we still have no catch and if the very same thing happens again we will still have no catch. No catch, no difference.

 

[cowboyblue22]

its still a bad rule.

 

[KJJ]

The item about going to the ground applied to Johnson because there was no football move to be made -- he was in the end zone. Again, what possible football move could you expect Johnson to make? Spiking the ball over the crossbar?

The so-called "football move" has been removed from the rulebook which I said it would be months ago because not even the NFL could explain exactly what it entailed to anyone's satisfaction. Whether a receiver is in the field of play or in the end zone if they're going to the ground they must hang on to the football through the contact of the ground. Whatever a football move is or was it involved too much judgment/interpretation which is why the term no longer exists.

 

[rynochop]

When Blandino reviewed it.

Hehe heh...its a serious question tho. If i throw u a football it goes over your head, when it hits the ground, its at that moment incomplete.

When was Dezs catch incomplete?

 

[blindzebra]

I still can't understand how dense some are being. The falling does not trump the catch process in either rule 2014 or 2015. It is an exception for when the catch process was not or can not be completed. In the field of play if two feet do not land and the player is going to the ground (diving for a catch). Falling OOB or in the endzone where in 2014 no move common to the game can occur.