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

[blindzebra]

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.

And was replaced by the oh so easy to explain upright long enough.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

I think they're circumventing the catch process by way of the back door. "Not upright long enough" means you're not yet a runner, which means you haven't caught it yet.

How likely is it that they changed the rule in a way that would NOT have affected the overturn?

 

[theogt]

Oh wow, even after rewriting the rule, Dez still caught the ball for the 2015-16 version of it. Let's see, Dez kept control of the ball after INITIAL CONTACT with the ground, for a full second, to boot. The initial contact?

Dez's first step. Not to mention he had 2 additional steps and both elbows down with no ball movement.

Blandino STILL can't put into writing how to take that catch away from Dez, 6 months later!

While it's still a bit ambiguous, I think the re-write makes it clear that the Dez play would not have been a catch. If this rule was in place last year, I would have been okay with the call.

 

[theogt]

By making the rule as vague as possible, they're making it easier for Blandino to explain the next call he pulls out of his butt.

This was ruled a catch in 2013. Under the new Dez Bryant Rule, will this be incomplete?

Good question. I don't think it would be a catch under the new rule.

 

[percyhoward]

I think the re-write makes it clear that the Dez play would not have been a catch.

I mean it's not like there's any grey area between runner and receiver. If they say you haven't established yourself as a runner, then that makes you a receiver by default. That means you're in the act of catching a pass, so now "going to the ground" applies.

They would love to have been able to do that with the Dez play, because it would justify the overturn without having to address the catch process. This is the rule Blandino wishes had been in existence at the time.

 

[5Stars]

I mean it's not like there's any grey area between runner and receiver. If they say you haven't established yourself as a runner, then that makes you a receiver by default. That means you're in the act of catching a pass, so now "going to the ground" applies.

They would love to have been able to do that with the Dez play, because it would justify the overturn without having to address the catch process. This is the rule Blandino wishes had been in existence at the time.

What I find fishy about the whole process of "was it a catch", Blandino tried to use a rule that did not exist, and now he and the NFL are trying to justify his bullcrap by coming up with a new rule to cover his butt!

 

[theogt]

Here's a redline of the changes (this is compared to the 2013 rulebook which I had handy).

 

[theogt]

I did not pick up on the fact that they were changing "throughout the process of contacting the ground" to "until after after his initial contract with the ground". I'm not sure what that means. If a player hits the ground, maintains possession, then rolls on the ground and loses control, is that sufficient to establish possession now?

Also, there's now language that clarifies what "become a runner" means -- i.e., "A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warring off impending contact of an opponent." Good god, how wishy washy is that?

 

[percyhoward]

Here's a redline of the changes...

Yep, they have definitely circumvented the catch process. Notice how a "player who has caught a loose ball" is no longer defined as a "runner?"

Dez being a runner is what made the overturn illegal. Guess what just got changed.

 

[blindzebra]

My God it isn't rocket science.

2 feet down with control is a catch.

Player falling OOB needs to control it to through the ground.

Player diving in the field of play needs to control it through the ground.

Player in the endzone that does not land on 2 feet and goes to the ground needs to control it through the ground.

Gee that was really tough. If they wanted to fix it they easily could have, but all they wanted to do was make Dez's catch incomplete.

 

[big dog cowboy]

My God it isn't rocket science.

Todays NFL under Goodell is trying to make it exactly that.

 

[nathanlt]

While it's still a bit ambiguous, I think the re-write makes it clear that the Dez play would not have been a catch. If this rule was in place last year, I would have been okay with the call.

It's vague how long the receiver must hold onto the ball after initial contact. At some point, every receiver gives the ball to the referee. I mean, they don't sit on the bench for the rest of the game holding the football!!

I exaggerate to highlight that there's NO DEFINED END to how long the receiver must hold onto the ball. So by default, (follow me on this) down by contact rules apply. Since there's a lacking new definition, the only existing end of process must take precedence. Every process of advancing the ball or catching the ball in the NFL rulebook ends with "DOWN BY CONTACT"

There's rule is deliberately vague, there is no new concept defined. In verbal discussion by various referees in public statements, there's a hint of a new definition, but no clarity on it. So the rule will be INCONSTENTLY applied, using complete subjectivity.

And yet, there is no written language in the old or new rule that supports the receiver holding onto the ball after having caught it. So, BY RULE, Dez caught the ball.

The only silver lining in all this TAMPERING BY THE NFL, is that Dez's catch will now be known as THE catch, instead of that 49ers moment.

 

[Gemini Dolly]

Still confusing to me. I get that if youre going to the ground, you must survive the ground. But, Dez seemed like he was purposely lunging for the endzone, not that he was just falling that way. Now the whole upright thing, well how long is long enough to be considered upright? This rule is just going to be one of those that will never make sense no matter how many times the wording gets changed.

 

[blindzebra]

Still confusing to me. I get that if youre going to the ground, you must survive the ground. But, Dez seemed like he was purposely lunging for the endzone, not that he was just falling that way. Now the whole upright thing, well how long is long enough to be considered upright? This rule is just going to be one of those that will never make sense no matter how many times the wording gets changed.

Unless you make it two feet and control, with an exception for falling OOB, in the endzone or field of play where two feet don't come down before hitting the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

Still confusing to me. I get that if youre going to the ground, you must survive the ground.

That's only if you're still in the act of catching the pass. Runners who were contacted and lose the ball when they hit the ground are simply marked down at that spot.

Like Dez was, on the field anyway.

 

[burmafrd]

My God it isn't rocket science.

2 feet down with control is a catch.

Player falling OOB needs to control it to through the ground.

Player diving in the field of play needs to control it through the ground.

Player in the endzone that does not land on 2 feet and goes to the ground needs to control it through the ground.

Gee that was really tough. If they wanted to fix it they easily could have, but all they wanted to do was make Dez's catch incomplete.

that was pretty much how the NFL had defined a catch for its first 75 years. Should just go back to it and dump all this garbage. BUT they have to keep trying to justify not calling it a catch so it will never happen.

 

[tyke1doe]

I like it.
But the reaction on this topic reveals that no matter how specific you get, someone will ALWAYS find a way to make it unclear.

Such is the way of human nature.

 

[black label]

What I learned from this thread is people think the nfl is fixed.

 

[percyhoward]

What I learned from this thread is people think the nfl is fixed.

Openness and honesty are the hallmarks of big business, and this rule change is clearly in the best interest of the game.

And the NFL is NOT pulling a fast one with this rule change that they said wasn't needed, wasn't going to happen, and would have legitimized the overturn if it had been in place at the time.

Because clever gifs.

 

[DejectedFan1996]

Everything Percy has stated is dead on and it's actually rather sad that in 30 years when someone looks back at this play, and asks "Why wasn't it a catch", the counter argument will be "The rule says he had to remain upright long enough", despite the fact that this rule was not in existence at the time the play occurred. And in reality, that counter argument will actually be legitimate because "upright long enough" is completely subjective.

As I've stated before, this play never bothered me up until 3 weeks ago and maybe it's because I never realized Dez originally caught it with his right hand, and ended up switching hands after he took his second step.

Vindication would be the Cowboys getting to the SB and bringing up the catch as a way to give a big '**** you' to the league and accept the fines that would come their way,