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

[loublue22]

all you need is "football move", that's why this has always been so stupid

Dez REACHED FOR THE GOAL LINE, that is the ONLY reason he lost control of the ball. Dez knew he had control, he even switched it from his inside hand to the outside, so he did what he always does which is fight for the last inch, and they punished him for it. If you catch the ball and go directly down, then this rule should be applied. If you make a genuine effort and in fact do advance the ball, then it's a football move and a catch. It's not complicated.

 

[JoeKing]

all you need is "football move", that's why this has always been so stupid

Dez REACHED FOR THE GOAL LINE, that is the ONLY reason he lost control of the ball. Dez knew he had control, he even switched it from his inside hand to the outside, so he did what he always does which is fight for the last inch, and they punished him for it. If you catch the ball and go directly down, then this rule should be applied. If you make a genuine effort and in fact do advance the ball, then it's a football move and a catch. It's not complicated.

I guess you are going to be arguing this point the rest of your life. It's been six months. No matter what you think, the ruling will remain no catch. It's a futile argument.

 

[DejectedFan1996]

all you need is "football move", that's why this has always been so stupid

Dez REACHED FOR THE GOAL LINE, that is the ONLY reason he lost control of the ball. Dez knew he had control, he even switched it from his inside hand to the outside, so he did what he always does which is fight for the last inch, and they punished him for it. If you catch the ball and go directly down, then this rule should be applied. If you make a genuine effort and in fact do advance the ball, then it's a football move and a catch. It's not complicated.

If one makes the case that "reaching for the goaline" is not a football move, then there isn't any logical way one can make that same argument for a player cleanly switching hands. Dez cleanly switches hands, which makes the "process of the catch" complete (two hands to secure the ball, two feet down, football move/act common to the game).

 

[percyhoward]

And C (the football move) doesn't apply since they ruled he was going to the ground. Now post that rule and see how it negates C.

I should add something here because there seem to be many who share this misunderstanding. The fact that Dez was ruled to be going to the ground does NOT supercede the catch process, so it does NOT make the football move irrelevant.

The reason (which won't convince anyone, but is really just common sense) is that in order to rule that a player is going to the ground in the act of catching a pass, you first have to determine that he is indeed still in the act of catching a pass. Because maybe he already caught it.

If that doesn't make any sense to you, let me assure you that this is exactly the way the league interpreted the rule. How do we know this? Because, as blindzebra so astutely noted, Blandino said that they were "absolutely" looking for evidence of a football move.

Why would they look for evidence of something that had no relevance to the play?

Even if they didn't really look for evidence of a football move, they HAD to do so according to the rules, so they HAD to say they had done so when asked. Otherwise they'd have simply said, "the football move didn't apply to this play." (They'd have been NAILED on that).

Blandino's statement that the football move "needed to be more obvious" is the proof that he knew the catch process did indeed have to be considered. Even if he didn't really consider it and only knew it after the fact.

Is it a coincidence that this is the rule that just got changed?

 

[blindzebra]

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

No what you learned is a person in power at the NFL was embarrassed all week before the GB game because the media was accusing him of being biased for the Cowboys because of the calls in the Detroit game and the party bus reported by TMZ during the summer. What we saw during the game was a review of the Cobb "catch" upheld despite the replay clearly showing the ball hit the ground and the Dez play where all 3 parts of the catch process rule took place and it was called that way on the field, only to see it overturned. We then see statements from both Seratore and Blandino talking about a football move not being made, or with Blandino, not made enough.

We then get a statement from the rules committee saying the rule is not being changes only to see it changed drastically. Was it a coincidence that the change made took away what made the Dez play a catch and left it open to a subjective term that can be used to uphold the overturn?

None of that is opinion, it is all supported by facts.

In my personal opinion:

Is the NFL fixed? No.

Was this game entered with either a conscious or subconscious bias against Dallas? Absolutely.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I should add something here because there seem to be many who share this misunderstanding. The fact that Dez was ruled to be going to the ground does NOT supercede the catch process, so it does NOT make the football move irrelevant.

The reason (which won't convince anyone, but is really just common sense) is that in order to rule that a player is going to the ground in the act of catching a pass, you first have to determine that he is indeed still in the act of catching a pass. Because maybe he already caught it.

If that doesn't make any sense to you, let me assure you that this is exactly the way the league interpreted the rule. How do we know this? Because, as blindzebra so astutely noted, Blandino said that they were "absolutely" looking for evidence of a football move.

Why would they look for evidence of something that had no relevance to the play?

Even if they didn't really look for evidence of a football move, they HAD to do so according to the rules, so they HAD to say they had done so when asked. Otherwise they'd have simply said, "the football move didn't apply to this play." (They'd have been NAILED on that).

Blandino's statement that the football move "needed to be more obvious" is the proof that he knew the catch process did indeed have to be considered. Even if he didn't really consider it and only knew it after the fact.

Is it a coincidence that this is the rule that just got changed?

Evidently from the review, they determined he was going to the ground from contact and the catch had not been established. Which is what it appears to be on the video.

 

[percyhoward]

Evidently from the review, they determined he was going to the ground from contact and the catch had not been established. Which is what it appears to be on the video.

That's why I asked you what would have established the catch (what are the requirements).

We know they believed the catch process was not completed. That's my point -- that they were compelled to find that out, because the catch process was not superceded by the fact that he was going to the ground. So how did they explain that the catch had not been established? Because the reach needed to be "more obvious."

That explanation is the entire reason for the overturn.

 

[percyhoward]

The new term "upright long enough" reveals that the focus of those making the new rule was to find a way to determine how long a player had to be on his feet before being considered as "going to the ground." That focus is all wrong.

Instead of finding a way to determine "what is going to the ground," they should have been asking "what is a catch?" Because -- as the people who made the original rule knew -- if you answer that second question, you've already answered the first. There are only so many things that can stop a player from completing the catch process, because there are only so many things that can stop a player from having enough time to perform a football move. And going to the ground is one of the main ways. That's why there's never been any need to put anything in the rules about what constitutes "going to the ground." It's also why "enough time for a football move" was put in the rulebook in the first place. The people who made that rule assumed that a player going to the ground in the act of catching a pass did not have enough time to perform a football move.

If a player who lands in bounds short of the end zone doesn't have enough time to perform a football move, then it's not a catch unless he holds onto the ball after landing. The 3rd part of the catch process (the football move) was always the standard. The new rule makers focused on the "going to the ground" part because they do not understand (or care) what a football move is, and especially why it's important in determining whether a player is going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. The football move is simply the act that shows that the player is no longer trying to catch the ball. We all know what catching a football looks like.

.https://encrypted-tbn2.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRkXhgKrByR-TRC3TY4vneLLu1nhOwCg_xujjoe0gsGZGCnGAC4

We all know what catching a football does not look like.

https://encrypted-tbn1.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9lRQe3Dc1dJRH5qh13v7eQuT1_LsNk29GBfkiwTUyvGFiAUZJ5g

We can all agree that those are not two pictures of the same action. Whatever Dez is doing in that second picture, it isn't catching a football.

According to the NFL, this is all one action of falling. Is Dez falling when he gains control of the ball in that first picture? Maybe, maybe not, but let's say he is. Fine. There's no problem with that, under 2014 rules. You can complete the catch process while falling, as long as you have enough time to make a football move. The real question is, Is it all one action? Comparing the position of the football in both pictures, I don't know how anyone could think so.

Is Dez reaching for the goal line in that second picture? Maybe, maybe not, but let's say he isn't. Doesn't matter. Again, whatever Dez is doing here, it isn't catching a football. It's some act that happened after he controlled the ball and got both feet down. It's part 3 of the catch process. It's a football move.

You can say Dez was going to the ground. You can't say that Dez was going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. This pass has already been caught.

The new standard for determining if a player is going to the ground in the act of catching a pass is whether he is "upright long enough" after control and both feet down. But how long is long enough? It was already in the rulebook: Long enough to make a football move. The people who put that in there knew exactly what they were doing.

The second picture proves Dez must have been upright long enough to make a football move, because he made a football move. The football move is what the replay officials were supposed to be looking for. It's the objective element that completes the catch process. It's what they were supposed to base the call on. Under the new standard --the Dez Bryant Rule -- it's completely subjective. Rather than looking for an act that proves the player had possession long enough, he'll be looking for nothing specific and deciding if it "seemed" long enough to him.

The people who put that in there had no clue what they were doing.

 

[blindzebra]

You put the following things in front of a jury and see if Blandino and Seratore get found guilty:

1. TMZ breaks a story with the director of officiating on Stephen's "party bus".

2. Dallas gets calls in the Detroit playoff game that causes an uproar.

3. During the week leading up to the GB game Blandino is questioned about the calls and the "party bus" and the possibility that he is biased for Dallas.

4. Just before the half Cobb catches a low throw to put GB in field goal range, the replay official challenges the call. After replays appear to clearly show the ball bounce off the ground Seratore confirms the call as a catch.

5. On 4th and 2 and just over 4 minutes left Romo throws it deep to Bryant in tight coverage. Bryant catches the ball lands on two feet, turns 90 degrees, takes a step that contacts the defender and causes him to fall. Despite falling Bryant changes the ball to his left hand, pushes off with his left foot that causes turf to fly up, puts his right hand down and extends toward the goal line. As he lands the ball pops up and he rolls and re-grabs it n the end zone. The official nearest the play signals him down at the 1/2 yard line.

6. GB challenges the catch. After repeated views of Bryant catching the ball, controlling it in two hands, landing on 2 feet, turning, taking a 3rd step, and lunging for the end zone Seratore returns and says Bryant did not control the ball through contacting the ground and that the call was reversed.

7. In post game comments Seratore says, "Bryant did not make a football move."

8. Blandino comments that Bryant reaching out the ball was "Not enough of a football move."

9. This brings into discussion what makes it a catch? Finishing the catch process of control, 2 feet in bounds, and a move common to the game or does going to the ground trump all?

10. The rules committee says that the rule will remain and not be changed.

11. Despite this commit the rule is "re-worded" per Blandino. The troublesome move common to the game is removed and replaced with upright long enough. Is this really clearing up the intent of the rule? Or is it making it even more subjective?

12. This brings into question is this re-wording just an attempt to justify the call in GB? After all for most football fans a move common to the game is not that complex of an issue. What do players do after they catch the ball? They attempt to advance the ball and score. Turning, stepping, lunging and extending the ball all clearly fit into a move common to the game. But what does upright long enough to show that they are a runner mean? It is applying an assumed body position and an unspecified amount of time. All of this is alien to the game and allows for every call to be interpreted differently.

13. Obviously this re-wording does not make these plays easier to call so why make the change? When you put all these pieces together is it so hard to believe that because of external pressure you have Blandino in a less than objective position where he either intentionally or subconsciously ruled against Dallas in the GB game to show he was not biased for them? Knowing he was in the wrong he attempted to justify the overturn by first minimizing the 3 point catch process and then removing it completely to make the re-worded rule fit the call in GB.

 

[nathanlt]

Evidently from the review, they determined he was going to the ground from contact and the catch had not been established. Which is what it appears to be on the video.

Once his elbow was down, the catch was completed. the video bears that out. You know Blandino is grasping at straws when he says dumb things like:

"don't worry about the steps Dez took"

"Slow motion replay distorts what actually happened"

Without ANY basis in the rule book, Blandino picked up the phone and ended the Cowboys season. They never touched the ball after that!

DISGUSTED!

 

[cowboyvic]

Once his elbow was down, the catch was completed. the video bears that out. You know Blandino is grasping at straws when he says dumb things like:

"don't worry about the steps Dez took"

"Slow motion replay distorts what actually happened"

Without ANY basis in the rule book, Blandino picked up the phone and ended the Cowboys season. They never touched the ball after that!

DISGUSTED!

Right on the money. they just went ahead and took that game from the cowboys. they gave the cowboy haters in the media and els where what they wanted. it still makes me want to puke.

 

[cowboyvic]

You put the following things in front of a jury and see if Blandino and Seratore get found guilty:

1. TMZ breaks a story with the director of officiating on Stephen's "party bus".

2. Dallas gets calls in the Detroit playoff game that causes an uproar.

3. During the week leading up to the GB game Blandino is questioned about the calls and the "party bus" and the possibility that he is biased for Dallas.

4. Just before the half Cobb catches a low throw to put GB in field goal range, the replay official challenges the call. After replays appear to clearly show the ball bounce off the ground Seratore confirms the call as a catch.

5. On 4th and 2 and just over 4 minutes left Romo throws it deep to Bryant in tight coverage. Bryant catches the ball lands on two feet, turns 90 degrees, takes a step that contacts the defender and causes him to fall. Despite falling Bryant changes the ball to his left hand, pushes off with his left foot that causes turf to fly up, puts his right hand down and extends toward the goal line. As he lands the ball pops up and he rolls and re-grabs it n the end zone. The official nearest the play signals him down at the 1/2 yard line.

6. GB challenges the catch. After repeated views of Bryant catching the ball, controlling it in two hands, landing on 2 feet, turning, taking a 3rd step, and lunging for the end zone Seratore returns and says Bryant did not control the ball through contacting the ground and that the call was reversed.

7. In post game comments Seratore says, "Bryant did not make a football move."

8. Blandino comments that Bryant reaching out the ball was "Not enough of a football move."

9. This brings into discussion what makes it a catch? Finishing the catch process of control, 2 feet in bounds, and a move common to the game or does going to the ground trump all?

10. The rules committee says that the rule will remain and not be changed.

11. Despite this commit the rule is "re-worded" per Blandino. The troublesome move common to the game is removed and replaced with upright long enough. Is this really clearing up the intent of the rule? Or is it making it even more subjective?

12. This brings into question is this re-wording just an attempt to justify the call in GB? After all for most football fans a move common to the game is not that complex of an issue. What do players do after they catch the ball? They attempt to advance the ball and score. Turning, stepping, lunging and extending the ball all clearly fit into a move common to the game. But what does upright long enough to show that they are a runner mean? It is applying an assumed body position and an unspecified amount of time. All of this is alien to the game and allows for every call to be interpreted differently.

13. Obviously this re-wording does not make these plays easier to call so why make the change? When you put all these pieces together is it so hard to believe that because of external pressure you have Blandino in a less than objective position where he either intentionally or subconsciously ruled against Dallas in the GB game to show he was not biased for them? Knowing he was in the wrong he attempted to justify the overturn by first minimizing the 3 point catch process and then removing it completely to make the re-worded rule fit the call in GB.

BINGO! that pretty well sums up what happen. and it's flat out sickening. what a freaking screw job.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

It was a catch and nothing is going to change my mind about it. I know a catch when I see one.

 

[TwoDeep3]

That's why I asked you what would have established the catch (what are the requirements).

We know they believed the catch process was not completed. That's my point -- that they were compelled to find that out, because the catch process was not superceded by the fact that he was going to the ground. So how did they explain that the catch had not been established? Because the reach needed to be "more obvious."

That explanation is the entire reason for the overturn.

To establish the catch in this instance would have to controlled the ball to the ground, because, as I have said over and over, they viewed him going to the ground, and this alone meant he would need to hold onto the ball until the end of the play.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Once his elbow was down, the catch was completed. the video bears that out. You know Blandino is grasping at straws when he says dumb things like:

"don't worry about the steps Dez took"

"Slow motion replay distorts what actually happened"

Without ANY basis in the rule book, Blandino picked up the phone and ended the Cowboys season. They never touched the ball after that!

DISGUSTED!

There is absolutely zero support for his elbow being the deciding factor when he was going to the bground. Because he'd have to control the ball to the ground. That is the gold standard for receivers going to the ground. Not the elbow, which is the essentially the same argument Percy is making.

Once he goes to the ground, he has to maintain control.

 

[blindzebra]

To establish the catch in this instance would have to controlled the ball to the ground, because, as I have said over and over, they viewed him going to the ground, and this alone meant he would need to hold onto the ball until the end of the play.

As we have said over and over there was no rule support in 2014 to view him as going to the ground. Going to the ground is the standard if the player does not control, get two feet in bounds or make a move common to the game. Dez did all 3 therefore the going to the ground EXCEPTION should never have been applied.

 

[nathanlt]

There is absolutely zero support for his elbow being the deciding factor when he was going to the bground. Because he'd have to control the ball to the ground. That is the gold standard for receivers going to the ground. Not the elbow, which is the essentially the same argument Percy is making.

Once he goes to the ground, he has to maintain control.

Gold standard??? Where in the H E double hockey sticks did you pull that from? Go ahead, read the NFL rulebook cover to cover, you'll find NO DEFINITION of what control the ball to the ground
means.

Now, follow me on this, because there is no NEW definition of controlling the ball to the ground, it defaults to down by contact, the ONLY method of going to the ground described in the rulebook.

Any other attachment to the phrase, "CONTROL THE BALL TO THE GROUND" is speculation and gibberish.

So, the instant Dez's first elbow hit the ground, he was down.

From the rulebook, it is a catch if the reciever, touches the ground with both feet or any other part of his body besides his feet or hands

or makes a move common to the game. EXAMPLE FROM THE RULEBOOK. (maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with itor avoid or ward off an opponent.)


Reminder: Dez rotated his body more than 90 degrees to ward off his opponent, and advanced 5 yards down the field during his THREE steps. He met the requirements for a catch twice for each elbow, and twice for his three steps, (getting two feet down twice), Once for securing the ball initially on his right shoulder. Once for transferring it to his left hand, without wobble. Once for planking off his foot. Once for reaching for the goal line. And once for rotating his body to shield off the defender. And during those 9 events, the ball never wobbled.

AFTER HE CAUGHT THE BALL on NINE SEPARATE COUNTS, the ball came loose. AFTER THE CATCH, AFTER!!

Dez demonstrated 9 reasons why that was a catch. And the comedian referee picked up the phone, TAMPERED with a playoff game, and DALLAS NEVER GOT THAT BALL BACK.

A note to referees. You'd better be sure that you've read your official rulebook before you go and END A TEAM'S SEASON. Blandino doesn't have a clue what's in his rulebook. He'd better be out of a job.

 

[DogFace]

Just wait. A team will not meet either the new or old requirements and it'll be ruled a catch.

 

[percyhoward]

Just wait. A team will not meet either the new or old requirements and it'll be ruled a catch.

And with the new requirement being "upright long enough" to complete the catch process, it will be impossible to second guess any ruling by a replay official. That's the beauty of no longer letting the football move be the determining factor.

When we look at the replay, everyone can see a football move and know the precise moment when it happens, so we know if the replay official missed it. With the new standard, there will be nothing to look for in the replay, and no precise moment to identify when the catch process was completed. We'll just sit and wait for the decision based on his opinion that can't even be criticized subjectively.

I can show the video of the Dez play, and say, "that's a football move." I can't show that same video and say, "that's upright long enough." Same goes for all the league's officials as they are being taught the new rule. In the past, whoever was teaching them could freeze the video and say, "this move right here completes the catch." Now, I can't even imagine what that lesson would be like. "OK, right about here it sort of feels like he's been upright long enough to me. Your opinion may differ, but don't worry. The head of officials in NY knows how long is long enough."

 

[sweetness0986]

The kicker for me is that there was simply not enough evidence to overturn the initial calling on the field. If originally it WASN'T called a catch, it may be slightly easier to digest the ruling on the field standing.