They just blew the Dez rule in the JAX vs NYG game

BlindFaith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
2,624
It's not a question of was it a catch. Per the rule book it wasn't.

The question is - Should it be a catch? If you think it should, how does the rule book need to be updated? How would making it a catch affect opening the game up to more potential fumbles.
 

SultanOfSix

Star Power
Messages
12,959
Reaction score
8,179
He was "upright long enough" in one ref's opinion: complete.

He was not "upright long enough" in another ref's opinion: incomplete.

See! The rule makes things absolutely clear. :rolleyes:
 

BlindFaith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
2,624
Running is one way to do it, and all you would need is one step after two feet are down before you start to fall.

Correct. And you don't have to actually "run" with the ball. The term was to become a runner or have time to do so. Still not very well written. They have replaced that with being upright.

Dean Blandino has caused so much confusion to this by being a complete idiot and waffling on why HE thought it was incomplete. But all of the real officials have been consistent on why it wasn't.
 

Ken

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,709
Reaction score
17,370


And yes, for the trillionth time, the ball does hit the ground.


Nope...for the millionth and 1 time. Arm is under the ball and you cannot say with any certainty that the ball hitthe ground without his arm underneath it.

Inconcluaive which means the call stands.
 

BlindFaith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
2,624
He was "upright long enough" in one ref's opinion: complete.

He was not "upright long enough" in another ref's opinion: incomplete.

See! The rule makes things absolutely clear. :rolleyes:

The game has rules that are subjective. I'd rather have them focus on being more consistent on pass interference then worry about the Calvin Johnson rule and the handful of times it comes up in a season.
 

Ken

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,709
Reaction score
17,370
Uh, yeah it sure did. That's not even remotely debatable
No...it disnt and anyone who said it did is guessing.

Arm underneath the ball...no one can say that the ball absolutely hit the ground.
 

BlindFaith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
2,624
Nope...for the millionth and 1 time. Arm is under the ball and you cannot say with any certainty that the ball hitthe ground without his arm underneath it.

Inconcluaive which means the call stands.

If you can't see that the ball clearly hits the ground then please, excuse yourself from this discussion.
 

Ken

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,709
Reaction score
17,370
If you can't see that the ball clearly hits the ground then please, excuse yourself from this discussion.

Uh huh....

And if you look at the slow mo you posted from the opposite side...his arm is underneath it.
 

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
12,394
No...it disnt and anyone who said it did is guessing.

Arm underneath the ball...no one can say that the ball absolutely hit the ground.

It clearly did from several angles.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,796
Reaction score
16,665
I think the same thing kind of just happened in the Philly game but no challenge from Chip.

yeah and the philly wr lost the ball as he hit the ground and rolled over, and it was ruled inc.
It was similar to dez catch.
 

Joefrl

Member
Messages
189
Reaction score
3
In theory, the part about having enough time applied in all cases, but in practice only mattered when the runner wasn't trying to advance the ball. Obviously if he was trying to advance it, there would be a football move, given enough time. That's what made the play easier to officiate under the old rule than it is under the new rule, unless the player was already in the end zone -- where no physical act (no football move) is needed because he isn't trying to advance the ball. That kind of play was just as difficult to officiate under the old rule as it is under the new one.

Under the new rule, the entire field might as well be the end zone for this purpose, because they are no longer looking for a specific physical act to complete the catch process. Ostensibly, in order to see if he completes the process, they're just timing how long he's upright. How long is long enough and how upright is upright enough depends solely on the official's judgment, so it's far from being "just another way to say the same thing." They took out the words "act common to the game" as a direct result of the backlash over that specific aspect of the Dez play.

It's no coincidence that those words are no longer there.

It has always depended solely on the official's judgement. It would be great to take that the official's judgement out of all games, but it is just not possible. Replay review helps sometimes, but for some plays in all sports it is useless.

There are many calls that are only made when they are obvious. Only obvious holds get called. A QB will only get called for throwing a pass beyond the line when it is obvious. Any question, no call.
The rule actually says if the QB is in the neutral zone, no foul. The catch rule says if there is any doubt, it is incomplete. We aren't going to see a call for intentional grounding unless it is obvious.

The receiver either has to become a runner, or he has to still be holding on to the ball when he is lying on the ground for it to be a catch, and this applies to a receiver in the field of play, end zone, or out of bounds.

I like your words "advance the ball". A receiver basically needs to advance the ball, before he begins to fall, to become a runner.
 

sbark

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,214
Reaction score
4,408
The game has rules that are subjective. I'd rather have them focus on being more consistent on pass interference then worry about the Calvin Johnson rule and the handful of times it comes up in a season.

That is why the intent of Int Replay was that the On-The Field Ref opinion held up---unless undisputable evidence otherwise........not a diff. opinion phoned in from NYC
 

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
12,394
That is why the intent of Int Replay was that the On-The Field Ref opinion held up---unless undisputable evidence otherwise........not a diff. opinion phoned in from NYC

Let's focus on opinion phoned in from NYC. People here believe the league wants to screw us at every turn.

How do you reconcile that with the fact that our games kill in the ratings? Any additional playoff games with us are a ratings bonanza. Why would the league, whose bottom line is making money, want to hose the cash cow?
 

Ken

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,709
Reaction score
17,370
You mean the ref who initially called it a catch? What relevance is that?

Because to overturn a call on the field it has to be clear evidence. Not circumstantial. There is no definitive ball hitting the ground when his hand is underneath it.

And literally it happend 2 feet in front of the ref.

That is the relevance.

Btw. Gruden during ourvtraning camp coverage on espn said that the ball never hit the ground either.
 

blindzebra

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,560
Reaction score
4,451
Nice to see all the usual suspects that have no clue how to read a rule, know what a case book is and how it is used, or what is clearly a change in the rules is.

Here is the Rule as it was written in 2012, 2013, and 2014:


ARTICLE 3 - COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS.

A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

  1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
  2. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
  3. 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.).
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

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, 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.

Item 2: Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

Item 3: End Zone Catches. The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in the field of play.

Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.

Here is 2015:

ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS

A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

  1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
  2. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
  3. maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner (see 3-2-7 Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. 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.

Item 2. Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

Item 3. End Zone Catches. The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in the field of play.

Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.complete the process.

Here is the Definition of a runner as cited in the rule CHANGE:


Item 2. Possession of Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and then maintain control of the ball until he has clearly become a runner. A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.
Note that there is nothing in the rule or case plays from 2012-2014 that in any way suggests that the player needs to complete the process before he begins going to the ground. In fact as has been shown the exact opposite was true.

Here it is from 2012-2014:

Item 2: Possession of Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

As with the catch rule, the change was made just to remove part C of the old rule, the part Dez did when he turned, took a 3rd step, switched the ball to his left hand, braced, and extended the ball.

Now the fact that the rule never changed and there was never a point of emphasis from 2012-2014 means that the case book in 2012 was still how the play was intended to be called. The change in 2015 was to make the overturn justified, it had no basis in rule from 2012-2014.
 
Top