Think the NFL is happy the Cowboys missed the playoffs?

[percyhoward]

It was clear and obvious.

Just as an example, you're saying it's clear and obvious that he didn't take a third step, correct?

 

[CPanther95]

Just as an example, you're saying it's clear and obvious that he didn't take a third step, correct?

2 different things.

1) It wasn't a catch according to the rules at the time - that was clear.

2) The subjective ruling issue was the directive to replay officials at the time. They were told that if you had a perfect view of every key aspect of the play (like with the Dez catch), they are to make their subjective ruling as they see it - without regard to what the call on the field was.

The incontrovertible evidence standard applies when there is any chance at all that that the call on the field is correct - even if highly unlikely from the replays - if any key aspect was not visible from the replay angles.

 

[percyhoward]

1) It wasn't a catch according to the rules at the time - that was clear.

2) The subjective ruling issue was the directive to replay officials at the time.

1) The rules at the time were a) control, b) both feet, and c) football move.

2) This Dean Blandino quote is from December 2014.

“The call on the field is correct unless we have indisputable visual evidence to the contrary, and then we can overturn it, and we are really trying to stick to that standard. You will see that reversals are down this year because we are not going to try to reofficiate the play in the booth. We have a ruling on the field. If it’s not clear and obvious that that ruling on the field is incorrect, the call will not be overturned, and that’s the standard that we’re trying to stick to.”
http://thebiglead.com/2014/12/07/th...-reversal-to-a-fumble-in-arizona-kansas-city/​

 

[percyhoward]

Pereira’s 2018 requests: Use common sense with catch rule and fix replay reversals
http://www.sacbee.com/sports/nfl/article191713479.html

By Mike Pereira
December 26, 2017

The fix seems simple to me. Treat the receiver who is going to the ground the same as the receiver who is upright and on his feet. It is control, two feet, and time – in this case having the ball long enough after control and two feet to be able to do something with it like turn upfield, lunge, reach, etc.

Also, make that element of time not reviewable in replay. It’s too subjective. Review, control and two feet, but not time.

Make this change and Pittsburgh’s Jesse James would have scored a touchdown, which is what common sense would seem to make it. He has control, a knee down, and then had time to turn toward the goal line and reach for a touchdown. That is a common-sense approach. Let’s have all of us who had any part in tinkering with this rule since 1999 admit that we got off track.

Make this change and Calvin Johnson scores a touchdown in 2010, Dez Bryant catches that pass in 2015 and the Steelers likely end up with home-field advantage in this year’s playoffs.

Please NFL, call a meeting to discuss the standard needed to reverse a call in replay. It would appear that there isn’t a standard, or it is not being applied consistently.

Who should be in this meeting? A group of five which includes Alberto Riveron, senior vice president of officiating; Russell Yurk, VP of instant replay administration; executive VP of football operations; the big cheese himself, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell; and, most importantly, the guy who was supposed to be making these decisions in the first place, former senior VP of officiating and current rules analyst Dean Blandino.

Let Blandino, the man who coined the phrase “clear and obvious,” talk to Yurk and Riveron about falling into the trap of becoming too technical and losing sight of the most important part of the decision, which is what was called on the field. Blandino admits that he occasionally got caught in this trap, but not to the degree that it is happening now.

 

[CPanther95]

1) The rules at the time were a) control, b) both feet, and c) football move.

Unless you're going to the ground.

2) This Dean Blandino quote is from December 2014.

“The call on the field is correct unless we have indisputable visual evidence to the contrary, and then we can overturn it, and we are really trying to stick to that standard. You will see that reversals are down this year because we are not going to try to reofficiate the play in the booth. We have a ruling on the field. If it’s not clear and obvious that that ruling on the field is incorrect, the call will not be overturned, and that’s the standard that we’re trying to stick to.”
http://thebiglead.com/2014/12/07/th...-reversal-to-a-fumble-in-arizona-kansas-city/​

I'm too lazy to find the replay directives at the time of the Dez catch.

And I can't explain visual evidence any differently than I've tried to - and why a subjective call is different than an objective call obscured by camera angles.

I'll leave you to your beliefs.

 

[percyhoward]

Unless you're going to the ground.

Unless you go to the ground without possession. You can complete the catch process before you go to the ground, which is why Blandino had to say the reach wasn't obvious enough.

Periera, 2010: “By rule, when a receiver with possession of the ball is in the act of going to the ground and performs a second act by reaching out to break the plane, that completes the process of the catch.”
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/07/league-defends-decision-on-two-point-play/
​

 

[CPanther95]

Unless you go to the ground without possession. You can complete the catch process before you go to the ground, which is why Blandino had to say the reach wasn't obvious enough.

Periera, 2010: “By rule, when a receiver with possession of the ball is in the act of going to the ground and performs a second act by reaching out to break the plane, that completes the process of the catch.”
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/07/league-defends-decision-on-two-point-play/
​

You're misunderstanding the rule. The going to the ground rule applies when the receiver was going to the ground in the process of making the catch.

Squeezing two feet in and possession while you are falling - but not yet hitting the ground - does not prevent the going to the ground rule from applying. Dez was going to the ground from the moment he grabbed the ball so there's no way to avoid the rule.

 

[percyhoward]

You're misunderstanding the rule. The going to the ground rule applies when the receiver was going to the ground in the process of making the catch.

Once a receiver has possession, he's no longer in the process of making the catch.

Or are you saying Periera misspoke?

 

[CPanther95]

Once a receiver has possession, he's no longer in the process of making the catch.

Or are you saying Periera misspoke?

I agree with Pereira in the article you posted, it should be changed.

If they change it like he suggested, you can gain possession while falling to the ground. Then the Dez catch would be good.

 

[percyhoward]

I agree with Pereira in the article you posted, it should be changed.

If they change it like he suggested, you can gain possession while falling to the ground. Then the Dez catch would be good.

LOL, you can already gain possession while falling. That's what Pereira is saying in the quote from 2010, isn't it?

Blandino's claim was that Dez never gained possession of the ball. That's the only thing that allowed him to apply the "going to the ground" rule.

 

[CPanther95]

LOL, you can already gain possession while falling. That's what Pereira is saying in the quote from 2010, isn't it?

Yes, I disagree with the quote from Pereira from 2010 - 4 years before the Dez catch - and if you read the link you posted from 2010, they explain why he was wrong.

There's no exclusion in the "going to the ground" rule for receivers that try to complete the possession while falling.

Same reason the Steelers' James catch was a non-catch against the Patriots - and that was a clear separate lunge toward the goal line - not a fall to the line.

 

[percyhoward]

Yes, I disagree with the quote from Pereira from 2010 - 4 years before the Dez catch - and if you read the link you posted from 2010, they explain why he was wrong.

There's no exclusion in the "going to the ground" rule for receivers that try to complete the possession while falling.

Same reason the Steelers' James catch was a non-catch against the Patriots - and that was a clear separate lunge toward the goal line - not a fall to the line.

"They" is just another guy who doesn't understand that Item 1 is subordinate to the catch process. Pereira says the James play was a catch, which means he had to admit the Dez play was a catch as well.

Before you can determine that a player went to the ground while still in the act of catching a pass, you've got to see if he really is still in the act of catching a pass. That's what the 3-part catch process is for. Control, two feet, football move. The football move takes care of the time element that Pereira mentioned in his article, and it's the thing that proves Dez's catch should have stood.

 

[MarcusRock]

Even if you take Pereira's quote from 2010 as the procedures, he mentions "a second act by reaching out to break the plane" completing the process of a catch. Again, if you go to watch the video of the call discussed there, it is yet another example of a reach that is way more obvious and demonstrative than Dez' "good intentions" reach. All these examples have been provided by percy himself but yet he avoids answering the question of the difference between those reaches and Dez' as demonstrative reaches. I tried 4 times. So if you can complete a catch by control, 2 feet, and a football move before hitting the ground, Dez did not perform it with a football move which is why he refuses to answer because then the only thing left is to perform the going to the ground rules which is an open and shut case against Dez for losing control of the ball. Pereira, Steratore, and Blandino all concurred on the day of the game itself.

 

[CPanther95]

"They" is just another guy who doesn't understand

Then everyone that doesn't understand your interpretation includes every NFL official and the League from prior to the Dez catch onward.

Your interpretation requires Dez completing the catch before he started falling - which is some point before the ball even reached him.

Your interpretation of the "Going to the Ground Rule" means there is no situation where the rule would even apply.

 

[percyhoward]

Then everyone that doesn't understand your interpretation includes every NFL official and the League from prior to the Dez catch onward.

You cut off the rest of it -- that Item 1 is subordinate to the catch process. That's not just my interpretation, it's a fact.

You'd have a very difficult time explaining why Blandino said he looked for a football move if the football move didn't matter. Think about it.

Your interpretation requires Dez completing the catch before he started falling - which is some point before the ball even reached him.

Article 3 requires a player complete the catch process before he goes to the ground. Not before he starts falling.

That's why Pereira said you can make a football move while falling, that completes the process of the catch. Pereira never denied that a football move mattered on the Dez play, he just said Dez needed to extend his arm.

 

[CPanther95]

Article 3 requires a player complete the catch process before he goes to the ground. Not before he starts falling.

LMAO.

Please explain the difference between falling toward the ground and going to the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

LMAO.

Please explain the difference between falling toward the ground and going to the ground.

Here's Item 1 from 2014:

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.
​

That's not about upright vs. falling, it's for players who go down without yet having completed the catch process (control, two feet, football move). Contact with the ground is an observable standard to use as the cutoff point. It's easy to see when a player hits the ground. It would be much, much harder (and indeed, insane) to try to judge the point at which a player begins falling or loses his balance.

Why do you think the Catch Committee put the football move back into the rulebook in 2016? It was impossible to judge whether the time requirement had been met without it.

 

[CPanther95]

Here's Item 1 from 2014:

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.
​

That's not about upright vs. falling, it's for players who go down without yet having completed the catch process (control, two feet, football move). Contact with the ground is an observable standard to use as the cutoff point. It's easy to see when a player hits the ground. It would be much, much harder (and indeed, insane) to try to judge the point at which a player begins falling or loses his balance.

Sounds like you're using what you wish they would do, not how they actually interpret it.

You can take 5 steps while stumbling to the ground and they still consider you "going to the ground".

And yes, it's insane which is why everyone but the league wants them to use a common sense definition instead.

 

[percyhoward]

Sounds like you're using what you wish they would do, not how they actually interpret it.

You can take 5 steps while stumbling to the ground and they still consider you "going to the ground".

And yes, it's insane which is why everyone but the league wants them to use a common sense definition instead.

Well you're close I guess. I'm talking about how it's meant to be used, as opposed to how it's sometimes put into practice.

There's nothing wrong with the football move that has been around since 1942 (believe it or not) as the observable standard for the time requirement after control and two feet. The problem was that the person charged with interpreting what a football move is, never really understood why it was needed. For him, it was just a nuisance that made it hard to defend a mistake he'd made. So he took it out of the rules, all hell broke loose, they put it back the next year, and a year later he's gone. The new guy seems even less intelligent, if that's possible. Kudos to Pereira for first having more sense than they, and second for speaking his mind and owning up to his own mistake in defending Blandino in the first place.