Think the NFL is happy the Cowboys missed the playoffs?

[percyhoward]

I agree that it needed to be more obvious. I think it was the intent of Dez to reach out the ball for the goal line but he was too low to the ground (after "going to the ground") to complete it to make it more obvious so it looked just looked like Dez' natural progression to the ground. In fact, I remember the discussion with the Fox studio guys after the game and Howie Long tried to make the same point about Dez reaching while asking Mike Pereira. Pereira said the same thing: that it wasn't enough of a reach. We all know it was Dez' intent, but he didn't execute, thus going to the ground still applied. When the ball left his hands for the split second, that is what got the call overturned.

Yes, the discussion on FOX's post-game show is where he first said it.

Reaching for the plane -- not necessarily breaking it -- is what maters. Intent -- not execution -- is what matters. Like you said, "we all know" that Dez was reaching to try to break the plane. But that's how we know it's a catch. That's what you look for. That conscious act on his part constitutes completion of the 3-step catch process. You can't reach with a ball you haven't caught yet.

Had a reach come into question before on a controversial call and he had to explain what happened?

Go to 2:25.

Blandino: "Calvin did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line. So this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass. Now I'll show you the difference. Let's go to Julius Thomas against the Giants. Watch what Julius does. He's gonna get control, take two steps...and now reach for the goal line. He has established himself as a runner."

Despite the fact that the ball came loose on contact with the ground, Thomas' catch stood because the football move completed the process and made him a runner.

 

[MarcusRock]

Yes, the discussion on FOX's post-game show is where he first said it.

Reaching for the plane -- not necessarily breaking it -- is what maters. Intent -- not execution -- is what matters. Like you said, "we all know" that Dez was reaching to try to break the plane. But that's how we know it's a catch. That's what you look for. That conscious act on his part constitutes completion of the 3-step catch process. You can't reach with a ball you haven't caught yet.

Your statement I put in bold could not be further from the truth. In the Raiders game, Derek Carr intended to reach the ball over the goal line for a TD before the ball got knocked out by Heath. We all know what Carr intended. He did not execute. Same story with the Dez catch.

Go to 2:25.

Blandino: "Calvin did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line. So this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass. Now I'll show you the difference. Let's go to Julius Thomas against the Giants. Watch what Julius does. He's gonna get control, take two steps...and now reach for the goal line. He has established himself as a runner."

Despite the fact that the ball came loose on contact with the ground, Thomas' catch stood because the football move completed the process and made him a runner.

You need to copy the entire quote from Blandino in this video. You conveniently left out the part just prior about "going to the ground" which again is the point that all "it was a catch" supporters want to avoid because it kills their argument. This is the beginning of Blandino's quote on the two catches and it starts at 1:50:

"The process of the catch is a 3 part process: control, two feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 parts, in that order, you have a catch. If not, and you're going to the ground, you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose, he did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line. So this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass. Now I'll show you the difference. Let's go to Julius Thomas this week against the Giants. Watch what Julius does. He's going to get control, take several steps, and then reach the ball out for the goal line." And then finishes the segment talking about Thomas' catch with: "So that is an example of a catch because he was not going to the ground in the process of making the catch. You need to go back to 1:50 and watch from there.

I don't know that this could be any clearer. As I said, there's a reason people want to legislate "going to the ground" out of the picture because the rules are clear. And even if I were to entertain Dez' "reach," when you look at that video of Johnson and Thomas' plays, how do their reaches compare to Dez' "reach?" Theirs are a hell of a lot more demonstrative, and if officials were looking for more of a reach as you say, then those were 2 fine examples that Dez failed to measure up to, wouldn't you say?

 

[percyhoward]

Your statement I put in bold could not be further from the truth. In the Raiders game, Derek Carr intended to reach the ball over the goal line for a TD before the ball got knocked out by Heath. We all know what Carr intended. He did not execute. Same story with the Dez catch.



You need to copy the entire quote from Blandino in this video. You conveniently left out the part just prior about "going to the ground" which again is the point that all "it was a catch" supporters want to avoid because it kills their argument. This is the beginning of Blandino's quote on the two catches and it starts at 1:50:

"The process of the catch is a 3 part process: control, two feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 parts, in that order, you have a catch. If not, and you're going to the ground, you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose, he did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line. So this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass. Now I'll show you the difference. Let's go to Julius Thomas this week against the Giants. Watch what Julius does. He's going to get control, take several steps, and then reach the ball out for the goal line." And then finishes the segment talking about Thomas' catch with: "So that is an example of a catch because he was not going to the ground in the process of making the catch. You need to go back to 1:50 and watch from there.

I don't know that this could be any clearer. As I said, there's a reason people want to legislate "going to the ground" out of the picture because the rules are clear. And even if I were to entertain Dez' "reach," when you look at that video of Johnson and Thomas' plays, how do their reaches compare to Dez' "reach?" Theirs are a hell of a lot more demonstrative, and if officials were looking for more of a reach as you say, then those were 2 fine examples that Dez failed to measure up to, wouldn't you say?

I didn't do anything "conveniently," and in fact went to more trouble than I needed to in order to try help you understand why it was a catch.

You can't start with the assumption that a player is a receiver going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. That's the part you're missing that's interfering with your understanding.

 

[Bigtex67]

Bad product
Ungrateful players
Over-officiated
Concussion overkill
Catch rule idiocy

The NFL is dying.

And other sports are doing even worse.

_______________________________________

All True!

 

[MarcusRock]

I didn't do anything "conveniently," and in fact went to more trouble than I needed to in order to try help you understand why it was a catch.

You can't start with the assumption that a player is a receiver going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. That's the part you're missing that's interfering with your understanding.

You're right. The fact that the player is actually going to the ground determines that and nullifies the rules that talk about a player "establishing himself as a runner" as Blandino explained in the video you posted. I'm confused as to where you think Blandino is contradicting himself or making an inaccurate statement in any area.

And again, how did Dez' "reach" compare to Johnson's and Thomas' in the video examples?

 

[MojaveJT]

I think the burden of proof for wild accusations should be on the accuser as it is in courts. Not sure seeing inside someone else's head for intent is exactly a believable form of proof. I'm a rules buff so I like actually trotting out the rule book when it comes to "conspiracy" calls on the field and by that same rule book the Dez play was clearly a no-catch and yes there was clear evidence on replay to justify overturning it (the ball coming out of his possession for that split second). Irving's "tackle hold" happened while he was being double-teamed. Are you aware that there are special rules regarding holding when a defender is being double-teamed that make a holding call less likely? I've asked this about the no opponent holding calls for however many games on the closed board with zero replies: Is this the first time this has happened in the history of the game? If not, how often has it happened before so we know if it's even a rare thing or happens every year?

Don't get me wrong, I love to see the creativity people come up with to explain away why things didn't go their way, but those sorts of excuses as a default with nothing behind it is not a good look.

Noticed you and quite a few of the guys from the other Cowboys forum are here now. What happened to that one? I left a couple months ago because that place became a shiz show.

 

[MarcusRock]

Noticed you and quite a few of the guys from the other Cowboys forum are here now. What happened to that one? I left a couple months ago because that place became a shiz show.

Apparently they closed it down because the NFL didn't want to allow the 3rd party software they used or something. A former mod from there can probably explain better.

 

[GenoT]

Coupla other things that spoil TV games...

Too many times, when there’s a break between plays that doesn’t warrant a replay, the network tries to shoehorn in a “highlight” from some other game that usually has nothing to do with the one you’re watching — often getting back to your game just as they’re snapping the ball.

Personally, if they’re not gonna show a replay, I’d rather watch the two teams line up in their respective formations before the next play.

Then there’s the constant and distracting overlays of inane stats (“that was the first time in NFL history a rookie nose-tackle from Notre Dame scored a touchdown on a 2nd-down fumble during a game in October”) that have no bearing on anything.

 

[MarcusRock]

Coupla other things that spoil TV games...

Too many times, when there’s a break between plays that doesn’t warrant a replay, the network tries to shoehorn in a “highlight” from some other game that usually has nothing to do with the one you’re watching — often getting back to your game just as they’re snapping the ball.

Personally, if they’re not gonna show a replay, I’d rather watch the two teams line up in their respective formations before the next play.

Then there’s the constant and distracting overlays of inane stats (“that was the first time in NFL history a rookie nose-tackle from Notre Dame scored a touchdown on a 2nd-down fumble during a game in October”) that have no bearing on anything.

Yeah but don't you think that player's mom would appreciate her son being recognized for that rare stat in this way? It would probably make her feel good.

 

[CPanther95]

Coupla other things that spoil TV games...

Too many times, when there’s a break between plays that doesn’t warrant a replay, the network tries to shoehorn in a “highlight” from some other game that usually has nothing to do with the one you’re watching — often getting back to your game just as they’re snapping the ball. Personally, if the network isn’t gonna show a replay, I’d rather watch the two teams line up in their respective formations before the play.

Then there’s the constant and distracting overlays of inane stats (“that was the first time in NFL history a rookie nose-tackle from Notre Dame scored a touchdown on a 2nd-down fumble during a game in October”) that have no bearing on anything.

Get rid of all scrolling tickers and any other garbage on the screen. Fantasy footballers use the internet, the rest of us want to watch the football game we're tuned into - not all the games we aren't.

And not only are camera operators still framing games using the Standard definition 4:3 safe zone (letting the extra width of HDTVs go to waste), but they have to leave such a large gap at the top and bottom to account for overscan of televisions and the top and bottom tickers and graphics. The end result is zooming out so far that all the important action is confined to about the middle 50% of screen space.

 

[MarcusRock]

Get rid of all scrolling tickers and any other garbage on the screen. Fantasy footballers use the internet, the rest of us want to watch the football game we're tuned into - not all the games we aren't.

And not only are camera operators still framing games using the Standard definition 4:3 safe zone (letting the extra width of HDTVs go to waste), but they have to leave such a large gap at the top and bottom to account for overscan of televisions and the top and bottom tickers and graphics. The end result is zooming out so far that all the important action is confined to about the middle 50% of screen space.

Very good points. I always hate when they're scrolling stats in the 1st Quarter way too early to be of significance like: Wentz 1/3, 2 yards. But I agree. Get rid of stats and just show scores of other games.

 

[DogFace]

You can't. That was my point. You are free to make wild assertions if you wish but then don't complain when asked for proof or when presented with evidence to the contrary.



Please show me the video of this happening because the tackling part clearly never happened. As for the rules:

ARTICLE 3. ILLEGAL BLOCK BY OFFENSIVE PLAYER.
Blocking Notes:
(1) When a defensive player is held by an offensive player during the following situations, Offensive Holding will not be called:
(a) if the runner is being tackled simultaneously by another defensive player;
(b) if the runner simultaneously goes out of bounds;
(c) if a Fair Catch is made simultaneously;
(d) if the action clearly occurs after a forward pass has been thrown to a receiver beyond the line of scrimmage;
(e) if the action occurs away from the point of attack and not within close line play;
(f) if a free kick results in a touchback;
(g) if a scrimmage kick simultaneously becomes a touchback;
(h) if the action is part of a double-team block, unless the defender splits the double team, gets to the outside of either blocker, or is taken to the ground; or
(i) if, during a defensive charge, a defensive player uses a “rip” technique that puts an offensive player in a position
that would normally be holding.
Exception: Holding will be called if the defender’s feet are taken away from him by the offensive player’s action.
(2) If a blocker falls on or pushes down a defender whose momentum is carrying him to the ground, Offensive Holding
will not be called unless the blocker prevents the defender from rising from the ground.
(3) If the official has not seen the entire action that sends a defender to the ground, Offensive Holding will not be called.

LINK: https://operations.nfl.com/media/2646/2017-playing-rules.pdf



The only thing I saw was an ignoring of the "going to the ground" rule which clearly applied. You can take 5 or 6 steps on your way to the ground but if that's your direction that's the rule that applies. Anyone who argues it was catch HAS to ignore that rule to believe they have a point so they don't even try to explain why that rule didn't apply which is telling in itself.



You didn't answer my question. Has it been done in the history of holding stats and if so how often has it happened? "Looks funny" is nothing without an actual investigation. Or is it a case of you just feel it in your bones and everyone should just trust that?



Awareness is the first step to recovery.

Yes. I’m aware I’m allowed to make assertions on the internet and no I didn’t complain when you asked for proof. I simply said that was an unrealistic request.

Read your the rule more carefully and watch the play. Irving split the double team(you can’t hold when this happens as your rule states) and was, in fact, tackled after he freed himself from the neck and face hold by the Packer’s forearem.
I can’t find a gif, but the tackle is clear to see even on the granny video. There’s plenty of pics of the neck hold from behind. https://www.google.com/search?q=pac..._AUIEigC&biw=414&bih=622#imgrc=Poo3aGft-0KUTM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=pac...2#imgdii=Bkgrk5ycZmnWLM:&imgrc=qYvQWd4IzSpr8M:

The Dez catch you’re not seeing correctly. He was a runner according to the rules.

As we speak I’m compiling all the stats from every nfl game in history and comparing them to the Cowboys streak. I’ll get those figures to you ASAP.

 

[CCBoy]

I didn't do anything "conveniently," and in fact went to more trouble than I needed to in order to try help you understand why it was a catch.

You can't start with the assumption that a player is a receiver going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. That's the part you're missing that's interfering with your understanding.

Some people don't realize that a 'catch' is just another way for a runner to be given the ball. Rules are based upon the component of running the ball...whether that is in the end zone or not. Once a runner, then rules are set. That being your point and completely relevant. It's not time to reinvent the sport...by re-defining the roles for advancement. Ball delivery should not determine the role for ball advancement.

 

[percyhoward]

You're right. The fact that the player is actually going to the ground determines that and nullifies the rules that talk about a player "establishing himself as a runner" as Blandino explained in the video you posted.

Blandino misinterpreted completion of the catch process as hinging on how upright a player was. The rule said nothing about "upright vs. falling," and was only concerned about possession being maintained if the player made contact with the ground before completing the process. Read the highlighted "goes to" below as "contacts." That's how it was meant.

"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."

That whole section (on which Blandino claimed to base his overturn) doesn't even apply unless the catch process (control, two feet, football move) wasn't completed, and even then, is only concerned with what happens when the player hits the ground. Not "loses balance and starts to fall," but actually "goes to the ground". It has to be that way because contact with the ground is an observable point in time on which officials can base their call. Officials -- who, unlike Blandino, had actually worked on the field in real games -- helped make this rule that was in place for years.

His misinterpretation resulted in a rewording of the rule (quietly announced over the Fourth of July weekend the summer after the play) which happened to fit his overturn of the Dez play. The problem was that the new version of the rule removed the observable football move, meaning officials would have to use their own judgment as to whether a player was "upright long enough" instead of using the observable standard of "contact with the ground." You may remember that this caused all kinds of confusion during the 2015 season. By season's end it was so bad that the league put together a blue ribbon panel of WR and TE to fix the wording of the rule, (which they did basically by reinstating the observable standard of the football move) and a year later Blandino resigned "to spend more time with his family."

If you still want to try to defend an ex-head of officials' misapplication of a rule he didn't understand, you should first understand the rule yourself. "Going to the ground" 1) doesn't mean "starting to fall," and 2) doesn't trump the catch process anyway.

 

[Brooksey]

The only ones who lose right now on "ratings" are TV stations and advertisers. The lower the rating the lower the price of a :30 TV spot. Spots are priced at a CPP (cost per rating point). If the sales rep sells Ford a 20 rating and it does a 15 rating you owe the client 5 rating points, (makegoods). The NFL does not have to change unless TV puts pressure on them. Only one complaining is FOX but they offset rating losses by raising their CPP and increased ad sales last year 3.5% and 1.5% this year although ratings slipped. Advertisers are paying more for ads for less ratings (eyeballs).

The NFL TV deal runs through 2022. The NFL gets paid a "fixed amount" from TV. For example the NFL gets paid 1.9 Billion/year from ESPN for Monday Night Football, yet ESPN generated only 300 million in ad sales last year. A massive loss. When ESPN has this type loss and doesn't complain about kneeling in fact they promote it..why should NFL change?

The NFL will perform better in their contract year, 2021.
If this was a contract year for the NFL renegotiating TV deals... there would be no kneeling.

TV Nets praying for Brees vs. Brady in SB this year with sky high rates to offset massive makegoods occurring right now.

 

[CCBoy]

Blandino misinterpreted completion of the catch process as hinging on how upright a player was. The rule said nothing about "upright vs. falling," and was only concerned about possession being maintained if the player made contact with the ground before completing the process. Read the highlighted "goes to" below as "contacts." That's how it was meant.

"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."

That whole section (on which Blandino claimed to base his overturn) doesn't even apply unless the catch process (control, two feet, football move) wasn't completed, and even then, is only concerned with what happens when the player hits the ground. Not "loses balance and starts to fall," but actually "goes to the ground". It has to be that way because contact with the ground is an observable point in time on which officials can base their call. Officials -- who, unlike Blandino, had actually worked on the field in real games -- helped make this rule that was in place for years.

His misinterpretation resulted in a rewording of the rule (quietly announced over the Fourth of July weekend the summer after the play) which happened to fit his overturn of the Dez play. The problem was that the new version of the rule removed the observable football move, meaning officials would have to use their own judgment as to whether a player was "upright long enough" instead of using the observable standard of "contact with the ground." You may remember that this caused all kinds of confusion during the 2015 season. By season's end it was so bad that the league put together a blue ribbon panel of WR and TE to fix the wording of the rule, (which they did basically by reinstating the observable standard of the football move) and a year later Blandino resigned "to spend more time with his family."

If you still want to try to defend an ex-head of officials' misapplication of a rule he didn't understand, you should first understand the rule yourself. "Going to the ground" 1) doesn't mean "starting to fall," and 2) doesn't trump the catch process anyway.

Relevancy is purely based upon the falling aspect, where in the case of the two step action by Dez Bryant, established a runner and possession by the effert to fully extend...

Good morning, my friend!

 

[Brooksey]

Yeah which shows how laughable it is to read the NFL hates the Cowboys conspiracy theories around here.

NFL loses nothing on ratings dip, money from TV nets guaranteed through 2022.

 

[CCBoy]

The only ones who lose right now on "ratings" are TV stations and advertisers. The lower the rating the lower the price of a :30 TV spot. Spots are priced at a CPP (cost per rating point). If the sales rep sells Ford a 20 rating and it does a 15 rating you owe the client 5 rating points, (makegoods). The NFL does not have to change unless TV puts pressure on them. Only one complaining is FOX but they offset rating losses by raising their CPP and increased ad sales last year 3.5% and 1.5% this year although ratings slipped. Advertisers are paying more for ads for less ratings (eyeballs).

The NFL TV deal runs through 2022. The NFL gets paid a "fixed amount" from TV. For example the NFL gets paid 1.9 Billion/year from ESPN for Monday Night Football, yet ESPN generated only 300 million in ad sales last year. A massive loss. When ESPN has this type loss and doesn't complain about kneeling in fact they promote it..why should NFL change?

The NFL will perform better in their contract year, 2021.
If this was a contract year for the NFL renegotiating TV deals... there would be no kneeling.

TV Nets praying for Brees vs. Brady in SB this year with sky high rates to offset massive makegoods occurring right now.

Lol, and this fan just 'loves' the prospect of giving even more arbitrary control of a game to referees and not easy to apply and consistent rules.

 

[CCBoy]

NFL loses nothing on ratings dip, money from TV nets guaranteed through 2022.

Oh, privilege does stick around...with current positions, will the fans as well?

 

[percyhoward]

Relevancy is purely based upon the falling aspect, where in the case of the two step action by Dez Bryant, established a runner and possession by the effert to fully extend...

Good morning, my friend!

Buenos dias amigo.