Think the NFL is happy the Cowboys missed the playoffs?

[percyhoward]

The fact that you avoided my question on one of the key components of the play twice and then feigned ignorance the 3rd time I asked, tells me all I need to know about your stance.

Then you know my stance is that it was a catch and down by contact at the 1-yard line, as ruled on the field, and that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call. If you wanted to make something of Dez's reach being different from Johnson's and Thomas', you'd have to explain why it should have affected the call. I'm guessing you buy Blandino's explanation that two hands were needed, and just kind of altogether ignoring the fact that players are routinely awarded the extra yardage gained while reaching with the ball in one hand.

Here's what Mike Pereira said after the Dez play: "If you're going to the ground, you have to prove that you have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game and do so. And part of that is stretching all the way out and to me even though he moved the ball a little bit forward, they are not going to consider that a football act."
http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pereira-dez-bryant-reversal-2015-1http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pereira-dez-bryant-reversal-2015-1

If there really existed a rule that a reach has to be with two hands, why didn't Pereira just say so? Clearly, all he's looking at is the extension. There exists no requirement that a reach be with two hands. Nowhere prior to the Dez play will you find a rule or an explanation that says a player must reach with both hands on the ball.

In week 1 of 2013, Victor Cruz reached with one hand and was awarded the catch, even though the ball came loose on contact with the ground. Pereira later said the catch should not have counted, not because of the one-handed reach, but because he didn't complete the catch process (only one foot down). Two former officiating supervisors both thought it was a catch. NO ONE in discussing this play mentioned the fact that Cruz only reached with one hand.
http://www.footballzebras.com/2013/09/12/7903/

The question of going to the ground is a yes/no question: are you on your feet running, establishing yourself as a runner or did your act of catching the pass take you to the ground as a result? There's nothing in the rules that state these rules can be untriggered by doing A, B, C, or whatever. You simply have to have the ball survive the ground with control. Dez did not. The Item numbers in Article 3 are all categories that if they happen (after a yes/no determination) state the rules that apply in those situations (sidelines, simultaneous catches, carried out of bounds). In the carried out of bounds Item (Item 6), a player's feet or body never touch the ground but yet he is awarded a catch. So does this Item's rules "trump the catch process" or not? The answer is yes. So too do the going to the ground rules (Item 1).

Read item 6 again, and you'll see that it refers to a player being carried out of bounds while already "in possession of the ball."

Item 6. Carried Out of Bounds. If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground in bounds, it is a completed or intercepted pass.

​

Item 1 refers to a player still in the act of catching a pass. So, not yet in possession of the ball.

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.​

That's why they ostensibly had to prove Dez was still in the act of catching the pass. That's why the football move mattered, why they were asked about it, and why they had to say they looked at it -- instead of just saying the catch process was subordinated. Because if the catch process is completed by any football move, then Dez is still a runner down by contact, as originally ruled on the field. You can't take away his status as a runner unless you prove he didn't complete the catch process, which means in this case proving he didn't make any football moves. Didn't tuck the ball in one arm, didn't take another step, didn't lunge, didn't reach. Just laid out like you would on a diving catch (the kind of play Item 1 was designed for, by the way).

A very basic misunderstanding that's getting in your way is confusion over the league's use of the term "runner." A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps. In 2016 that language replaced 2014's "maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game" with actual examples of acts common to the game ("football moves"). That was after the football move took a one-year hiatus in 2015 courtesy of your friend Blandino. All this context is important to understanding what happened, but at least understand what a runner is, then you won't say things like "on your feet running establishing yourself." A runner is just a guy with the ball who hasn't been tackled yet.

 

[willia451]

Good post, Coach. As usual.

I know for me at least, I used to watch the playoffs not matter what. Now I find I just don't care. Too many commercials. So unless the Cowboys are playing, I don't watch. Or I'll tune in for the last few minutes of a game if its close.

Sitting on the couch watching commercials for 4 hours is just not something I want to do. There are so many other things to do these days that are WAY more engaging than that.

 

[MarcusRock]

Then you know my stance is that it was a catch and down by contact at the 1-yard line, as ruled on the field, and that there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the call. If you wanted to make something of Dez's reach being different from Johnson's and Thomas', you'd have to explain why it should have affected the call. I'm guessing you buy Blandino's explanation that two hands were needed, and just kind of altogether ignoring the fact that players are routinely awarded the extra yardage gained while reaching with the ball in one hand.

He didn't need 2 hands, he needed to be more demonstrative than just his intent. Johnson's and Thomas' were. Clearly. This is the question you avoided. I have never seen Blandino's two hand explanation. Where is the proof he said this?

Here's what Mike Pereira said after the Dez play: "If you're going to the ground, you have to prove that you have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game and do so. And part of that is stretching all the way out and to me even though he moved the ball a little bit forward, they are not going to consider that a football act."
http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pereira-dez-bryant-reversal-2015-1

If there really existed a rule that a reach has to be with two hands, why didn't Pereira just say so? Clearly, all he's looking at is the extension. There exists no requirement that a reach be with two hands. Nowhere prior to the Dez play will you find a rule or an explanation that says a player must reach with both hands on the ball.

I already told you what Pereira said on game day because I remember watching it. Again, where is Blandino's quote? Have an article or video? And I mean the entire quote. Not an incomplete one like what you pointed out in the other Blandino video.

In week 1 of 2013, Victor Cruz reached with one hand and was awarded the catch, even though the ball came loose on contact with the ground. Pereira later said the catch should not have counted, not because of the one-handed reach, but because he didn't complete the catch process (only one foot down). Two former officiating supervisors both thought it was a catch. NO ONE in discussing this play mentioned the fact that Cruz only reached with one hand.
http://www.footballzebras.com/2013/09/12/7903/

Until you produce Blandino's two hands quote this is irrelevant. As for the play, note the demonstrative reach at the end. More demonstrative than Dez', ain't that right?

Read item 6 again, and you'll see that it refers to a player being carried out of bounds while already "in possession of the ball."

Item 6. Carried Out of Bounds. If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground in bounds, it is a completed or intercepted pass.

Item 1 refers to a player still in the act of catching a pass. So, not yet in possession of the ball.​

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.​

Quite simple explanation. A player carried out of bounds with possession hasn't had the chance to have his body come down on the ground to have a chance to complete that 3-part process Blandino talks about in the video you posted. Either go back to the video or back to my post that quotes the video. Again, to my point previously, this Item 6 clearly trumps that 3-part process (which you said doesn't occur with Item 1) when this situation happens. If it's the case for Item 6, then it's the case for the 5 other Items before it, including going to the ground. This is the simple point you are not understanding or just want to avoid to prevent Item 1 going to the ground from being in effect which invalidates your argument. You can't get around this so you just don't address it.

That's why they ostensibly had to prove Dez was still in the act of catching the pass. That's why the football move mattered, why they were asked about it, and why they had to say they looked at it -- instead of just saying the catch process was subordinated. Because if the catch process is completed by any football move, then Dez is still a runner down by contact, as originally ruled on the field. You can't take away his status as a runner unless you prove he didn't complete the catch process, which means in this case proving he didn't make any football moves. Didn't tuck the ball in one arm, didn't take another step, didn't lunge, didn't reach. Just laid out like you would on a diving catch (the kind of play Item 1 was designed for, by the way).

My previous explanation shows how you're missing the point. When going to the ground applies, those rules are triggered and the ball has to survive the ground in addition to the requirements for a catch in Article 3. It didn't. And again, even if they could be untriggered by any kind of football move, Dez did not execute one with his intended reach. This is precisely why you don't want to answer my question. When someone repeatedly does this in a debate, you know what it means.

A very basic misunderstanding that's getting in your way is confusion over the league's use of the term "runner." A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps. In 2016 that language replaced 2014's "maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game" with actual examples of acts common to the game ("football moves"). That was after the football move took a one-year hiatus in 2015 courtesy of your friend Blandino. All this context is important to understanding what happened, but at least understand what a runner is, then you won't say things like "on your feet running establishing yourself." A runner is just a guy with the ball who hasn't been tackled yet.

Whatever the definition or when it appeared, a runner is a guy who is not going to the ground in the act of catching a pass which is why there is that yes/no determination in the decision tree. It is an either/or situation. Why? Because special rules take over if that player is going to the ground, including taking care of the ball after impact. Dez didn't.

 

[percyhoward]

I have never seen Blandino's two hand explanation. Where is the proof he said this?

https://nfllabor.wordpress.com/2015...blandino-on-nfl-gameday-final-on-nfl-network/

On whether or not Dez Bryant reaching for the goal line could have been considered a football act:

“Yeah, absolutely. We looked at that aspect of it and in order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line.

Quite simple explanation. A player carried out of bounds with possession hasn't had the chance to have his body come down on the ground to have a chance to complete that 3-part process Blandino talks about in the video you posted.

You say "explanation" as if you've explained something. The point is that Item 6 deals with players who already have possession of the ball, while Item 1 deals with players who don't yet have possession. What you said would be the reason the player in Item 6 had gained possession of the ball, for whatever that's worth.

Either go back to the video or back to my post that quotes the video. Again, to my point previously, this Item 6 clearly trumps that 3-part process (which you said doesn't occur with Item 1) when this situation happens. If it's the case for Item 6, then it's the case for the 5 other Items before it, including going to the ground.

I understand the point you're trying to make, and the assumption you want to try to base it on. The problem with your assumption is that Item 1 does not apply to runners. In other words, it does not subordinate the catch process. We know this because if it did, there would have been no reason for anybody to ask about the football move, no reason for Blandino to say he "absolutely" looked for one, and no reason for him to say he didn't see enough of one.

You've read his quote, now explain why he said he looked for a football move that (according to you) didn't matter.

 

[Jake]

Again with the Dez catch? I guess some folks love torturing themselves.

 

[gjkoeppen]

percyhoward.. .. ...

Read item 6 again, and you'll see that it refers to a player being carried out of bounds while already "in possession of the ball."

Item 6. Carried Out of Bounds. If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground in bounds, it is a completed or intercepted pass. ​

What that item 6 refers to is lets say a receiver is 2 yards from the sideline and jumps up to catch the ball and a defender then grabs him with his shoulders at his waste and then carries him those 2 yards out of bounds. But now lets say that receiver is only 1 or 2 feet from the sideline and the defender drives on him and wraps him up and they both land out of bounds, even though the receiver hung on to the ball he didn't touch in bounds and it's rule an incomplete pass. That has happen so many times and not once did I see a ref rule it a catch because the defender didn't carry the receiver out of bounds he just did a wrapped up tackle. Now most of the times the defender just shoves the receiver but sometimes the receiver still manages to get his feet down so sometimes the defender wraps him up so he can't get them down.
.

 

[percyhoward]

What that item 6 refers to is lets say a receiver is 2 yards from the sideline and jumps up to catch the ball and a defender then grabs him with his shoulders at his waste and then carries him those 2 yards out of bounds. But now lets say that receiver is only 1 or 2 feet from the sideline and the defender drives on him and wraps him up and they both land out of bounds, even though the receiver hung on to the ball he didn't touch in bounds and it's rule an incomplete pass. That has happen so many times and not once did I see a ref rule it a catch because the defender didn't carry the receiver out of bounds he just did a wrapped up tackle. Now most of the times the defender just shoves the receiver but sometimes the receiver still manages to get his feet down so sometimes the defender wraps him up so he can't get them down.

Right, this doesn't exactly happen on a weekly basis, and I've never seen the rule enforced when it does either. It only came up because another poster was trying to use it to prove something about an entirely different rule.

 

[MarcusRock]

https://nfllabor.wordpress.com/2015...blandino-on-nfl-gameday-final-on-nfl-network/

On whether or not Dez Bryant reaching for the goal line could have been considered a football act:

“Yeah, absolutely. We looked at that aspect of it and in order for it to be a football move, it’s got to be more obvious than that, reaching the ball out with both hands, extending it for the goal line.

You say "explanation" as if you've explained something. The point is that Item 6 deals with players who already have possession of the ball, while Item 1 deals with players who don't yet have possession. What you said would be the reason the player in Item 6 had gained possession of the ball, for whatever that's worth.

I understand the point you're trying to make, and the assumption you want to try to base it on. The problem with your assumption is that Item 1 does not apply to runners. In other words, it does not subordinate the catch process. We know this because if it did, there would have been no reason for anybody to ask about the football move, no reason for Blandino to say he "absolutely" looked for one, and no reason for him to say he didn't see enough of one.

You've read his quote, now explain why he said he looked for a football move that (according to you) didn't matter.

This is a good quote and if nothing else, it confirms that Blandino was consistent across multiple calls. First, to your question, it looks like they determine going to the ground just before the receiver hits the ground to see if those Article 3 requirements have been satisfied (control, 2 feet, football move) prior. As Blandino says in the video you posted, if that doesn't happen in that order and you're going to the ground, the ball must survive impact. It didn't. The 2 hand quote is clearly an example, not a rule interpretation, and not all-inclusive because of course a receiver can use 1 hand to reach if he has control. Most receivers use 2 to guarantee control.

So in this quote, Blandino clearly states that Dez is not a runner and hasn't established possession due to lack of a football move so he cannot be down by contact. He also answers the question that you wouldn't in saying that Dez' reach was not obvious enough so Dez' momentum to the ground looked like one continuous process, which is what I also said having not seen this quote before. Again, back to the video you posted, Blandino gives the exact same explanation in describing Johnson's no catch. It's consistent. So it was no reach from Blandino, no reach from Pereira, the videos you yourself produced show the difference in reaches. No reach = no catch unless the ball survives the ground. Where's the problem?

Your own quotes agree with Blandino: "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." And also: "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."

So where did Blandino misinterpret or err concerning anything in the rules as they were written when y'all are saying the same things?

 

[percyhoward]

It looks like they determine going to the ground just before the receiver hits the ground to see if those Article 3 requirements have been satisfied (control, 2 feet, football move) prior.

OK, you understand a lot more now. They determine "going to the ground" based on completion of the catch process.

Where did Blandino misinterpret or err concerning anything in the rules?

His mistake was in applying "going to the ground" without really addressing the catch process and football moves that completed it. He had to address the reach because Steratore had already blurted out to the pool reporter after the game that Dez reached.

"In our judgement he maintained possession but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game. We deemed that by our judgement to be the full process of the catch, and at the time he lands and the ball hits the ground, it comes loose as it hits the ground, which would make that incomplete; although he re-possesses it, it does contact the ground when he reaches so the repossession is irrelevant because it was ruled an incomplete pass when we had the ball hit the ground."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rned-dez-bryant-catch/?utm_term=.aff155669018​

If Steratore had mentioned that Dez turned upfield, took an extra step, or tucked the ball in one arm, Blandino probably would have had to answer questions about those things too. Note that all of those things were put into the rulebook in 2016 after the blue-ribbon panel of players and the Catch Committee entered the picture.

 

[MarcusRock]

OK, you understand a lot more now. They determine "going to the ground" based on completion of the catch process.


His mistake was in applying "going to the ground" without really addressing the catch process and football moves that completed it. He had to address the reach because Steratore had already blurted out to the pool reporter after the game that Dez reached.

"In our judgement he maintained possession but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game. We deemed that by our judgement to be the full process of the catch, and at the time he lands and the ball hits the ground, it comes loose as it hits the ground, which would make that incomplete; although he re-possesses it, it does contact the ground when he reaches so the repossession is irrelevant because it was ruled an incomplete pass when we had the ball hit the ground."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rned-dez-bryant-catch/?utm_term=.aff155669018​

If Steratore had mentioned that Dez turned upfield, took an extra step, or tucked the ball in one arm, Blandino probably would have had to answer questions about those things too. Note that all of those things were put into the rulebook in 2016 after the blue-ribbon panel of players and the Catch Committee entered the picture.

But as we've said already, Pereira already addressed it in answering Howie Long's question right after the broadcast so that question wouldn't have been a surprise and he was clearly ready with an answer. None of these guys are idiots so I'm pretty sure any seasoned official watching replays and Blandino had already come to the same conclusion. Blandino just skipped to why it was incomplete when he tweeted soon after the game (LINK) and then answered multiple questions on NFL Network a little later. Still not seeing where he misinterpreted or got anything else wrong with the call or explanations. He was consistent throughout and other big names agreed. It just wasn't a catch.

 

[percyhoward]

But as we've said already, Pereira already addressed it in answering Howie Long's question right after the broadcast so that question wouldn't have been a surprise and he was clearly ready with an answer. None of these guys are idiots so I'm pretty sure any seasoned official watching replays and Blandino had already come to the same conclusion. Blandino just skipped to why it was incomplete when he tweeted soon after the game (LINK) and then answered multiple questions on NFL Network a little later. Still not seeing where he misinterpreted or got anything else wrong with the call or explanations. He was consistent throughout and other big names agreed. It just wasn't a catch.

Now that you realize that even one football move completes the catch process, are you saying Dez didn't make any football moves? I mean, that's all you'd be left with if you're still trying to defend the overturn.

 

[MarcusRock]

Now that you realize that even one football move completes the catch process, are you saying Dez didn't make any football moves? I mean, that's all you'd be left with if you're still trying to defend the overturn.

Not before he hit the ground. Pereira said it, Steratore said it, Blandino went into great detail about it. At the point it becomes a going to the ground Item the ball coming loose after impact is what did him in.

 

[MarcusRock]

So back to Blandino, he didn't misinterpret or say anything wrong after all, did he?

 

[percyhoward]

Not before he hit the ground.

You already said you now understand that Blandino ruled Dez didn't establish possession "due to lack of a football move" prior to hitting the ground.

The ruling on the field was a catch. In order to reverse the call, there had to be indisputable evidence that Dez did not complete the catch process. That he didn't make even one football move.

Indisputable visual proof that he

1. didn't turn his shoulders upfield
2. didn't take a third step
3. didn't tuck the ball in one hand
4. didn't reach for the goal line

 

[CCBoy]

You already said you now understand that Blandino ruled Dez didn't establish possession "due to lack of a football move" prior to hitting the ground.

The ruling on the field was a catch. In order to reverse the call, there had to be indisputable evidence that Dez did not complete the catch process. That he didn't make even one football move.

Indisputable visual proof that he

1. didn't turn his shoulders upfield
2. didn't take a third step
3. didn't tuck the ball in one hand
4. didn't reach for the goal line

And all that doesn't again place actions into the only real way to advance the ball, being a runner at some point. Then, the ground can not create a fumble...period.

 

[Aviano90]

Ahh the play that reminds me smart football rarely occurs with the Cowboys...wrap the ****** ball up, Dez!!!!

 

[CPanther95]

You already said you now understand that Blandino ruled Dez didn't establish possession "due to lack of a football move" prior to hitting the ground.

The ruling on the field was a catch. In order to reverse the call, there had to be indisputable evidence that Dez did not complete the catch process. That he didn't make even one football move.

Indisputable visual proof that he

1. didn't turn his shoulders upfield
2. didn't take a third step
3. didn't tuck the ball in one hand
4. didn't reach for the goal line

The call on the field carrying more weight than what the review official sees doesn't really apply to the Dez catch. That is related to not having a camera angle that provides that indisputable evidence.

In cases like the Dez catch, where the view of the play and ball are completely visible, the replay official is to make his own judgment regardless of what the call on the field was. So for a subjective determination, the ref on the field that made the call and the replay official can have 2 different viewpoints - and they are not supposed to default to the view of the ref on the field.

 

[MarcusRock]

The call on the field carrying more weight than what the review official sees doesn't really apply to the Dez catch. That is related to not having a camera angle that provides that indisputable evidence.

In cases like the Dez catch, where the view of the play and ball are completely visible, the replay official is to make his own judgment regardless of what the call on the field was. So for a subjective determination, the ref on the field that made the call and the replay official can have 2 different viewpoints - and they are not supposed to default to the view of the ref on the field.

Exactly. The official on the field did not invoke the going to the ground Item of the rule. Once the replay showed that it did apply, the added element of control through contact with the ground applied. It's a simple yes/no decision that takes rule application down a different road that the on field official didn't consider but must be followed. This is why catch supporters deathly want to prevent it from applying because it kills the argument immediately. Once the ball hit the ground and possession was momentarily lost it's an ironclad decision and why I knew it would be reversed before they announced it when the game was going on.

All the talk about football moves being made with turning shoulders (come on), taking extra steps (steps are irrelevant in going to the ground), tucking the ball (he simply took one hand off the ball and never tucked it to his body but left it exposed), or reaching (which every top official said was not obvious enough and percy has avoided comparing to other reaches he's posted himself) are summarized in what Blandino has said in defending this rule multiple times: It was all one process in going to the ground because Article 3 hadn't been met. He's been consistent. I keep hearing he's wrong but just like in comparing Dez' reach to other much more obvious reaches, I don't think there'll ever be an answer. That's telling.

 

[percyhoward]

In cases like the Dez catch, where the view of the play and ball are completely visible, the replay official is to make his own judgment regardless of what the call on the field was. So for a subjective determination, the ref on the field that made the call and the replay official can have 2 different viewpoints - and they are not supposed to default to the view of the ref on the field.

Someone gave you some bad information. According to the head of officials, the call on the field can't be overturned without "clear and obvious" evidence to the contrary. This applies to all replays.

“No doubt about it, it was clear and obvious,” Riveron said in a conference call with reporters. “And we use that standard for every replay. Unless it’s clear and obvious to us, we will not change the ruling on the field.”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/...d-zone-play/x1AYaJpMX4PJSC21qIXeTP/story.html​

 

[CPanther95]

Someone gave you some bad information. According to the head of officials, the call on the field can't be overturned without "clear and obvious" evidence to the contrary. This applies to all replays.

“No doubt about it, it was clear and obvious,” Riveron said in a conference call with reporters. “And we use that standard for every replay. Unless it’s clear and obvious to us, we will not change the ruling on the field.”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/...d-zone-play/x1AYaJpMX4PJSC21qIXeTP/story.html​

It was clear and obvious. The ball was completely visible throughout the duration of the catch, so a call can be clearly made by the replay official.

But on any subjective call that could be close either way, the replay official isn't (at least at the time of the Dez catch) supposed to default to the call on the field. He makes his own judgment and that's the call.