What is a catch? Even players are confused.

[RetractableRoof]

I'm just surprised it's being discussed as much as it is. A play like this happens constantly in the NFL and it's always incomplete. Because it was 4th down in a playoff game doesn't mean anyone got screwed. It's like the Tuck Rule. The Pats had the Tuck Rule called against them earlier that season (Miami?)
 
Outside of the "the rule sucks it needs to be changed" there's really no discussion here outside of "Dez Bryant should know better, secure the catch since it'd be 1st and goal on the 1 or 2 with 3 minutes left"
 
Dez should know #1 priority is to catch the ball, secure the ball and make sure it's caught. Whether he did reach /didn't reach is a matter of interpretation. He's a veteran receiver and knows better and on 4th down it's his responsibility to catch the ball, not try to get a TD out of it.
 
I can't believe i'm going to say this but I was watching Cris Carter on First Take (I was at the gym with no other channels covering football) and his take was if you are in a warm weather situation or a dome, you do what Dez did, if it's freezing and you're going to the ground on a 4th down play you catch the damn ball and worry about anything else later. I'm not a fan of Cris Carter the TV personality but as someone who played a ton, outside of him say he should have "Catched the ball!" I agree. Get the reception. go down at the 1 and leave nothing up to the NF

Tuck rule play: Jets
Dez not securing the ball: That's a sign of professional maturity versus an elite (top 5 at his position) athlete doing his best to impact a game. I think I prefer sports encouraging extraordinary efforts rather than legislating caution into their play.

 

[SumnerH]

Independent of the fact that the rules are different when you're going to the ground...

a) he switched the ball in his hands in order to get it to his outside hand away from the defender.

This never happens. He has both hands on it and takes one off. He never switches it from one hand to the other.

b) he took a third step after possessing the ball. If he wanted to simply come down with the ball he could have just allowed gravity to do its thing and cradled the ball. The steps don't count - except the third step was part of a series of micro moves that elite athletes make as part of making that elite effort.

This never happens. He hits the ground a 3rd time with his foot as he's falling, but he never takes a third step.

c) as his third step occurs his foot (toes) plants. If he were merely falling at that point you can draw an arc (where the toe is the center point and his knee height is the radius) from his knee to the ground in the falling direction. His knee would impact the ground there as he fell - but it doesn't. He thrusts forward on his toes and he lands a foot or more forward of that landing point. Additionally the turf under his driving toes is expelled up and a bit backwards away from him - which on frozen turf doesn't occur unless there is considerable lateral force (and cleats).

I don't even understand this. He clearly stumbles as he's attempting to move forward before his foot hits the 3rd time, but I don't understand the physiological argument you're trying to make here.

d) his arm position on impact is going forward to stretch forward. Receivers trying to catch the ball cradle the ball and draw their arms into their body in landing to protect it unless they are looking to lunge for the goal line - he was.

Yes, you've pinpointed the error he makes; he attempts to lunge for the goal line before having secured the ball.

 

[RetractableRoof]

This debate is about the purview of the going to the ground rule. It doesn't matter how many steps you take. We've all seen receivers overextend on deep passes and take six or seven steps before they fall. And it doesn't matter how thoroughly you've secured the ball as you fall. Those points are completely irrelevant to whether or not you're going to the ground. The only possible argument for a move common to the game is that Bryant caught his balance and stopped himself from going to the ground, and then dove towards the endzone. Lunging towards the endzone while falling doesn't take you out of the purview of going to the ground.

You are incorrect, you are putting your words to rules that don't say anything of the sort. That would certainly qualify as a common move, but that is not the only thing. First you argued that a common football movement wouldn't matter, by quoting a short tweet. Now you want to say he'd have to stop from hitting the ground. Neither is true. Blandino wouldn't have said he considered a common football movement if it were merely staying on his feet any idiot would know that in a split second.

If you are going to argue for the sake of it, don't waste peoples time.

 

[DLew On Roids]

 
This debate is about the purview of the going to the ground rule. It doesn't matter how many steps you take. We've all seen receivers overextend on deep passes and take six or seven steps before they fall. And it doesn't matter how thoroughly you've secured the ball as you fall. Those points are completely irrelevant to whether or not you're going to the ground. The only possible argument for a move common to the game is that Bryant caught his balance and stopped himself from going to the ground, and then dove towards the endzone. Lunging towards the endzone while falling doesn't take you out of the purview of going to the ground.

 
 

You are incorrect, you are putting your words to rules that don't say anything of the sort. That would certainly qualify as a common move, but that is not the only thing. First you argued that a common football movement wouldn't matter, by quoting a short tweet. Now you want to say he'd have to stop from hitting the ground. Neither is true. Blandino wouldn't have said he considered a common football movement if it were merely staying on his feet any idiot would know that in a split second.

If you are going to argue for the sake of it, don't waste peoples time.

 
I think Hagios does an excellent job of adapting the rule to common language.  The laundry list of actions in the portion of the rule that reads "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.)," are all things that are clearly impossible while the player is going to the ground--with the exception of advancing the ball.  However, given the other actions described, it's reasonable to conclude that lunging downfield while not establishing that you are not going to the ground doesn't constitute a common move.  Hagios takes this and tries to explain what would have to happen for Bryant to perform a common move.

 

[RetractableRoof]

Independent of the fact that the rules are different when you're going to the ground...This never happens. He has both hands on it and takes one off. He never switches it from one hand to the other.This never happens. He hits the ground a 3rd time with his foot as he's falling, but he never takes a third step.I don't even understand this. He clearly stumbles as he's attempting to move forward before his foot hits the 3rd time, but I don't understand the physiological argument you're trying to make here.Yes, you've pinpointed the error he makes; he attempts to lunge for the goal line before having secured the ball.

His hands were together to make the catch. He begins to bring the ball in, then (imo) transfers to his left hand. Switched may be the wrong word. He maintains the ball in that hand like thousands of players without bobble or movement - including a change of direction which indicates that he had control of it.

He is an elite athlete, that third contact point with the ground he absorbs with his quad, calf, and ankle and plants and drives from it. If you want to say it wasn't a step, your welcome to view it that way - but I've got 20+ years of studying body movement and he clearly planted and drove from that foot.

You're a smart guy, if the point I'm making about the physiology isn't clear then that is on me. Once his foot is planted if he falls without moving his foot, his knee can only impact the ground (approximately) one fibula length from the plant point (plus possibly the length of the foot). If you draw the arc at the moment his foot touches the ground, you can approximate where his knee should land if he is merely falling. He lands well beyond that - combined with the grass being thrown up clearly demonstrating forward thrust from his planted foot.

The totality of these things in my mind (and it should be clear to any paid/professional observer of athletes including NFL referee/review staff) indicates clearly he was attempting a common football movement of lunging for the endzone. That creates a separation of the catch from the landing. At that point he does not have to succesfully complete the move - the attempt (if viewed as an attempt) means he now is subject to normal rules as a runner with a ball, fumble rules, etc.

If he is not lunging then extending the ball surely is an error. But since he was (my contention), allowing the ball to touch the ground becomes: a) the ground can't cause a fumble for an ordinary ball carrier which he was at that point or b) it is a fumble which he recovers in the end zone.

I understand the rule. I'm only validating the lunge as a football move. Which if I'm correct means the rule was misapplied.

ETA: And also the original ruling on the field was a completed catch - if they recognized pieces of a common football move but weren't sure, then the on the field call should have stood. I'm not sure that is how it is written, but other replay reversals work with a high burden of proof to overturn. That rule should carry the same burden of proof.

 

[RetractableRoof]

I think Hagios does an excellent job of adapting the rule to common language.  The laundry list of actions in the portion of the rule that reads "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.)," are all things that are clearly impossible while the player is going to the ground--with the exception of advancing the ball.  However, given the other actions described, it's reasonable to conclude that lunging downfield while not establishing that you are not going to the ground doesn't constitute a common move.  Hagios takes this and tries to explain what would have to happen for Bryant to perform a common move.

They aren't impossible for an elite athlete, and Blandino specifically stated that lunging for the end zone would qualify - if the evidence was there. He just didn't view it as a clear enough lunge. I'm only saying I believe he missed the totality of the movements that comprised the lunge - a judgement call I think was blown.

 

[SumnerH]

You're a smart guy, if the point I'm making about the physiology isn't clear then that is on me. Once his foot is planted if he falls without moving his foot, his knee can only impact the ground (approximately) one fibula length from the plant point (plus possibly the length of the foot). If you draw the arc at the moment his foot touches the ground, you can approximate where his knee should land if he is merely falling. He lands well beyond that - combined with the grass being thrown up clearly demonstrating forward thrust from his planted foot.

Oh. I guess I don't see why thrust forward isn't compatible with falling. He was definitely attempting to lunge, thus applying forward thrust. He also fell.

 

[DJnVa]

There's also the idea that he's not really lunging forward with conscious effort. He's falling forward and most people will have their arms ahead of them as they fall. That's a natural reaction to the fall.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

I'm not attacking you, but I think it's kind of lame to have an intellectual conversation about a lawyerly written rule and take a single tweet (with a 140 character limit) as context to claim someone is wrong. His full words including his discussion about the common football move are available.

The list of acts is not comprehensive. Here are the examples of "performing an act common to the game" in part [c] of Article 3: "maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.". Anyone discussing more acts are either 1) making things up to bolster their point of view, or 2) working within the intentional vagueness of the rule.

------------------

Underlying any discussion of changes things should consider that the practice of determining whether a catch occurred is adjudication of art. It will always be somewhat subjective, regardless of what one feels defines a catch in a pickup game. It will always be this way, and I don't think there's much value in handing Peter's money over to Paul, at least without a historical evaluation of why the rule exists as currently constructed.

 

[Bosoxen]

There's also the idea that he's not really lunging forward with conscious effort. He's falling forward and most people will have their arms ahead of them as they fall. That's a natural reaction to the fall.

 
He's not trying to break his fall. He's trying to reach for the goal line. One of us tripping over our kids' toys and throwing our hands forward to catch ourselves is not the same as a football player reaching the ball forward.
 
This wasn't a move of self-preservation. This was, for lack of a better term, a football move. Though, only in the literal sense, not the NFL definition sense.

 

[RetractableRoof]

Oh. I guess I don't see why thrust forward isn't compatible with falling. He was definitely attempting to lunge, thus applying forward thrust. He also fell.

It is only relevant as a single piece of the totallity of a football move. Gravity and momentum were in play, but beyond that he added thrust to lunge forthe endzone. I'm not saying it happened in a vacuum, but that lunge did happen.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

 
He's not trying to break his fall. He's trying to reach for the goal line. One of us tripping over our kids' toys and throwing our hands forward to catch ourselves is not the same as a football player reaching the ball forward.
 
This wasn't a move of self-preservation. This was, for lack of a better term, a football move. Though, only in the literal sense, not the NFL definition sense.

I obviously can't speak for you, but dodging toys in my house requires quite a bit of athletic skill.

 

[yep]

I'm just surprised it's being discussed as much as it is. A play like this happens constantly in the NFL and it's always incomplete... Dez should know #1 priority is to catch the ball, secure the ball and make sure it's caught...

I think it's painting reality exclusively in primary colors to say that a play like this happens "constantly" in the NFL and "it's always incomplete". It is normal and routine for a play to be ruled incomplete due to loss of control when going to ground, but I think it's actually pretty rare to have a scenario where the receiver so clearly and obviously "caught"1 the ball (meaning, in common parlance/plain-English), took a couple steps, then bobbled it as he fell. For the record, I'm in the camp that says the rule was interpreted correctly, and it wasn't a "football catch"2 (legal pass-completion, according to NFL rules).
 
I'm also in the camp that says it would be a better league if it encouraged more of that kind of play, rather than strictly enforcing lawyerly definitions of things like "going to ground", etc, (n.b., I don't personally have better wording to offer at the moment). I kinda think the whole rulebook could use an overhaul, specifically to evaluate how things like completions are defined in an existential sense. I think the NFL,of all sports I follow, has too many episodes where something looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but lo and behold, page 387 the NFL rulebook says it's a turkey. 

 

[RetractableRoof]

There's also the idea that he's not really lunging forward with conscious effort. He's falling forward and most people will have their arms ahead of them as they fall. That's a natural reaction to the fall.

Have you ever done anything physically at an elite level? I personally can't do a 720 degree turn with a snowboard strapped to my feet but yet elite athletes can. I can however rotate my body in mid air and choose when falling what part of my body will or won't touch the round. We watch these guys because they do things we can't. They train to be in control of their bodies in most every situation. Every action in that moment was controlling his body and the ball to lunge for the endzone - that is what separates him from the practice squad guy. It's what makes him one of the top 5 receivers in the game.

 

[snowmanny]

And it was really dumb because if he'd tucked the ball the Cowboys probably win.

 

[RetractableRoof]

I obviously can't speak for you, but dodging toys in my house requires quite a bit of athletic skill.

lol... it's a nice Jackie Chan visual.

 

[lexrageorge]

Have you ever done anything physically at an elite level? I personally can't do a 720 degree turn with a snowboard strapped to my feet but yet elite athletes can. I can however rotate my body in mid air and choose when falling what part of my body will or won't touch the round. We watch these guys because they do things we can't. They train to be in control of their bodies in most every situation. Every action in that moment was controlling his body and the ball to lunge for the endzone - that is what separates him from the practice squad guy. It's what makes him one of the top 5 receivers in the game.

The problem is that the rules cannot, and should not, be different for a guy that can do amazing athletic feats vs. the average practice squad receiver.  Something like the definition of a "catch" should be objective, not subject to whether the fall forward is a "fall" or a "lunge" or both.  

 

[Greg29fan]

And it was really dumb because if he'd tucked the ball the Cowboys probably win.

 
the way Aaron Rodgers was carving up the defense in the second half I find that highly improbable but I would've loved to have found out.

 

[RetractableRoof]

The problem is that the rules cannot, and should not, be different for a guy that can do amazing athletic feats vs. the average practice squad receiver.  Something like the definition of a "catch" should be objective, not subject to whether the fall forward is a "fall" or a "lunge" or both.

That's the crux of the matter. Blandino applied a subjective standard of a 'lunge', and imo blew the call. Change the rule, don't change it. But I believe they misapplied the standard saying he didn't lunge for the endzone.

 

[Bosoxen]

That's the crux of the matter. Blandino applied a subjective standard of a 'lunge', and imo blew the call. Change the rule, don't change it. But I believe they misapplied the standard saying he didn't lunge for the endzone.

 
I believe their wording (as DrewDawg posted) was that he didn't "complete" the lunge. Whatever that means.

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

They aren't impossible for an elite athlete, and Blandino specifically stated that lunging for the end zone would qualify - if the evidence was there. He just didn't view it as a clear enough lunge. I'm only saying I believe he missed the totality of the movements that comprised the lunge - a judgement call I think was blown.

 

That's the crux of the matter. Blandino applied a subjective standard of a 'lunge', and imo blew the call. Change the rule, don't change it. But I believe they misapplied the standard saying he didn't lunge for the endzone.

The standard of review to overturn the call on the field is not getting a lot of attention, but maybe it should be.  Was it indisputably not a lunge from the video evidence?  Unless the answer to that question is yes, then the call should have stood.  I think at least reasonable people can disagree whether there was an attempt at a lunge separate from the act of making the catch, and that means the evidence for reversal was insufficient.

 

[MalzoneExpress]

The Rule:
 

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:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) 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 other than his hands to the ground, or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, 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.

 
Did Dez fulfill requirements a, b, and c for a completed pass? I think he did. However, he was also going to the ground while he was fulfilling a, b, and c, so the additional requirement that he "must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground" is imposed. He did not do this. Incomplete pass is the correct ruling based on the rules. It is not because he didn't a) secure control of the ball and b) get both feet inbounds and c) maintain control of the ball long enough, but because he did not maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground.

 

[DJnVa]

Have you ever done anything physically at an elite level? I personally can't do a 720 degree turn with a snowboard strapped to my feet but yet elite athletes can. I can however rotate my body in mid air and choose when falling what part of my body will or won't touch the round. We watch these guys because they do things we can't. They train to be in control of their bodies in most every situation. Every action in that moment was controlling his body and the ball to lunge for the endzone - that is what separates him from the practice squad guy. It's what makes him one of the top 5 receivers in the game.

 
Yet he didn't maintain control, the single most important act. Not elite enough.
 
 
I'm kidding, of course. But I completely understand your point. However, I'm just tossing things out there. Both sides of this debate have dug in and I don't think anyone is changing anyone's mind.
 
 I agree the rule sucks, but I think they got a bad rule right. However, I can certainly see room to disagree. As Mike Pereira said:
 

"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," said Pereira. "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."
 

If, for whatever reason, officials don't think what he did was enough, and they all seem to agree it wasn't, I don't know what else to really say.
 
"It wasn't enough of a stretch."
"Yes it was."
"No it wasn't"
"Taste great."
"Less filling."
 
Neither side is 100% right or wrong, because that's a judgment call. Even though I was rooting for Dallas, I agree with Pereira's interpretation.
 

 

[RetractableRoof]

I believe their wording (as DrewDawg posted) was that he didn't "complete" the lunge. Whatever that means.

Fine - but the attempt is enough to constitute the move. That move separates what happened after from the initial catch and means the impact of the ball with the ground is governed by ordinary ball carrier rules.

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

As to possible rule revisions, what about this: add another provision that says a catch is deemed complete if a receiver takes two or more steps with a firm grasp of the ball.  
 
In other words,
(i) ball firmly in hand(s)
(ii) both feet down (this right here is enough for a catch to be considered in bounds)
(iii) lift one foot
(iv) put the foot down
(v) lift the other foot
(vi) put the other foot down
 
is a catch regardless of whether the guy then falls/loses the ball.  This rule would be in addition to, not instead of, the rule that you can go to the ground and maintain control throughout.
 
(If running, (v) will often occur before (iv), which would not negate the validity of the catch.)
 
Would anyone disagree that the common sense understanding of a catch is satisfied by establishing a firm grasp of the ball and then taking two complete steps without losing the firm grasp?

 

[RetractableRoof]

 Neither side is 100% right or wrong, because that's a judgment call. Even though I was rooting for Dallas, I agree with Pereira's interpretation.

That's my issue. It was called a catch on the field. If it was a judement call then it wasn't conclusive enough to overturn the on field call.

 

[DJnVa]

Fine - but the attempt is enough to constitute the move.

 

But Pereira said it wasn't enough. That's where it all becomes a judgment call. And when you believe a call should go a certain way then those judgments seem very easy to make in whatever direction you're leaning.
 
I guess thinking about it more, I'd say that if we want to be technical on everything, from the mechanics of the rule to the mechanics of replay, that, in the end, the call was right. However, I don't think it was enough to overturn.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

I think it's painting reality exclusively in primary colors to say that a play like this happens "constantly" in the NFL and "it's always incomplete". It is normal and routine for a play to be ruled incomplete due to loss of control when going to ground, but I think it's actually pretty rare to have a scenario where the receiver so clearly and obviously "caught"1 the ball (meaning, in common parlance/plain-English), took a couple steps, then bobbled it as he fell. For the record, I'm in the camp that says the rule was interpreted correctly, and it wasn't a "football catch"2(legal pass-completion, according to NFL rules).

 
He didn't catch it and take a couple steps. He caught it, got 2 feet down, stumbled and got 1 foot down going to the ground, tried to reach out (which was an amazing athletic play) and then lost control. At best it's a toss up. Most people watching this knew he really caught it, but anyone who's watched the NFL for the last 5 years shouldn't have been surprised it was overturned.
 
If you can show me a clip of Dez catching it, and taking a couple steps I'd love to see it. 
 
How many times have you seen someone go across the middle, get two feet down and then got popped by a defender and fumble the ball and it's ruled incomplete? Or a guy who gets 2 feet in and 3 feet out of bounds the ball rolls on his chest. Different variations of this but, they're all related to the same issue, a football move (which isn't in the rule book) or an act common to the game. 
 
I'm waiting for the day a receiver catches the ball, gets 2 feet in bound and runs into something on the sideline (player, bench, official, heater etc.) and he loses the ball based upon that and it's ruled incomplete. 
 
It's a shitty rule, but Dez should have caught the damn ball first. Know the rules, know your job  and take risk where needed. There was no need for him to do what he did (if he even did it intentionally which I think he did) since the worst case scenario if he caught it was 1st and goal. Instead he tried to be superman and in the best case scenario give Aaron Rodgers 3+ minutes to get into field goal range. 

 

[NortheasternPJ]

That's the crux of the matter. Blandino applied a subjective standard of a 'lunge', and imo blew the call. Change the rule, don't change it. But I believe they misapplied the standard saying he didn't lunge for the endzone.

It wasn't a judgement call though. Read the rules, it states that he must do A, B and C and Note 1: if he's going to the ground he must maintain possession. 
 
Are you saying Dez wasn't going to the ground when he caught it? If so, He probably should have taken his elite skillz and ran into the endzone. 
 
I dont see how you can see that play and maintain that he wasn't going to the ground. Whether he shifted his momentum to get into the endzone or not (which I believe is the case), he was going to the ground. 

 

[Greg29fan]

Instead he tried to be superman and in the best case scenario give Aaron Rodgers 3+ minutes to get into field goal range. 

 
See I don't have any bit of a problem with him trying to score because I think Dallas needed MORE time.  It was clear to me the defense was done stopping Aaron Rodgers.  They had no answer for Davante Adams or Quarless and Rodgers was picking them apart.  I wanted Dallas to have the ball last with a chance to win.  IMO it was the only possible way they were going to win the football game.

 

[yep]

 
...If you can show me a clip of Dez catching it, and taking a couple steps I'd love to see it...

I will leave it to the rulebook lawyers to define what constitutes a "step" in the NFL, but I could three times his feet touched the ground between putting hands on the ball and losing control of it. If we need to have a debate over the meaning of the word "step", then to me, that's exactly the problem.

 

[DJnVa]

Well, the first 2 times his feet touched the ground is called "landing".

 

[MalzoneExpress]

I will leave it to the rulebook lawyers to define what constitutes a "step" in the NFL, but I could three times his feet touched the ground between putting hands on the ball and losing control of it. If we need to have a debate over the meaning of the word "step", then to me, that's exactly the problem.

 
You guys are missing the point. He fulfilled all the requirements of a catch EXCEPT he was going to the ground and DID NOT maintain control. End of story. Give it up. The rule may suck, but the rule says that is not a "catch".

 

[Bosoxen]

You guys are missing the point. He fulfilled all the requirements of a catch EXCEPT he was going to the ground and DID NOT maintain control. End of story. Give it up. The rule may suck, but the rule says that is not a "catch".

 
I love that you're being snarky about them missing the point, meanwhile missing their point, yourself. They're trying to say that he made the proverbial "football move" by taking two "steps" and then "lunging" towards the goal line, which would negate the need to maintain possession after hitting the ground.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

I will leave it to the rulebook lawyers to define what constitutes a "step" in the NFL, but I could three times his feet touched the ground between putting hands on the ball and losing control of it. If we need to have a debate over the meaning of the word "step", then to me, that's exactly the problem.

 
A step is definitely not where he landed so at most he takes 1 step and stumbles. Due to his elite athletic ability he can reach towards the goal line, which he doesn't make. The latter point you made about "that's exactly the problem" is why this rule exists. The NFL's goal is to make nothing subjective. He was going to the ground, so therefor he could have taken 5 steps on his way to the ground and lost the ball and it's still incomplete. Dez knows the rule, he knows the situation, he made a bad decision and it cost them because he thought he could make the play and he couldn't. This is the same guy that ran onto the field with no helmet on and called the ref a motherfucker last week and got away with it and has had numerous off the field issues so we know making good decisions isn't his strength. 
 
I still haven't seen anyone here write a rule that fixes this that isn't completely subjective. 
 
If you want more subjective calls in the NFL, good luck to you. The NFL officials now can't get the non-subjective ones called right often. 

 

[NortheasternPJ]

 
I love that you're being snarky about them missing the point, meanwhile missing their point, yourself. They're trying to say that he made the proverbial "football move" by taking two "steps" and then "lunging" towards the goal line, which would negate the need to maintain possession after hitting the ground.

 
Does it negate it though? Do you think Dez could have not lunged for the endzone and run out of bounds and not fallen to the ground. he was going to the ground regardless. His third step wasn't a "football move" he basically tripped over it going to the ground and due to his freak athletic talent made a football move, he was always going to the ground.

 

[DLew On Roids]

If you want to call it a catch under the current rules, I think you'd have to be able to say that Bryant would have been able to advance the ball at the moment he has two feel down (i.e., he isn't going to ground in the process of making the catch), but his advancement was stopped by the CB's own right leg.  I just don't see how Bryant avoids going to the ground as a result of making the catch, in which case if the ball touches the ground, he's done.
 
Anyway, f*** Dallas.

 

[Bosoxen]

 
Does it negate it though? Do you think Dez could have not lunged for the endzone and run out of bounds and not fallen to the ground. he was going to the ground regardless. His third step wasn't a "football move" he basically tripped over it going to the ground and due to his freak athletic talent made a football move, he was always going to the ground.

 
By rule, the receiver performing the proverbial "football move" is thus no longer required to maintain possession of the ball when hitting the ground. So, yes, performing a "football move" does, indeed, negate what Malzone was being snarky about.
 
I'm not arguing whether Bryant did or didn't do that. I don't have the energy or desire to get into that. The Cowboys lost because of 500 other things that happened in the game. That play was just the cherry on top of the shit sundae.

 

[MalzoneExpress]

 
I love that you're being snarky about them missing the point, meanwhile missing their point, yourself. They're trying to say that he made the proverbial "football move" by taking two "steps" and then "lunging" towards the goal line, which would negate the need to maintain possession after hitting the ground.

 
I wasn't trying to be snarky. I apologize if that was what came across. 
 
The "football move" is part of Article 3 c "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.)." That's the "football move". He made a football move. That is not in question. He fulfilled that requirement. However, it makes no difference because he was GOING TO THE GROUND and the going to the ground rule take precedences. The ball hit the ground and he didn't maintain control, so it was an incomplete pass.

 

[MalzoneExpress]

 
By rule, the receiver performing the proverbial "football move" is thus no longer required to maintain possession of the ball when hitting the ground. So, yes, performing a "football move" does, indeed, negate what Malzone was being snarky about.
 
I'm not arguing whether Bryant did or didn't do that. I don't have the energy or desire to get into that. The Cowboys lost because of 500 other things that happened in the game. That play was just the cherry on top of the shit sundae.

 
The bolded is only true if the receiver is not going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. Otherwise, the "going to the ground" clause, "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,..." is controlling. 
 
For example, if a receiver is in the process of catching a pass while running (not going to the ground) and then immediately "makes a football move" (completes requirement c of the catch) and is then knocked to the ground or falls to the ground, he does not have to maintain control.
 
That is not what happened here. Dez leaps to make the contested catch, stumbles over the defensive back (contact by an opponent) and goes to the ground in the act of catching the pass. The "lunge", which was the football move that fulfilled requirement c, was while he was going to the ground, so the going to the ground clause was applied.
 
I quoted the full rule above if you need to see it.

 

[crystalline]

 
I wasn't trying to be snarky. I apologize if that was what came across. 
 
The "football move" is part of Article 3 c "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.)." That's the "football move". He made a football move. That is not in question. He fulfilled that requirement. However, it makes no difference because he was GOING TO THE GROUND and the going to the ground rule take precedences. The ball hit the ground and he didn't maintain control, so it was an incomplete pass.

When a receiver catches the ball, takes two steps, and goes to the ground and ball comes out- is that a completion?
What about three steps? Four steps? Ten steps? At some point, going to the ground *does not apply*.

Making an act common to the game is what changes the play so going to the ground goes out the window. The moment when that common act happened is a judgment call. Capisce?

You can keep saying that the whole play was a long catch with no football move in the middle, but please do not keep saying the rules make it so. There is no rule saying Bryant made no football move. Any statement to that effect is a judgment call, and when you say that you are making a judgment.

(I tend to agree with Blandino that there was no football move, but I can see how others think there was.)


--------


As someone said above, the whole reason for the rule is to reduce fumbles by receivers. You can't change the rule without increasing the number of fumbles as receivers catch the ball then drop it later. So the rule is a compromise to limit judgment calls while reducing fumbles. I doubt any better tradeoff will be found, so this rule is not going to get changed.

 

[crystalline]

Another way to frame the judgment call:
If there was really a football move, then when the ball hit the ground it was a live ball fumble which Dez recovered. If that was 3rd down and the ball had popped out when Dez whacked it on the ground, and the DB grabbed it- is it a fumble and GB ball?

I can't see that call ever being made in the NFL- it would be ruled an incompletion. Therefore to keep the rules sane, you also have to call this play (when the ball hits the ground but does not come out) not a fumble- its no possesion and thus an incompletion.

 

[MalzoneExpress]

When a receiver catches the ball, takes two steps, and goes to the ground and ball comes out- is that a completion?
What about three steps? Four steps? Ten steps? At some point, going to the ground *does not apply*.

Making an act common to the game is what changes the play so going to the ground goes out the window. The moment when that common act happened is a judgment call. Capisce?


--------


As someone said above, the whole reason for the rule is to reduce fumbles by receivers. You can't change the rule without increasing the number of fumbles as receivers catch the ball then drop it later. So the rule is a compromise to limit judgment calls while reducing fumbles. I doubt any better tradeoff will be found, so this rule is not going to get changed.

 
You are doubling down on an incorrect premise. Please stop. The rule is quoted fully above and has been applied consistently for years. It is the going to the ground that throws the "football move" out the window.

 

[crystalline]

 
You are doubling down on an incorrect premise. Please stop. The rule is quoted fully above and has been applied consistently for years. It is the going to the ground that throws the "football move" out the window.

You responded before I edited to say:

You can keep saying that the whole play was a long catch with no football move in the middle, but please do not keep saying the rules make it so. There is no rule saying Bryant made no football move. Any statement to that effect is a judgment call, and when you say that you are making a judgment.

 

[BoredViewer]

 
I love that you're being snarky about them missing the point, meanwhile missing their point, yourself. They're trying to say that he made the proverbial "football move" by taking two "steps" and then "lunging" towards the goal line, which would negate the need to maintain possession after hitting the ground.

 
I think the point of the rule, though... is he was going to the ground after grabbing the ball out of the air.  Those were 'falling to the ground steps' and his dive was an extension of that.  There was no way he wasn't going to the ground... and as such needed to maintain control through that.
 
It wasn't the same as if a guy caught a ball on the run, took 2 steps, then dove to the end zone.
 
Not saying I agree with the rule.  But it seems obvious.

 

[snowmanny]

The football move is irrelevant. Pereira mentioned it, then corrected his comments to emphasize the going to the ground aspect of the rule.

I don't think it's that bad of a rule. Learn it and tuck the damn ball away.

 

[MalzoneExpress]

You responded before I edited to say:

You can keep saying that the whole play was a long catch with no football move in the middle, but please do not keep saying the rules make it so. There is no rule saying Bryant made no football move. Any statement to that effect is a judgment call, and when you say that you are making a judgment.

 
You need to go back and read my posts. I have said all along that Bryant made a football move. But it doesn't matter because that football move occurred while he was going to the ground while making the catch. Going to the ground adds additional requirements to completing the catch.
 
A catch requires:
 
a) secure control of the ball (Bryant does this)
b) get both feet inbounds (Bryant does this)
c) maintain control of the ball long enough -- football move (Bryant does this)
 
AND if going to the ground
Item 1) maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground (Bryant DOES NOT do this)
 
If you are taking the position that Bryant was not going to the ground, you are mistaken.
 
This will be my last post on this matter. If you want to PM me for further discussion, I would be glad to continue it there.

 

[Tony C]

 
What does "he does not complete the lunge" mean? Is he still floating in mid-air? Should we be worried for Dez?
 
 

 
this needs some love...made me laugh, anyway.
 

Someone needs to explain to me what constitutes a "football move". I don't understand how tucking it, switching hands, and reaching for the pylon is not a football move. That's why I have no fucking clue how that was overturned. He took 2-3 steps and stretched, he didn't just catch it and fall. That's the beef I have with everyone saying "bad rule, good call". It seems like "terrible rule, terrible interpretation of a part of the rule". Also, how many times have we heard this year, either Mike Pereira or Mike Carey talking about how Dean Blandino "needs obvious video evidence" to overturn the call and that was a change from previous years. Tell me how it's completely obvious that he just fell after the catch?

 
I have to say I rather immediately accepted the NFL's explanation but, going through this thread and watchign some tv, even with most "experts" saying the call was a good one I've been flipped.
 
At a minimum, there's so much grey area there's no way there's the indisputable evidence necessary for the overturn. I don't even know how that last point can be debated. Just the existence of such a fervent debate is proof it's not indisputable.
 

 
Your analysis is moot because he was going to the ground. That imposes another, more stringent requirement on a catch, which is that the receiver control the ball through the contact with the ground.

 
The back and forth on if he had already established control with post catch football move(s) is well trod up above, so nothing to add there.  But I'll just add it doesn't make sense to me that in a league where "ground can't cause a fumble while being tackled" this is part of a rule. If a guy has caught the ball, as everyone seems to agree occurred, why should the ground jarring it loose matter if it doesn't matter on a fumble? I think that's part of the cognitive dissonance here -- not just that Dez clearly catches and even transfers the ball with full control while making football moves, but that the NFL seems to treat the effect of hitting the ground in very different/contradictory ways.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

 I'm waiting for the day a receiver catches the ball, gets 2 feet in bound and runs into something on the sideline (player, bench, official, heater etc.) and he loses the ball based upon that and it's ruled incomplete. 
 

That would be the fault of the official, not the rule. By definition, your player has caught the ball. Item 1 does not apply.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

 
 
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

 
This is the first part of the going to ground requirement.  It sets for a timing requirement for determining when the rule applies.  It does not set forth a step requirement, or anything else.  It asks a very straightforward question:  Was the player (1) going to the ground (2) in the act of catching a pass.
 
When is a player "in the act of catching a pass"?  The answer is, he is in the "act of catching" until he has caught the ball.  So, the entire issue here is whether the ball was a "catch" prior to the point at which Dez began to go to ground.  If yes, the going to ground requirement does not apply.  If no, then the going to ground requirement applies.  (And I hope we can all agree that if the "going to the ground" rule does apply, then he most certainly did not maintain control throughout the process of contacting the ground.)
 
That's it.  Was there a catch prior to the moment at which he began going to ground or wasn't there a catch prior to going to ground?  That's the inquiry.  For there have been a catch before he began going to ground, he would have had to have possession, both feet down, and have made an act "common to the game" before he started the process of going to the ground.  
 
In the replay, it seems very clear to me that he started to fall to the ground as his second foot hits the turf, if not earlier.  Accordingly, there can not have been a catch prior to the point at which he began going to the ground.  He was, thus, in the "act of catching a pass" at the time he started to go to ground.  The end.