Cugalabanza Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) I understand that the refs have to interpret the rule as it's written. But it's a bogus rule. I'm no Cowboys fan, but Dez deserved that one. This bull **** rule has plagued the NFL too long. The Rules Committee needs to change it this offseason. It's ridiculous that "completing the process" should include judgement on what happens to the ball AFTER the play would have been ruled dead because the player is down. Also, the term "football move" is problematic because it's utterly !@#$ing meaningless. Edited January 11, 2015 by Cugalabanza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realtruelove Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 #JustDez is served Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I fail to comprehend any of the reasoning behind that call. I hate Dallas so I won't lose sleep, I just don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Watching live I thought it was incomplete. After the replays I was convinced it was an incredible catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 The only reason he "retained possession" was the ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenboy81 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Calvin johnson rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted January 11, 2015 Author Share Posted January 11, 2015 I fail to comprehend any of the reasoning behind that call. I hate Dallas so I won't lose sleep, I just don't get it. Unfortunately, the reasoning is valid, given the language of the BS rule. But I agree with you in spirit, that every common sense understanding of the game says it was a catch. You look at the play and say YES he caught it. The play is over when his body hits the ground. The ball comes out AFTER that. Why does the NFL continue to weigh what happens after the play is over? Change the rule! Please. End this part of the game that is broken. Calvin johnson rule Yes. And every fan That I've ever talked to about it agrees that it's a bull **** rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallskiWallski83 Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) I hate Dallas and Im thrilled that theyve been eliminated.However, it passed the eye test and that was a catch. It does not make sense that you can maintain control like Dez did....then slam into the ground and have that jar the ball lose a little bit and now it becomes an incomplete pass.Anyone remember this play? Calvin Johnsons 1 handed TD vs the Bears a few years back that got overturned. This call made me remember thatIMO If you maintain control of the ball and your body lands on the ground it should be a catch and anything the ground causes after that should be considered a fumble. Edited January 11, 2015 by TallskiWallski83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 The ball hit the ground and came loose, in other words: incomplete pass. Watching live I thought it was incomplete. After the replays I was convinced it was an incredible catch. Same here. In real time you can see the ball hit the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba Gump Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 The ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incomplete pass. NFL rules are goofy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterpan Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 The ball never really came lose. He hit the ground an the ball shifted but never left his hand. Then dezrolled over and re-grasped the ball batter. He never lost the ball. Common sense says that's an obvious catch and the rule needs to be fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 The way Mike P. Explained it makes it worse, that it was never a question of control of the ball. He had control, and that is a given. The completing the action is the issue, and more specifically performing a football move. Apparently 3 steps, switch hands, and extending are not football moves. The ground can cause an incompletion for a ball not in control or possession of the receiver. That makes sense to me. But the ground cannot cause an incompletion for somebody with control of the football, because that would be a fumble, hence control. (Note: ground can't cause a fumble) Gaining/maintaining control aren't the issues, it was he did not extend far enough to perform a football move. The move is up for debate not the control, which makes little to no sense to me. The ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incomplete pass. NFL rules are goofy. It makes sense to me, think of it this way, the ground can only end a play, not extend it. Ground is a dead zone, so by fumbling due to the ground, would keep the play alive, while bouncing off te turf on a reception would also end the play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JESSEFEFFER Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Stevie Johnson vs. Miami, December of 2012. I tried to find the video but couldn't. Pretty much the same so I figured it would be incomplete and would have been angry if it weren't. Yes, I hold grudges that long. If attempting to make a catch while off balance and falling to the ground, the ball must still be secured after player contacts the ground. Only difference is the ball actually touched the ground during the process so it negated the "recatch." What I have a problem with is when they invoke this rule in such instances and an action by a defender caused the ball to be dislodged after an element to end the play has occurred (knee down, out-of-bounds, etc.) I think that was what was wrong with the similar call involving Goodwin last year (Bengals game?) He went to the ground, rolled over and the defender dislodged it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LyM--o1R98 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The easy answer is its to simplify the call for refs and gain consistency. If you catch the ball, hold the ball. If it comes out, it's not a catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I remember a Bills game last year, I think KC? and it was Goodwin? on the receiving end. He had control all the way throughout and as he was rolling up to his feet the DB knocked the ball away. I agree need to be changed and think the NFL will address in the offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 whether or not you like this call -- id be curious what people think the rule SHOULD be, and if they think itll avoid any hazy areas or judgement calls if switched? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 whether or not you like this call -- id be curious what people think the rule SHOULD be, and if they think itll avoid any hazy areas or judgement calls if switched? i totally agree with this. people bitching about the rule fail to offer how it SHOULD be codified. and for every spectacular near-catch like yesterday, the rule susses out a dozen bogus catches along the way. there's really no other way to write the rule without leaving A LOT to subjectivity. and quite frankly, if it was my team, and fractions of an inch and hundredths of a second separated me from a conference championship game, i'd want any and all subjectivity summarily eliminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 i totally agree with this. people bitching about the rule fail to offer how it SHOULD be codified. and for every spectacular near-catch like yesterday, the rule susses out a dozen bogus catches along the way. there's really no other way to write the rule without leaving A LOT to subjectivity. and quite frankly, if it was my team, and fractions of an inch and hundredths of a second separated me from a conference championship game, i'd want any and all subjectivity summarily eliminated. its a tough spot, because you want to get everything right, but then you have to govern for infinite possibilities, and then we get a rulebook that is too big to comprehend. and then we complain that the refs are either inconsistent or cant possibly process all we are asking of them. this rule i think was meant to simplify and create a bright line standard - did the ball move or not. it wont always pass the "you know it when you see it" test for everybody, but do we want to switch it to the refs making that judgement? or whats the alternative? i think its an interesting conversation (more interesting than debating this single play, honestly -- dez shouldve held on instead of reaching out. he took a risk and he lost on it this time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Doesn't this balance out the gift they got the previous week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 i totally agree with this. people bitching about the rule fail to offer how it SHOULD be codified. and for every spectacular near-catch like yesterday, the rule susses out a dozen bogus catches along the way. there's really no other way to write the rule without leaving A LOT to subjectivity. and quite frankly, if it was my team, and fractions of an inch and hundredths of a second separated me from a conference championship game, i'd want any and all subjectivity summarily eliminated. This is the exact issue IMO. A different officiating crews possibly sees that differently and that is called a catch. Hell the same crew can call that a catch on a different day. It is, like you mentioned too subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The ball hit the ground and came loose, in other words: incomplete pass. Same here. In real time you can see the ball hit the ground. He took 3 steps after he caught the ball before he hit the ground......I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 This is the exact issue IMO. A different officiating crews possibly sees that differently and that is called a catch. Hell the same crew can call that a catch on a different day. It is, like you mentioned too subjective. I actually didn't mention it but you're right. It's already too subjective but it's damn near impossible to change the rule without making it WAY too subjective. In this case, true to the OP, what's subjective is what referees consider "the process." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 http://www.profootballreferee.com/1912/college-football-officiating-101-catchno-catch/ College rule, Any better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 not a cowchoke fan, but he got robbed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) They changed the "shove WR out of bounds rule" to make it 100% objective. Why not do that with this ground rule? If you have possession and get two feet (or elbow or butt...) down in bounds, it's a catch. The end. If the ball comes out after that, it's a fumble. Probably a rule change coming this off season. Edited January 12, 2015 by Observer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homey D. Clown Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 He didn't maintain possession falling to the ground... I don't see the confusion. when he hit the ground, the ball popped free. incomplete. Dez whining and crying. Homey very happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 He didn't maintain possession falling to the ground... I don't see the confusion. when he hit the ground, the ball popped free. incomplete. Dez whining and crying. Homey very happy. ? He had clear possession, 3 feet down, and an elbow...THEN the ball hit the ground and came out. The rule makes no sense. They can remove all the garbage in the interpretation and just say possession plus feet (elbow, butt) = catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 He didn't maintain possession falling to the ground... I don't see the confusion. when he hit the ground, the ball popped free. incomplete. Dez whining and crying. Homey very happy. So the ground cant cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The easy answer is its to simplify the call for refs and gain consistency. If you catch the ball, hold the ball. If it comes out, it's not a catch. Its also the smart answer. The NFL rules have passed the point of being even ridiculous, and are about 90% of the reason for the inconsistency and complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Calvin johnson rule Hehehe .... AKA Poetic Justice What needs to be changed is that stupid rule about ineligible receivers. NE clearly used that rule to make it appear that an ineligible skill-position player was actually eligible thereby tying up coverage resources. Otherwise he wouldn't have been split. Typical NE, bending rules outside the scope of their intent to favor them. I'm confident that they won't win the Super Bowl and right now Indy's playing better, so we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Hehehe .... AKA Poetic Justice What needs to be changed is that stupid rule about ineligible receivers. NE clearly used that rule to make it appear that an ineligible skill-position player was actually eligible thereby tying up coverage resources. Otherwise he wouldn't have been split. Typical NE, bending rules outside the scope of their intent to favor them. I'm confident that they won't win the Super Bowl and right now Indy's playing better, so we'll see. I would hope Buffalo would do the same thing. I consider that smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fast*eddie Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 "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." I believe the announcers brought up the "Calvin Johnson Rule" . Also Dez didn't have complete control of the ball while taking steps . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pondslider Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 So the ground cant cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion? Yes always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Its also the smart answer. The NFL rules have passed the point of being even ridiculous, and are about 90% of the reason for the inconsistency and complaints. I'm sorry, but simplifying the rule leaves much more to interpretation. For clarity, see how soccer has written the rules of the game. They're intentionally vague and concise, and the open-interpretation is what has lead to different styles of plays from league to league since the rules are enforced completely different in Italy compared to Germany compared to the U.S. compared to England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 ? He had clear possession, 3 feet down, and an elbow...THEN the ball hit the ground and came out. The rule makes no sense. They can remove all the garbage in the interpretation and just say possession plus feet (elbow, butt) = catch. he was stumbling to the ground and when he hit it popped loose. the rule says if going to the ground the ball cant pop loose. it seems simple? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 he was stumbling to the ground and when he hit it popped loose. the rule says if going to the ground the ball cant pop loose. it seems simple? In theory knees and elbow was down. I never got why that doesn't end the play right there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BILLS_ROC Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Here's why the rule doens't make sense. If you run into the end zone with the ball, and are not tackled, therefore never hit the ground it is a touchdown. In fact it's a touchdown the moment the ball breaks the plane. So if you have the ball at a point that it has crossed the plane regardless of if you have completed the process of hitting the ground the touchdown should have already been ruled at the point tha the ball crossed the plane in Dez's posession or the moment Cal Johnson had two feet down. Having posession of the ball in the endzone should be a touchdown regardless of what happens next or else they need to say that anyone that scores a touchdown still needs to be tackled! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 In theory knees and elbow was down. I never got why that doesn't end the play right there because they are saying that possession isnt established until the fall is complete. that simply having it for an instant isnt enough, that you demonstrate you actually fully controlled it. saw a ref discussing it that said they used to always tell player that when they score, before they spike/spin/celebrate however to hold the ball out to show the official. that it was an easy way to eliminate ANY possible grey area as a similar example despite the play ending immediately on possession in the end zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pondslider Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Here's why the rule doens't make sense. If you run into the end zone with the ball, and are not tackled, therefore never hit the ground it is a touchdown. In fact it's a touchdown the moment the ball breaks the plane. So if you have the ball at a point that it has crossed the plane regardless of if you have completed the process of hitting the ground the touchdown should have already been ruled at the point tha the ball crossed the plane in Dez's posession or the moment Cal Johnson had two feet down. Having posession of the ball in the endzone should be a touchdown regardless of what happens next or else they need to say that anyone that scores a touchdown still needs to be tackled! If you catch the ball in the air and then come down and the ball hits the ground like it did yesterday then it would not be a TD. Edited January 12, 2015 by Pondslider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 because they are saying that possession isnt established until the fall is complete. that simply having it for an instant isnt enough, that you demonstrate you actually fully controlled it. saw a ref discussing it that said they used to always tell player that when they score, before they spike/spin/celebrate however to hold the ball out to show the official. that it was an easy way to eliminate ANY possible grey area as a similar example despite the play ending immediately on possession in the end zone. This is PRECISELY what happened to Megatron. It appears from replays that the release of the ball was entirely voluntary. And again, for every play like that, for every play like yesterday's, there are a dozen other would-be catches that are rightfully overturned with A LOT less grey area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts