What is a catch? Even players are confused.

[snowmanny]

Ignoring the going to the ground crap, if that play happens at midfield and Dez is reaching for a 1st down, you dont think thats called a catch and fumble?

If he wasn't going to the ground it would be a different play altogether. There is a specific section of the rules that applies to a player catching a ball and going to the ground. Maybe the rule should be if a player has control of the ball when he had two feet on the ground its a catch no matter what else happens, but it's not.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

If the rules are this hard for everyone to interpret/fully understand, then something is really wrong the rule book.

Football ain't beanbag.

 

[DJnVa]

Funny that yesterday we all had a very strict and literal reading of the eligible/ineligible rules, but today some people want to interpret this pretty clear call by what "should be a catch if we ignore the technical readings of the actual rulebook".

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Funny that yesterday we all had a very strict and literal reading of the eligible/ineligible rules, but today some people want to interpret this pretty clear call by what "should be a catch if we ignore the technical readings of the actual rulebook".

And many are Patriots fans who all know pretty well the position of winning a playoff game according to a clear rule that, from the way it looked, is something that many people don't think should be the rule.

These discussions always end up with people talking past each other where one is talking about applying the rule to the action in a video and another (knowingly or not) is bringing elements of "should it be the rule" into the equation.

I just hope the 2015 going to the ground Packers don't end up like the tuck rule Pats. Because if the Packers beat the Patriots this year there are going to be a whole lot of us wishing Dez has held on to the ball instead of trying for the TD.

 

[SoxFan58]

If the rules are this hard for everyone to interpret/fully understand, then something is really wrong the rule book.

Here's the thing though the rule is very easy to understand. It's just a terrible rule.

There's a fundamental difference between a blown call and a bad rule interpreted correctly.

 

[SoxFan58]

Funny you say that because I did go back and watch that play earlier today and it is way more egregious, no doubt.

I don't think the rule book language is clear on when the process of a catch begins and ends. In both today's game and the Calvin Johnson game I think if you looked at a still photograph of the receiver standing upright with the ball in his hands and both feet in bounds you'd say that receiver had completed the process of catching the ball.

I'm not quite sure I follow your point regarding still photos. There's a reason the rule doesn't say its a catch if you have it in your hands for 1/100th of a second.

 

[lexrageorge]

Here's the thing though the rule is very easy to understand. It's just a terrible rule.

There's a fundamental difference between a blown call and a bad rule interpreted correctly.

How would you like the rule to read?

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

How would you like the rule to read?

I'm curious what the problem would be if they just got rid of the going to ground rule completely. A catch is possession, two feet (or other body part) and a football move. Why is going to the ground a special case in the first place?

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

I think the issue is consistency. If you leap like Dez did, you've got 10 feet before you hit the ground. If you catch it like Amendola yesterday, you've got 1 inch. The underlying consistency is if you can control it once you and/or the ball hits the ground, its a catch. If you can't, its not. But when you've got a guy getting it 10 feet from the ground and then losing it when he hits the ground, he didn't secure it and/or control it, so its not a catch. 

I get why they have it, but I'm not confident you can draw a line on the way down that can be consistently enforced. The length of time is immediate in real time, so its a tough call if you try to write a rule that moves the line on the control aspect.

 

[Plympton91]

This is basically the Tuck rule all over again, but the NFL can't really change it.

Then the NFL should remove the F from its acronym, because if that isn't a catch, then that wasn't a football game.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

The bigger problem is guys like Dez not knowing the rule and basically making a dumb play. If he theoretically had it on the way down, at one point with both hands, he forgave that security by reaching for the goal line with one hand with 4:40  left in the game. He should be coached better on how to handle that "to the ground" situation, which means clutch it with both hands, and roll as you land so the ball doesn't hit the ground. And by listening to his post game comments, he does not understand the rule and neither does Jerry Jones despite the fact that his son is on the competition committee. 
 
The rule isn't new. Calvin Johnson's catch was a big billboard for this situation and there is no excuse to not understanding the level of ball security needed in that situation. I guarantee you the Pats receivers are aware, and this is on Dallas as an organization IMO. 
 
Coach your team to play by the rules as written. 

 

[Dehere]

I *think* the rule was written mostly to address sliding or diving catches where it can be really difficult even with replay to determine when possession is established. The rule doesn't really exist to address leaping catches where the receiver then falls down.

Not sure that the rule necessarily needs to exist either but think it does make a little more sense in the context of a sliding catch where the receiver chooses to go to the ground.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

I think if they wanted to distinguish a sliding catch from one where the feet come down on the way to the ground, they would have made adjustments after the Calvin Johnson catch few years ago. I think the NFL is clear on wanting this to apply on any "to the ground" reception. 

 

[SoxFan58]

How would you like the rule to read?

Way above my pay scale and the team I root for benefitted from the call today. You'll have to excuse me for not wanting to rewrite the rule book at this time.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

If we can drop the league dictionary definitions for a second, does anyone believe he didn't catch the ball? I'd love to talk to someone who genuinely thinks he didn't catch it.

Transcendental, man. You're asking whether anyone believes it is not a catch if the word "catch" has no specified meaning. Far out. In the absence of rules, "catch" means whatever the hell Dez Bryant wanted it to mean. He had the ball.

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

This is not a terrible rule, and it wasn't arrived at in the first draft of the rules. A previous problem was making consistent, fair rulings on balls dislodged from receivers immediately upon having both feet down. Fumble or incomplete pass? In this case, the rule was applied as written (namely, Item 1 trumping the third criteria of a "catch"). I'm curious of the proposals to modify the rule.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

Exactly. What I saw were two distinct acts. He had possession with both feet in bounds, then tripped over the defender and went to the ground, and was down by contact before the ball even hit the ground. It was a legal catch before he went to the ground. Not a fan if either team FWIW.

I thought he went to the ground in one single motion, but at least we're having the correct discussion.

 

[fiskful of dollars]

My feeling is that he had clear possession, then had two feet down and, while falling, made a football move (lunge toward the goal-line). The lunge dislodged the ball but he maintained possession through the catch. I believe the rule requires that a player going to ground must control the ball (if it hits the ground) entirely through the whole process. The issue is when has a catch been completed v. going to ground in the act of a catch. In this case I really can see either interpretation. I agree with others who have likened this to the Tuck Rule..proper interpretation of a flawed rule. Brutal call for Dallas, though. Great effort by Dez.

 

[lexrageorge]

My feeling is that he had clear possession, then had two feet down and, while falling, made a football move (lunge toward the goal-line). The lunge dislodged the ball but he maintained possession through the catch. I believe the rule requires that a player going to ground must control the ball (if it hits the ground) entirely through the whole process. The issue is when has a catch been completed v. going to ground in the act of a catch. In this case I really can see either interpretation. I agree with others who have likened this to the Tuck Rule..proper interpretation of a flawed rule. Brutal call for Dallas, though. Great effort by Dez.

And this is the problem with changing the rule.
 
I've looked at that replay a number of times, and I don't believe it's possible to tell whether Bryant "maintained possession through the catch", or whether the ball was dislodged solely because he lunged forward, or something in between.  In real time, it would be impossible for any official to make that judgment call with any degree of success.  So the rule was designed to make it clear:  a receiver going to the ground must maintain control the entire time, no matter the reason for his going to the ground.  
 
If you think the rule is flawed, that means you have some idea how the rule should read instead.  Any thoughts on how you think it should read?  

 

[johnmd20]

The bigger problem is guys like Dez not knowing the rule and basically making a dumb play. If he theoretically had it on the way down, at one point with both hands, he forgave that security by reaching for the goal line with one hand with 4:40  left in the game. He should be coached better on how to handle that "to the ground" situation, which means clutch it with both hands, and roll as you land so the ball doesn't hit the ground. And by listening to his post game comments, he does not understand the rule and neither does Jerry Jones despite the fact that his son is on the competition committee. 
 
The rule isn't new. Calvin Johnson's catch was a big billboard for this situation and there is no excuse to not understanding the level of ball security needed in that situation. I guarantee you the Pats receivers are aware, and this is on Dallas as an organization IMO. 
 
Coach your team to play by the rules as written. 

 
This is a good post. If Dez had clear possession, he should have held the ball and rolled over. Because he has to finish the play, according to the rules. He has to. This isn't a grey area, the rule about going to the ground is very clear. He didn't do this. He went for the home run and, in doing so, he whiffed. It was a poor decision, considering the fact that it was 4th down and he was on the 1. An incomplete pass is a disaster at that point.
 
Live by the ref, die by the ref. Seriously, though, DeMarco Murry is bailed out by this story for his horrific fumble on that play where he had about 43,000 yards of open space in front of him. That was the game changing play.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

 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 to the ground, 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.

So that we're all comparing apples to apples...

What do you change or modify? Have at it.

 

[Greg29fan]

Despite what happened I want Dez to try to score there 10 times out of 10 - he's the best receiver in the league at getting the ball in the end zone and I want him to do it at any time, but especially down five late in the fourth quarter.  
 
Yes the Cowboys have DeMarco Murray and you'd think they'd be able to get one or two yards (plus the added bonus of running some clock), but I don't want to take any chances at that point, get the lead and go from there.
 
What happened didn't end the game, so I disagree about taking a risk.  Was it a huge play?  Obviously, but Dallas still had Green Bay third and two and third and 11 after that with plenty of time left and couldn't get them off the field.

 

[Dehere]

So that we're all comparing apples to apples...

What do you change or modify? Have at it.

In article 3 prior to Note 1 add "The act of catching a pass is completed at the moment all three of these requirements are met."

In yesterday's case the third requirement would not be met by the lunge but by the step Dez took after getting both feet down.

 

[Hagios]

I don't see any way that was a catch, whether by a literal reading of the rules or by appealing to the spirit of the rules of what should and should not be a catch. He trapped the ball against the ground. 

 

[ragnarok725]

Transcendental, man. You're asking whether anyone believes it is not a catch if the word "catch" has no specified meaning. Far out. In the absence of rules, "catch" means whatever the hell Dez Bryant wanted it to mean. He had the ball.

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

This is not a terrible rule, and it wasn't arrived at in the first draft of the rules. A previous problem was making consistent, fair rulings on balls dislodged from receivers immediately upon having both feet down. Fumble or incomplete pass? In this case, the rule was applied as written (namely, Item 1 trumping the third criteria of a "catch"). I'm curious of the proposals to modify the rule.

 
The goal of the rules is to codify the common intuitive understanding of what a "catch" is into a definition that can be evaluated by officials. If a correct rule violates our intuitive understanding of whether or not someone caught the ball, isn't that a problem? In the absence of the rules, "catch" means whatever all of us want it to mean, and the rules are supposed to be the version of it that makes, no? If there are enough people here that Dez didn't really catch the ball, then I'd agree that the rule isn't so bad. But if you can't find anyone who'd overturn that in the backyard, then there's something wrong with the rule.
 
In terms of what we'd need to do to rewrite the rule to satisfy Calvin Johnson's case (and Dez's case yesterday), I'd probably broaden the definition of a "move common to the game". Dez got a third foot down, moved the ball to his left hand, and reached for the end zone. That's at least two acts common to the game if you ask me (changing arms, reaching the ball out), and probably the prime gap between my intuition and the rule as written. You could argue Johnson's 180 degree spin, and moving the ball from two hands to just one before (intentionally) dropping it on the ground would be an act common to the game. That clause is already a judgement call, and if you broaden the definition enough to ensue these head-scratchers don't occur, I think the rules then map better to intuition.

 

[Norm Siebern]

 
According to the NFL, this is no longer a catch. For that matter, Jerry Kramer is ruled offside in today's NFL, and Bart Starr never sneaks over in 1967.
 
When the focus becomes anything other than the remarkable athletic skill of the competitors, the sport is dying.
 
What I despise about this whole ridiculous call is this: Bryant's catch was a magnificent athletic performance, at the most important of times in the waning moments of a great football game. It was a remarkable athletic, balletic, feat. And then, because of microanalysis, none of which has anything to do wiith athletics, that feat is wiped out. What is next, teams hiring legions of lawyers to argue the point? A Crossfire like program? The Zapruder film frame by frame breakdown? 
 
The reason I watch sports is because I love the compoetition, and the remarkable athletic feats and mental strategies and just sheer willpower that is evident. If I want to watch people micro-analyzing in another bureaucratic layer of argumentation, I will turn on C-Span. Unless the NFL cuts this crap out, they will lose interest, and viewership, and eventually money. Not next week. Not at Katy Perry's Super Bowl. But they will, eventually lose. When the focus becomes anything otehr than the remarkable athletic skill of the competitors, the sport is dying. If Goodell wants to truly "protect the shield" this will stop.

 

[cromulence]

This really isn't as complex as some people are making it. First of all, stop saying that he took two/three steps. It doesn't matter anyways since he was going to the ground, but even if you wanted to try to count those steps and call them a football move, he actually bobbles the ball just a bit as his feet hit the ground. There's no way to claim that the "going to the ground" part of the rule shouldn't apply - once you consider that bobble, the amount of time between him securing possession and hitting the ground is clearly not enough for him to have made a football move. Also, full disclosure, I hate the Cowboys and Dez Bryant and couldn't be happier about how this happened.

 

[johnmd20]

 
According to the NFL, this is no longer a catch. For that matter, Jerry Kramer is ruled offside in today's NFL, and Bart Starr never sneaks over in 1967.
 
When the focus becomes anything other than the remarkable athletic skill of the competitors, the sport is dying.
 
What I despise about this whole ridiculous call is this: Bryant's catch was a magnificent athletic performance, at the most important of times in the waning moments of a great football game. It was a remarkable athletic, balletic, feat. And then, because of microanalysis, none of which has anything to do wiith athletics, that feat is wiped out. What is next, teams hiring legions of lawyers to argue the point? A Crossfire like program? The Zapruder film frame by frame breakdown? 
 
The reason I watch sports is because I love the compoetition, and the remarkable athletic feats and mental strategies and just sheer willpower that is evident. If I want to watch people micro-analyzing in another bureaucratic layer of argumentation, I will turn on C-Span. Unless the NFL cuts this crap out, they will lose interest, and viewership, and eventually money. Not next week. Not at Katy Perry's Super Bowl. But they will, eventually lose. When the focus becomes anything otehr than the remarkable athletic skill of the competitors, the sport is dying. If Goodell wants to truly "protect the shield" this will stop.

 
Swann made that catch and held onto the ball while falling to the ground. Not sure what you're talking about there.
 
The rest is all just a great big "get off my lawn" complaint. Dez didn't complete the catch. Just like Calvin Johnson didn't a few years ago. Amazing athletic play aside, it still wasn't a catch. I'm not sure why it should be a catch just because it looked cool.

 

[DJnVa]

Every single actual rules official I've seen, heard, read, has said the exact same thing.
 

• the steps he's taking when he lands DO NOT constitute a football move. So, as much as some might want it do, it doesn't. Again, every official has said this.
• since the steps do not count, that means he's going to ground and must maintain possession. He doesn't. The ball hits the ground and pops up in the air.
• even if you want to count the lunge as a football move HE DOES NOT COMPLETE THE LUNGE. That's why the ball comes out. The whole "make a football move" hinges on the player completing that move. That's why they want to count the steps as a completed move.

 

[Bosoxen]

 
Every single actual rules official I've seen, heard, read, has said the exact same thing.
 

• the steps he's taking when he lands DO NOT constitute a football move. So, as much as some might want it do, it doesn't. Again, every official has said this.
• since the steps do not count, that means he's going to ground and must maintain possession. He doesn't. The ball hits the ground and pops up in the air.
• even if you want to count the lunge as a football move HE DOES NOT COMPLETE THE LUNGE. That's why the ball comes out. The whole "make a football move" hinges on the player completing that move. That's why they want to count the steps as a completed move.

 

 
What does "he does not complete the lunge" mean? Is he still floating in mid-air? Should we be worried for Dez?
 
The ball came out because he hit that hard surface known as Earth, not because he didn't "complete the lunge". I'm not going to get into the debate regarding whether the lunge is a football move or not because, frankly, what's the point? I'm really just curious what the bolded and underlined statement is supposed to mean.

 

[DJnVa]

Maybe it's bad wording, but I think we're saying the same thing--the ball popped out when his arm, while lunging, hit the ground. Had it not popped up he would have completed the lunge/made a football move.
 
Also, lunge is a word that starts to sounds weird when you say it a lot.
 
But yeah, it doesn't matter, because according to the officials, the play never really progressed that far.

 

[teddykgb]

I don't think there's any doubt that the rule was likely applied correctly in this situation.  Every rules official probably should be in agreement especially after the Calvin incident.  But the rule sucked then and it sucks now.  I'm amazed that anyone can watch a replay of that and feel that a "spirit of the rules" analysis would deem that not a catch.  He transfers the ball to one hand, palms it, and reaches for the goal line.  He absolutely controlled that ball and was making a football move.  We've arrived at a point where we've written a bunch of rules that somehow make that not a "completed football move" or whatever other things people will point to in a rulebook, but it's continually talking past each other to point to the rulebook definition.
 
If your position is that the rule is perfect, then there really is very little to discuss.  But I agree wholeheartedly with Norm above that this is a very big issue for the league.  The constant flags and need for slow motion replays for interpretations of the rules is NOT a good product.  That each TV station has had to hire ex refs to de mystify the rulebook is not making for a good product.
 
I'm not in any way a Cowboys fan and I think Dez Bryant as an ahole.  But he's an ahole who made a great catch yesterday and it makes it impossible for me to watch these games when it doesn't feel like the competition is about the players making plays.

 

[DJnVa]

Oh, I think the rule kinda sucks, but I just don't know any way to make it better. There could be a way, but I haven't heard anyone suggest it.

 

[Jungleland]

I just can't agree with any argument that says the Calvin Johnson play shouldn't have been a catch if the rules were perfect. I'm in complete agreement that both instances were a correct application of the rules, and that the rules are like they are to avoid more troubling gray area elsewhere, but that doesn't mean as a fan I have to like it. Spot on, teddkgb.
 
I'd like the rule to be an eloquently stated version of something like this: "If a receiver has full control (i.e secured with no movement) of the ball through the act of two feet contacting the ground in the field of play, the ground cannot cause an incompletion. If the receiver loses the ball before he is downed, provided there has been a single act common to the game (which would include a third step or the secure transfer of the ball from one hand to another), it is a fumble."

 

[RetractableRoof]

My take on this...

1) That was a hell of a catch (and contrary to the refs/league review it WAS a catch).
2) That catch had it stood wouldn't have been iconic but given the stage would have been talked about for a long time. Now it will be talked about for a long time for the wrong reasons.
3) Blandino mentions in a number of coversations w/talking heads that they considered whether he had made a move common to football to separate the catch and landing into a catch and then separate activity but didn't think his lunge was clearly a lunge. This is wrong on so many levels.
a) he switched the ball in his hands in order to get it to his outside hand away from the defender.
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.
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).
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.
e) combining all those things it was clear he was making a common football act of lunging toward the endzone. It is a lot to review - but with review the league put itself in a position of saying it was going to get the calls right - and they didn't. They said there wasn't enough proof of a move - except there was plenty if you know how the body and gravity work and how elite athletes in desperate moments try to act. The league failed. And if they couldn't be 100% sure - the call on the field should have stood. Instead they took a 1st and goal from a team that had earned it - and discarded an amazing athletic feat that should have been celebrated - (one of the league strengths).
f) Zapruder film indeed.
4) How to change the rule... I don't know - but maybe if we only require 2 feet down on sideline catches - then we say a 3rd foot down in the field of play (perceived stumbling or not) automatically qualifies as a football move. Not sure of the impact of that change - I'd have to think on the scenarios they had when they created this rule.

 

[Auger34]

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?

 

[Hagios]

My take on this...

1) That was a hell of a catch (and contrary to the refs/league review it WAS a catch).
2) That catch had it stood wouldn't have been iconic but given the stage would have been talked about for a long time. Now it will be talked about for a long time for the wrong reasons.
3) Blandino mentions in a number of coversations w/talking heads that they considered whether he had made a move common to football to separate the catch and landing into a catch and then separate activity but didn't think his lunge was clearly a lunge. This is wrong on so many levels.
a) he switched the ball in his hands in order to get it to his outside hand away from the defender.
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.
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).
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.
e) combining all those things it was clear he was making a common football act of lunging toward the endzone. It is a lot to review - but with review the league put itself in a position of saying it was going to get the calls right - and they didn't. They said there wasn't enough proof of a move - except there was plenty if you know how the body and gravity work and how elite athletes in desperate moments try to act. The league failed. And if they couldn't be 100% sure - the call on the field should have stood. Instead they took a 1st and goal from a team that had earned it - and discarded an amazing athletic feat that should have been celebrated - (one of the league strengths).
f) Zapruder film indeed.
4) How to change the rule... I don't know - but maybe if we only require 2 feet down on sideline catches - then we say a 3rd foot down in the field of play (perceived stumbling or not) automatically qualifies as a football move. Not sure of the impact of that change - I'd have to think on the scenarios they had when they created this rule.

 
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.

 

[Auger34]

Correct me if I'm wrong but all the people pointing to the Calvin catch didn't he catch the ball then land and fall? No steps were taken, no lunge made. THAT was the correct application of a fucking awful rule. This was not

 

[DJnVa]

Someone needs to explain to me what constitutes a "football move".

 

Well, the steps weren't. They were part of his catch, not a separate move. So, if that *isn't* a football move, what is? You say he reached towards the pylon--yes, but that's when he lost the ball (as his arm hit ground), so he didn't complete that move. It's not attempting a "football move", it's completing one.
 
And it's obvious he fell as part of the catch because otherwise you seem to be saying he could jump like that and just STICK the landing like a gymnast. There's no way. He was clearly off balance and went to the ground, which triggered everything that followed.

 

[JerBear]

Correct me if I'm wrong but all the people pointing to the Calvin catch didn't he catch the ball then land and fall? No steps were taken, no lunge made. THAT was the correct application of a fucking awful rule. This was not

The Calvin catch that triggered the first adjustment of the wording of this play is in this article.
 
http://thebiglead.com/2010/09/12/calvin-johnson-and-the-going-to-the-ground-rule/

 

[Kevin Youkulele]

I *think* the rule was written mostly to address sliding or diving catches where it can be really difficult even with replay to determine when possession is established. The rule doesn't really exist to address leaping catches where the receiver then falls down.

Not sure that the rule necessarily needs to exist either but think it does make a little more sense in the context of a sliding catch where the receiver chooses to go to the ground.

The other thing the rule addresses is this sequence:
 
Receiver "catches" the ball
Defender hits receiver hard
Receiver falls and ball comes out before the receiver is technically down
 
The league, with its offense-friendly rule set, doesn't want to treat this as a fumble; if it did, there would be a significant chilling effect on the passing game.  The only other thing it can be is an incompletion.  So the rule extends the duration of "the act of the catch" long enough that the pass can be rendered incomplete by something that occurs after the receiver has what most of us would regard as possession.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Correct me if I'm wrong but all the people pointing to the Calvin catch didn't he catch the ball then land and fall? No steps were taken, no lunge made. THAT was the correct application of a fucking awful rule. This was not

Calvin took 4 choppy steps spinning to the ground. Had the ball in one hand with clear control until he touched the ground with it and it came out.
 
Here is the link, but with the NFL links sometimes you don't go to the actual video. Google "Calvin Johnson control" and follow the link from there if this doesn't work.

 

[RetractableRoof]

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.

It isn't moot - Blandino specifically said they considered whether his lunge qualified as a common football move - if it was moot he wouldn't have considered it. I'm simply illustrating that the football move was clearly there, meaning their conclusion was wrong.

 

[fairlee76]

No. If he hasn't established possession (and he hasn't which is why this conversation is happening) the ball cannot touch the ground. The pic at the top of that link shows the ball AFTER it touched the ground. The second gif shows it hit the ground. Ball touching ground, without established possession, means incomplete.
 
Can't pause it at exact right moment:

 
Also, the article you're pointing to says the opposite of what you're saying.

Yeah.  Great effort and all by Dez, but I thought the ball pretty clearly hit the ground before he firmly established possession.

 

[yep]

To me, the most interesting part of this whole debacle is the question of how the rule should be worded.
 
It seems like this requirement to maintain control while "going to ground" was meant to draw a bright line excluding sloppy ball-swatting stuff from being counted as a completion. That makes a kind of sense, at least on paper. We want a rule worded in such a way that requires a catch to be really caught, and real-world football produces a lot of spectacularly complex and dynamic movements, that can lead to a lot of rulebook-lawyering. 
 
It seems a kind of byproduct of fact that football requires a binary differentiation of a "completed pass". Most sports rules seems to be kind of empirical; things like which side of a line you're on, who touched what first, whether the ball was on the ground, etc. Not that those rules never lead to barstool debates, but football seems to have a uniquely high proportion of difficult-to-define game events. 
 
I don't personally know how the rule should be written, and maybe things like the definition of a completed pass are just intrinsically not perfectible. But I agree with those who say that the amount of rulebook-lawyering that happens in football is not good for the game. Bad calls, bad sightlines, and errors of judgement will happen, but the "correct" ruling should be at least knowable on, a consensus basis. If you have to debate the meaning of fuzzy concepts like "football move" and "going to ground" and so on, then it seems to me that the gridlines are not painted cleanly enough on the field. 

 

[Dehere]

Well, the steps weren't. They were part of his catch, not a separate move. So, if that *isn't* a football move, what is? You say he reached towards the pylon--yes, but that's when he lost the ball (as his arm hit ground), so he didn't complete that move. It's not attempting a "football move", it's completing one.

 
Read the rule as quoted upthread by Fred in Lynn. It specifically mentions that the player doesn't have to complete a football move, only that they maintain possession long enough to attempt one.
 
It's not attempting or completing the move, it's maintaining possession for long enough to allow one to make a move.

 

[Hagios]

It isn't moot - Blandino specifically said they considered whether his lunge qualified as a common football move - if it was moot he wouldn't have considered it. I'm simply illustrating that the football move was clearly there, meaning their conclusion was wrong.

 
Maybe Blandino considered it simply to dispose of it as an argument. His tweet said it all: 
 
"Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete."
 
http://twitter.com/DeanBlandino/status/554387681015107584

 

[RetractableRoof]

Maybe Blandino considered it simply to dispose of it as an argument. His tweet said it all: 
 
"Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete."
 
http://twitter.com/DeanBlandino/status/554387681015107584

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.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

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

 

[ragnarok725]

 
Maybe Blandino considered it simply to dispose of it as an argument. His tweet said it all: 
 
"Bryant going to the ground. By rule he must hold onto it throughout entire process of contacting the ground. He didn't so it is incomplete."
 
http://twitter.com/DeanBlandino/status/554387681015107584

 
No, his tweet does not say it all. The only reason he must hold onto it throughout the entire process of contacting the ground is because nothing, in his estimation, before that constituted a move common to the game. If it did, then the going to the ground part of the rule is moot.

 

[Hagios]

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.

 
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.