Do you agree with the new OT rules in the playoffs?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,796
Movement of the ball does not necessarily constitute loss of control according to the rules:

Rule 8, Article 3, Note 2 says:

"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."

I'd say Bryant's slight movement as it went from hand to hand would not constitute loss of possession.
This was before he even had any control, I forget the order because I haven't watched it in a while, but I remember shields making it move, it was clearly not under control and then it moved again while he tried to gain control and was falling down and then the ball clearly becomes totally dislodged and separated from his body after the ball hits the ground.

I don't mind the Megatron call, it was a "catch" too, but he didn't complete it. Secure the catch, problem solved. Try to celebrate, get more, do something extra and you don't maintain the control, tough. Offense has enough benefits in the rules the way it is.

I must have missed the Moore play, it's not ringing a bell.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
This was before he even had any control, I forget the order because I haven't watched it in a while, but I remember shields making it move, it was clearly not under control and then it moved again while he tried to gain control and was falling down and then the ball clearly becomes totally dislodged and separated from his body after the ball hits the ground.

I don't mind the Megatron call, it was a "catch" too, but he didn't complete it. Secure the catch, problem solved. Try to celebrate, get more, do something extra and you don't maintain the control, tough. Offense has enough benefits in the rules the way it is.

I must have missed the Moore play, it's not ringing a bell.
Go to the following link and look for "Did Dez Catch It?":

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/20150...ameinfo|contentId:0ap3000000456759&tab=videos

I should have done this a long time ago.

Shields got a little piece of the ball at the apex of the catch. After that Dez brought it under control, took two steps and a dive, including sufficient control to move it from one side to the other.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
1,499
Rule and result aside, just a great play by both men. Bryant is an amazing talent. Shields had excellent coverage; I just think he was at a size disadvantage on this one.
 

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
Since you asked, I'll spell it out for you. This repetition should not be necessary:

Again, the official must first determine if a catch has been made before considering the "going to the ground" provision.

No, the first thing he must consider when a player goes to the ground is whether or not his momentum from the act of making the catch is what caused him to go to the ground. In Bryant's case, it did.

Again, the completion of the act of catching is defined in the "football move" provision, which is an "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 subsection of the rule alone does not determine what constitutes a catch. In fact, it's not a requirement at all when a player goes to the ground. If a player makes a diving catch where the ball never touches the ground and a defender immediately touches him down, did he make a "football move?" No, he didn't. But it's still a catch.

That's exactly why there is a separate rule addressing those plays. Item 1 of the rule specifically addresses situations where the player goes to the ground.

Bryant's momentum from jumping to make the catch caused him to lose his balance and he never regained his balance before going to the ground. Therefore, Item 1 becomes the first rule in question, which clearly states, "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." Bryant didn't do that. Therefore, it is NOT a catch, period. I'm not sure why you're so confused about this simple rule.

The "football move" rule generally comes into play to determine whether a play was an incomplete pass or a fumble, like when a guy makes a catch over the middle and is clobbered by a LB who knocks the ball lose.

Whether you agree with that conclusion is at the moment irrelevant. What is relevant is that you did not consider the rule defining a catch, and until you do you're just cherry picking.

I did consider the rules defining a catch and I applied them as explained by both Mike Perierra and Dean Blandino, and it makes perfect sense. I'm pretty sure both of those guys know what they're talking about. You're arguing with them, not me. And I would venture to guess that their understanding of the rules is superior to your interpretation.
 

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
Go to the following link and look for "Did Dez Catch It?":

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2015011100/2014/POST19/cowboys@packers?icampaign=GC_schedule_rr#menu=gameinfo|contentId:0ap3000000456759&tab=videos

I should have done this a long time ago.

Shields got a little piece of the ball at the apex of the catch. After that Dez brought it under control, took two steps and a dive, including sufficient control to move it from one side to the other.

He didn't have enough control over his body to prevent himself from going to the ground, therefore Item 1 of the completion rule applies.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
That subsection of the rule alone does not determine what constitutes a catch. In fact, it's not a requirement at all when a player goes to the ground. If a player makes a diving catch where the ball never touches the ground and a defender immediately touches him down, did he make a "football move?" No, he didn't. But it's still a catch.
It's clear the subsection of the rules that defines the football move applies to all catches, contrary to what you said. Once again, go to Rule 8, Section 3, and read carefully:

http://static.nfl.com/static/conten.../pdfs/11_2013_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

The reason I find this to be the only point of interest in your most recent posts is because the example you gave is not explicitly contemplated in the rules! We know it's a catch, but there's nothing in the rules that precisely supports that kind of catch as legit!

The closest we get to support is the listed football move that reads, "avoid or ward off an opponent." Maybe that's supposed to cover it? There's the other football move called "etc." Maybe that's supposed to cover it. Regardless, the rule is not clear in that instance.

I'd suggest reading the rules, in sequence and in their entirety, and avoid introducing concepts like "momentum" and "body control" which have nothing to do with it.

As far as the current and former league rules interpreters go, I don't doubt they gave a justification for the ruling that is consistent with former rulings, as I've said repeatedly. My beef is that the way the rule is implemented does not respect the football play, in this case failing to acknowledge that Bryant made a football move in advancing the ball with control as the rules state.

If, as you previously suggested, they said the football move is irrelevant in this case, then they don't know their own rules. I doubt they said that, but I would happily look at a quote if you have one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
It's clear the subsection of the rules that defines the football move applies to all catches, contrary to what you said.

Nonsense. In the case of a receiver who dives for a catch and is immediately touched down or even tackled as he is going down, where is the "football move?"

As far as the current and former league rules interpreters go, I don't doubt they gave a justification for the ruling that is consistent with former rulings, as I've said repeatedly. My beef is that the way the rule is implemented does not respect the football play, in this case failing to acknowledge that Bryant made a football move.

That's because he didn't (see below.) You declaring your opinion to be fact doesn't make it so.

If, as you previously suggested, they said the football move is irrelevant in this case, then they don't know their own rules.

Right, because you know better than they do. You must be "The Most Interesting Man in the World."

I doubt they said that, but I would happily look at a quote if you have one.

Well, it's kind of impossible to quote the television on a forum, but I did find this that effectively says the same thing:

http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/2...ch-that-wasnt-for-cowboys-wr-dez-bryant.html/

“The football move aspect of it, when you talk about the process of the catch and the receiver is going to the ground, it doesn’t matter how many steps he takes,’’ Blandino said. “He has to maintain control of the football throughout the action and contact with the ground. If he goes to the ground and the ball comes loose, it’s an incomplete pass. In order for it to be a football move, OK, he has to gather himself and lunge and dive for the goal line. It has to be overt, it has to be obvious. When you watch that play at full speed, he (Bryant) is going to the ground, he’s trying to maintain possession of it, he doesn’t maintain possession as he hits the ground. That’s why we ruled an incomplete pass. That’s the rule and that’s the consistent application of the rule.’’

Bryant clearly did not gather himself, you'll excuse me if I take the position that they know the NFL rule book better than you do, much in the same manner that a neurosurgeon is better qualified to excise a brain tumor.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Nonsense. In the case of a receiver who dives for a catch and is immediately touched down or even tackled as he is going down, where is the "football move?"
You still have not studied the rules or are being disingenuous. You keep describing what you think they should say instead of addressing what they actually say. I addressed this situation illustrating a flaw or ambiguity in the rules. You did not address my point. It is absolutely clear that the football move rule as it is written is supposed to apply to all catches. If you ever get around to reading the rules you might have a problem with how it is worded, as do I. You don't know it yet, but your problem is with the rule, not me.
“The football move aspect of it, when you talk about the process of the catch and the receiver is going to the ground, it doesn’t matter how many steps he takes,’’ Blandino said. “He has to maintain control of the football throughout the action and contact with the ground. If he goes to the ground and the ball comes loose, it’s an incomplete pass. In order for it to be a football move, OK, he has to gather himself and lunge and dive for the goal line. It has to be overt, it has to be obvious. When you watch that play at full speed, he (Bryant) is going to the ground, he’s trying to maintain possession of it, he doesn’t maintain possession as he hits the gro
This interpretation is NOT what you said earlier. Repeat...NOT what you said earlier. As I suspected, you misrepresented his words. This is another instance of your confusion. What is said in that quote is exactly what I would have expected the league to say.

Blandino did not say the football move does not matter, as you contended earlier. He specifically referenced the "process of the catch", which is the football move provision at Rule 8.1.3.(c). He said the number of steps do not matter, which I have no problem with. In fact, he describes the football move he's looking for in this case: "gather himself and lunge and dive for the goal line." Bryant met that requirement; at no point was he "ungathered"; it's an example of body control by a world class athlete.

Blandio's argument boils down to the "full speed" video look. And this gets to the nub of my point...the full speed video does not respect the quality of this football play or the athleticism. The slow motion replay shows something different. The catch, the turn, the steps and the dive...that's "gathered". What? Some invisible angel (or devil as you might say) guided his motion?

The "full speed video" argument does not hold water for another reason. The review process relies on slow motion video all of the time in other instances. For example, decisions on sideline/endline catches as to whether the receiver has 2 feet down with control, the control aspect can be measured in hundredths of seconds given the calls they make...they don't attempt review in these cases without slow motion. Why not in the Bryant case?

I would expect Blandio to vehemently defend the call, because, as I've said several times already, it is consistent with other calls, particularly the infamous Megatron play that set a kind of benchmark going forward. They made their bed and now they're trying to lie in it with springs popping out of the mattress. This ruling does not respect the football play.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
You still have not studied the rules or are being disingenuous. You keep describing what you think they should say instead of addressing what they actually say.

Nice dodge, but I'll ask you again: In the case of a receiver who dives for a catch and is immediately touched down or even tackled as he is going down, where is the "football move?"

Bryant met that requirement; at no point was he "ungathered"; it's an example of body control by a world class athlete.

No, he didn't gather himself. He was completely unable to stay on his feet. If he had gathered himself, he would have just walked into the end zone with Shields on the ground. You can argue with those who know best (and I'm NOT talking about myself, so don't go there) until you're blue in the face but it doesn't turn your opinion into fact. It would be appropriate for you to say, "In my opinion, it was a catch." But to say, "It was, by rule, a catch and the NFL is wrong/lying/whatever." carries a concerning level of grandiosity.

This interpretation is NOT what you said earlier. Repeat...NOT what you said earlier. As I suspected, you misrepresented his words.

Blandino did not say the football move does not matter, as you contended earlier.

Yes, he did, explicitly. As I already said, I don't know of any way to directly quote what he said on NFL Network on a forum. But if you're going to sit there and call me a liar, then to heck with you. I'm no liar and I'm not mistaken about what he said either.

Blandino's argument boils down to the "full speed" video look. And this gets to the nub of my point...the full speed video does not respect the quality...
Zzzz....
...made their bed and now they're trying to lie in it with springs popping out of the mattress. This ruling does not respect the football play.

You know what? Screw it. I'm not wasting another minute on this nonsense. You're right. It was a catch because in your omniscience you know NFL rules and how to interpret them better than anyone else, including Blandino and Perierra. Have a snickerdoodle.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Nice dodge, but I'll ask you again: In the case of a receiver who dives for a catch and is immediately touched down or even tackled as he is going down, where is the "football move?"
Ask the league. I did not write the defective rule. You persist is this, without reading the damn thing.

Since you could not bother to look it up, here's the rule in it's entirety with the "football move" provision highlighted. Show me how the football move provision, as written, is not supposed to apply to all passes. You can't. I can do no more to get it through your head that on this matter your complaint is with the league.

When you stop thinking that people in authority could not make such a mistake, you might see it. The Constitution has punctuation errors, for gosh sakes, that have led to debates in the Supreme court.

I can say no more on the subject, which I'm sure many will be glad of, not the least myself.

"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.

Item 2: Sideline Catches

If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the
process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

Item 3: End Zone Catches

The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in
the field of play.

Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the
ball is dead when the catch is completed.

Item 4: Ball Touches Ground

If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided
that the player continues to maintain control.

Item 5: Simultaneous Catch.

If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the
ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.

Item 6: Carried Out of Bounds.

If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an
opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground inbounds, it is a completed
or intercepted pass.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
Ask the league.

Why? Blandino already explained it.

I did not write the defective rule. You persist is this, without reading the damn thing.

I did read it. I also UNDERSTOOD it.

Since you could not bother to look it up, here's the rule in it's entirety with the "football move" provision highlighted. Show me how the football move provision, as written, is not supposed to apply to all passes. You can't.

I can, and I will:

Obviously you didn't read the rule in its entirety. :oops: Allow me to walk you through it. :) Look directly under subsection (c) which you put in bold. Do you see the line where it says "Note 1?" Good! ;) Give it a quick read... :sleep:...:coffee:... Are you done? Good job! :tup: Are you able to understand that it applies to the "football move" rule? :confused: In light of that note, tell me again that a "football move" is a requirement for all passes. Clearly, the note states that it's not - only that it must be controlled for enough time for a "football move" to have happened. So there is your proof that a "football move" is not required in all instances. Now that that's settled, you will recognize that Items 1 - 6 provide additional parameters that apply to those special situations. Item 1 applies to the instance in question.

But I digress. My apologies. I forgot that I had already acknowledged that you know best in all matters regarding NFL rules, including those specifically trained in the nuance of those rules. Congratulations... you win! :D:tup:
 

Ogsponge

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
1,501
Reaction score
291
Location
Wisconsin
A page and half of the same two guys arguing about something pointless. Here is a hint, neither of you are going to change the other's mind, but please, by all means carry on!

It was not a catch, period end of story, that same play has been called an incomplete for 5 years now. Perhaps the rule needs to change but it was not a catch.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Why? Blandino already explained it.



I did read it. I also UNDERSTOOD it.



I can, and I will:

Obviously you didn't read the rule in its entirety. :oops: Allow me to walk you through it. :) Look directly under subsection (c) which you put in bold. Do you see the line where it says "Note 1?" Good! ;) Give it a quick read... :sleep:...:coffee:... Are you done? Good job! :tup: Are you able to understand that it applies to the "football move" rule? :confused: In light of that note, tell me again that a "football move" is a requirement for all passes. Clearly, the note states that it's not - only that it must be controlled for enough time for a "football move" to have happened. So there is your proof that a "football move" is not required in all instances. Now that that's settled, you will recognize that Items 1 - 6 provide additional parameters that apply to those special situations. Item 1 applies to the instance in question.

But I digress. My apologies. I forgot that I had already acknowledged that you know best in all matters regarding NFL rules, including those specifically trained in the nuance of those rules. Congratulations... you win! :D:tup:
You're a dog chasing your tail.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
5,687
I think the current rule of a FG gives the other team a last drive is a fair compromise. If you give up 6 that the proverbial "nail in the coffin"
 

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
That's your problem. You think it's chess.
I don't care for chess. No, you challenged me to show you where the execution of a "football move" was not required on all catches. I did, using the rule itself. And instead of you responding with something along the lines, of, "Oh, okay. I missed that note." or whatever, you responded by calling me a dog. Generally, that's the mark of someone who can't admit they might be mistaken. Since you refused to address my point, I figured the insult was your way of conceding it without actually doing so specifically, hence the "checkmate" to challenge whether that was the case.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I don't care for chess. No, you challenged me to show you where the execution of a "football move" was not required on all catches. I did, using the rule itself. And instead of you responding with something along the lines, of, "Oh, okay. I missed that note." or whatever, you responded by calling me a dog. Generally, that's the mark of someone who can't admit they might be mistaken. Since you refused to address my point, I figured the insult was your way of conceding it without actually doing so specifically, hence the "checkmate" to challenge whether that was the case.
I saw the note. You're still chasing your tail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Latest posts

Top