The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

per verbal box and digging further down to get
to the actual truth

TexasCowboy wrote:
And me, who is obviously thinking outside the
per verbal (sic) box and digging further down to get
to the actual truth

DarthMonk wrote:

TexasCowboy wrote:
And me, who is obviously thinking outside the
per verbal (sic) box and digging further down to get
to the actual truth

NFL tweaks catch rule, says Dez Bryant still didn't catch ball

By Will Brinson | NFL Writer
March 23, 2015 5:00 pm ET

PHOENIX -- The NFL Competition Committee tweaked the language involved in the rule regarding what is and what is not a catch but decided that Dez Bryant's now-infamous non-catch in the Cowboys-Packers playoff game is still not a catch.

The tweak the committee added was that now a receiver must "clearly establish himself as a runner" while having control and both feet in bounds

"For years the requirement for a catch is control, both feet and after that the receiver had to have the ball long enough to perform a [football] act," VP of Officiating Dean Blandino said. "It was that act common to the game, football move, that created some confusion."

So instead of needing to make a "football move" to qualify oneself as a runner in the field of play, the receiver must "clearly establish himself as a runner."

In other words, the goal is to make it a simple deduction whether or not someone has made a particular kind of move to establish themselves as having possession.

"Once you go down that path it becomes more subjective," Blandino said. "What is, what isn't a football move. We're not talking about a lot of plays over the course of the five seasons since the Calvin Johnson play. This allows us to consistently officiate the rule."

Rams coach Jeff Fisher believes the new language tweak "really clears things up" because it elements subjective interpretation.

"We spent a lot of time on it. I think it really clears things up," Fisher said. "If you're going to the ground, hang onto the ball. It's really pretty simple. To include if you become a runner, I think it really cleans things up for us. If you start talking about reaching the ball out, you invite a lot of gray area back into the interpretation."

It does that to a degree, because someone continuing to fall to the ground while making a catch who doesn't possess the ball would clearly not qualify as someone who can establish themselves.

Dez lunging for the end zone has lots of upside -- touchdowns! -- but it also has massive downside because it won't establish possession.

DarthMonk wrote:

NFL tweaks catch rule, says Dez Bryant still didn't catch ball


http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... catch-ball

I should be on the freakin' committee. They even used my language.

Deadskins wrote:One didn't lose control of the football?

Deadskins wrote:One didn't lose control of the football?

TexasCowboy wrote:

Deadskins wrote:One didn't lose control of the football?

Bryant was down and the play was over, as I have stated before there
is no continuation of the play once this occurs

Deadskins wrote:There is when you are still in the act of catching the ball. (ie not established yourself as a runner, per the rule clarification)

TexasCowboy wrote:

Deadskins wrote:There is when you are still in the act of catching the ball. (ie not established yourself as a runner, per the rule clarification)

ball is caught knees and elbows down play over it's a catch

Deadskins wrote:
The rule has been posted many times in this thread. He's going to the ground, no catch.

TexasCowboy wrote:

Deadskins wrote:
The rule has been posted many times in this thread. He's going to the ground, no catch.

The rule doesn't state it's illegal for a player to go to the ground, if that was the case all
tackling would be outlawed. The question is maintained possession through out while going
to the ground and at what point is he ruled down by contact?

if he was losing control of the ball while going down, the evidence would have proven
he never had full control and the call would be correct. the ball is secured in picture 1,
The ball is rested on his arm in picture 2, which could question maintained possession
through out? but by the looks it's still secured however his elbow is all ready down at
that point

Then we have picture three which shows both a arm and a knee down with the ball still
resting by the side of his facemask with hands secured..it's a catch

TexasCowboy wrote:the ball did not completely come
free nor did it ever once hit the ground

And as the ball begins ricocheting off the ground in your last frame you conveniently omit the next few where the ball flies in the air.

You are the same guy who said the ball neither came free nor hit the ground:

our posts no longer have any credibility on this issue. I suppose they could regain a little if you would concede that the ball hit the ground and that the ball did completely come free.

Of course, I imagine you'd still say it doesn't matter since "the play is already over.

TexasCowboy wrote:once a elbow or knee touches any motion after the fact is moot

TexasCowboy wrote:2 differences here, the first is? I am not in need of being spoon fed info

TexasCowboy wrote:Second, I don't need public opinion to back up what I see

TexasCowboy wrote:you can go and believe in pixies and fairies

TexasCowboy wrote:

Deadskins wrote:
The rule has been posted many times in this thread. He's going to the ground, no catch.

The rule doesn't state it's illegal for a player to go to the ground

DarthMonk wrote:

TexasCowboy wrote:once a elbow or knee touches any motion after the fact is moot

Flat out wrong as evidenced on a weekly basis in the NFL not to mention the rule book which explicitly states otherwise in spite of your wishes to the contrary.

TexasCowboy wrote:2 differences here, the first is? I am not in need of being spoon fed info

Evidently you are. Trouble is, that doesn't even work since you ignore that which does not fit your wishes.

TexasCowboy wrote:Second, I don't need public opinion to back up what I see

Clearly - since you evidently cannot see the ball completely free ..



nor touching the ground:

TexasCowboy wrote:you can go and believe in pixies and fairies

Not sure it could be any more ironic.

Why did he fall again? Oh yeah, you say contact. When did that occur? Oh yeah, before he became, as you say, akin to a runner.

TexasCowboy wrote:... more importantly, the defender covering him said it was a catch, never once recanting ...

Sam Shields: ‘The refs made a good call’

Posted Jan 11, 2015

“I don’t think it was complete,” Shields said. “The refs made a good call on that. Things go down like that. It’s part of football.”

TexasCowboy wrote:talk about no credibility

TexasCowboy wrote:the ball did not completely come
free nor did it ever once hit the ground