(01-11-2015 07:06 PM)billings Wrote:  

(01-11-2015 06:24 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Today's Dez incident illustrates my point precisely. Under the rules we all grew up with, that was a catch. It still should be. To call that incomplete is just absurd. And if there is such a thing as football immorality, then that is immoral. The same ground that cannot cause a fumble should not be "part of a process"... you either have possession or you don't ... by all rights it should be that simple (just as it had been for decades).

Rules committee really does need to look at the rule. However it was correctly applied today just like it was agasint Detroit a few years ago. they are consistently applying the rule they have

The rule was applied correctly. But, there is a reason the being a professional WR there are different rules. You should have to full possession all through out the catch. Maybe in college, it would be ruled a catch but this isn't college, its the NFL and being a professional you are playing by a higher standard. Just as one foot in bounds is a catch in college where 2 in needed in the NFL.

Think of it this way... perhaps this point has been brought up, I dunno...

Had Dez been able to stretch the ball JUST ANOTHER 12 INCHES or so... we're NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS... the ball crosses the goal line, and all that matters is that he HAD POSSESSION, and at that point, the play is over.

Again, I think it's arguable either way about whether it was called as the rule is actually written, but what is absolutely competitively immoral (... hehe, I think I finally found a term that captures it...) is that the rule is written as it's written.

I confess I never understood the impetus to change the rule to talk about this "process" thing. I was satisfied with "did he catch the ball?" Was possession achieved in the field of play without the benefit of the ground assisting. That's it. Period.

I actually agreed with the call on Calvin Johnson's play. I didn't see yesterday's play.

(01-12-2015 09:09 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Think of it this way... perhaps this point has been brought up, I dunno...

Had Dez been able to stretch the ball JUST ANOTHER 12 INCHES or so... we're NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS... the ball crosses the goal line, and all that matters is that he HAD POSSESSION, and at that point, the play is over.

Again, I think it's arguable either way about whether it was called as the rule is actually written, but what is absolutely competitively immoral (... hehe, I think I finally found a term that captures it...) is that the rule is written as it's written.

I confess I never understood the impetus to change the rule to talk about this "process" thing. I was satisfied with "did he catch the ball?" Was possession achieved in the field of play without the benefit of the ground assisting. That's it. Period.

No. That's not the rule. It wouldn't matter whether he hit the ground in the field of play, out of bounds or in the end zone. It would still have been incomplete. Crossing the goal line gets you zero points if you don't have possession of the ball, and according to the rule as it is being interpreted, he did not have possession.

(01-12-2015 12:08 PM)prp Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 09:09 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Think of it this way... perhaps this point has been brought up, I dunno...

Had Dez been able to stretch the ball JUST ANOTHER 12 INCHES or so... we're NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS... the ball crosses the goal line, and all that matters is that he HAD POSSESSION, and at that point, the play is over.

Again, I think it's arguable either way about whether it was called as the rule is actually written, but what is absolutely competitively immoral (... hehe, I think I finally found a term that captures it...) is that the rule is written as it's written.

I confess I never understood the impetus to change the rule to talk about this "process" thing. I was satisfied with "did he catch the ball?" Was possession achieved in the field of play without the benefit of the ground assisting. That's it. Period.

No. That's not the rule. It wouldn't matter whether he hit the ground in the field of play, out of bounds or in the end zone. It would still have been incomplete. Crossing the goal line gets you zero points if you don't have possession of the ball, and according to the rule as it is being interpreted, he did not have possession.

No. With all due respect, actually, THAT'S NOT the rule if Mike Pereira's explanation on the post-game show to Howie Long's question is correct... and which doesn't conflict with any previous understanding.

There is this relatively NEW distinction between "having possession" and "completing the process."

Dez had possession. That isn't debated. Mike Pereira acknowledged as much, even though he agreed with the call.

He did not complete the process.

My beef with the call was that the official at the goal line signaled catch and the call was overturned, yet they call a catch for the Green Bay receiver earlier in the game that continued a drive and led to GB score, after review where it is clear as hell in the replay that the nose of the ball had touched the ground.

(01-12-2015 04:08 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  My beef with the call was that the official at the goal line signaled catch and the call was overturned, yet they call a catch for the Green Bay receiver earlier in the game that continued a drive and led to GB score, after review where it is clear as hell in the replay that the nose of the ball had touched the ground.

I assume on that one that the ref's decided he had control of the ball (to me it looked like it did but I didn't look that closely), in that case the ball can touch the ground.

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/12/nfl-rulebo...-reversal/

Exactly.

This rule makes less sense than the tuck rule.

(01-12-2015 07:46 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  This rule makes less sense than the tuck rule.

Agree!!!...And On that note the NFL got rid of the Tuck Rule in the Spring of 2013...

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-engla...-tuck-rule

(01-12-2015 12:11 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 12:08 PM)prp Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 09:09 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Think of it this way... perhaps this point has been brought up, I dunno...

Had Dez been able to stretch the ball JUST ANOTHER 12 INCHES or so... we're NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS... the ball crosses the goal line, and all that matters is that he HAD POSSESSION, and at that point, the play is over.

Again, I think it's arguable either way about whether it was called as the rule is actually written, but what is absolutely competitively immoral (... hehe, I think I finally found a term that captures it...) is that the rule is written as it's written.

I confess I never understood the impetus to change the rule to talk about this "process" thing. I was satisfied with "did he catch the ball?" Was possession achieved in the field of play without the benefit of the ground assisting. That's it. Period.

No. That's not the rule. It wouldn't matter whether he hit the ground in the field of play, out of bounds or in the end zone. It would still have been incomplete. Crossing the goal line gets you zero points if you don't have possession of the ball, and according to the rule as it is being interpreted, he did not have possession.

No. With all due respect, actually, THAT'S NOT the rule if Mike Pereira's explanation on the post-game show to Howie Long's question is correct... and which doesn't conflict with any previous understanding.

There is this relatively NEW distinction between "having possession" and "completing the process."

Dez had possession. That isn't debated. Mike Pereira acknowledged as much, even though he agreed with the call.

He did not complete the process.

Hats the point though: not completing the process means you don't have possession. The issue with this, and best makes it hard to really grasp is the fall to the ground was considered part of the motion. So while he may have caught it cleanly he must demonstrate he still had possession after hitting the ground. I saw someone mention what if he had run three steps and then fell: then the found would not be part of the process. The fact that the one motion lead to the ground me as the ground rules come into play. And whether we agree with the rule of not, the rule is if your motion takes you to the ground you must maintain possession through the process of hitting the ground. The call was right.

It's also still different than the ground causing a fumble.

(01-12-2015 12:11 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 12:08 PM)prp Wrote:  

(01-12-2015 09:09 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Think of it this way... perhaps this point has been brought up, I dunno...

Had Dez been able to stretch the ball JUST ANOTHER 12 INCHES or so... we're NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS... the ball crosses the goal line, and all that matters is that he HAD POSSESSION, and at that point, the play is over.

Again, I think it's arguable either way about whether it was called as the rule is actually written, but what is absolutely competitively immoral (... hehe, I think I finally found a term that captures it...) is that the rule is written as it's written.

I confess I never understood the impetus to change the rule to talk about this "process" thing. I was satisfied with "did he catch the ball?" Was possession achieved in the field of play without the benefit of the ground assisting. That's it. Period.

No. That's not the rule. It wouldn't matter whether he hit the ground in the field of play, out of bounds or in the end zone. It would still have been incomplete. Crossing the goal line gets you zero points if you don't have possession of the ball, and according to the rule as it is being interpreted, he did not have possession.

No. With all due respect, actually, THAT'S NOT the rule if Mike Pereira's explanation on the post-game show to Howie Long's question is correct... and which doesn't conflict with any previous understanding.

There is this relatively NEW distinction between "having possession" and "completing the process."

Dez had possession. That isn't debated. Mike Pereira acknowledged as much, even though he agreed with the call.

He did not complete the process.

You're confusing "possession" with "control". They sound like they should mean the same thing but they do not. Possession only happens when the process has been completed. But during the process, control can be gained, lost, re-gained any number of times as long as the ball doesn't hit the ground and the ball and player stays in bounds. Dez had control of the ball at one point but was judged not to have completed the process and therefore never had possession.