Opinions on the Dez Non-Catch?

[burrrton]

OK, I did not see that. Just going by what one person claimed on the radio, to which the host did not argue. Maybe he was wrong.

Captain Eye Test couldn't be bothered to watch something that was linked twice in this thread alone and is one of the most replayed moments in the NFL this year.

Explains a lot, actually.

[NorthHawk]

Looks like they will be discussing the rule for a catch.

John Mara of the Giants and a member of the Competition Committee:
From PFT

"“We had this discussion a few years ago with the Calvin Johnson catch and decided not to make any changes. But I really think we need to discuss that again because I was not happy watching that, because it just didn’t look right. It looked like it was a catch. But if you go back and look at the language of the rule and read the part about having to control the ball all the way to the ground, you realize that it was probably the right call.

“But do we have to tweak the rules a little bit? I think maybe we do.""

He also talked about reviewing Pass Interference calls.

[RiverDog]

Looks like they will be discussing the rule for a catch.

John Mara of the Giants and a member of the Competition Committee:
From PFT

"“We had this discussion a few years ago with the Calvin Johnson catch and decided not to make any changes. But I really think we need to discuss that again because I was not happy watching that, because it just didn’t look right. It looked like it was a catch. But if you go back and look at the language of the rule and read the part about having to control the ball all the way to the ground, you realize that it was probably the right call.

“But do we have to tweak the rules a little bit? I think maybe we do.""

He also talked about reviewing Pass Interference calls.

There was no "probably" about it. It was absolutely the right call. No bout adoubt it.

If they do make any changes, they need to make them objective and easy to understand such as the current rule is or else they'll be jumping from the frying pan into the fire the next time there's a close call at a critical time.

Ironic they mentioned that they will be reviewing pass interference as it was the misapplication of that rule that allowed Dallas to advance in the first place. It looks like they're trying to toss each side a bone. What's that saying about making all the people happy all the time?

[Futureite]

River;

I completely disagree with the assertion that there is "no doubt" about Dez making a football move. How can there be zero doubt when there is no clear definition of what a football move is? That's the entire problem with this rule. It's completely up to the perception of the individual making the call. Some people believe Dez attempted to make a football move by taking 3 steps towards the end zone and then extending his arm towards the goal line, some didn't. In my opinion, regardless of whether he was falling to the ground involuntarily (not a football move), he did make a conscious effort to extend his arm to the goal line before he hit the ground with the intent of scoring. And that act (of voluntarily extending the arm) was entirely separate from the involuntary act of falling, and in fact could be interpreted as a separate "football move".

Who knows? Does anyone know what he was thinking on the way down? How many steps do you have take before you've established possession and the act of falling is unrelated to the catch and instead the result of a separate football move? If 2 feet hit the ground and you then alter your body position for an oncoming defender, is the act of moving your body a football move? If Dez was at the 50 YD line instead of the goal line, does he even extend his arm to cause the purported incompletion?

The entire thing is ridiculous. Two feet down and possession should be a catch.

[burrrton]

So, Captain Eye Test, since you're still posting- want to explain why you couldn't bother to watch the dmn play before commenting, why you went off the "radio" instead of, you know, clicking a link?

[Futureite]

So, Captain Eye Test, since you're still posting- want to explain why you couldn't bother to watch the dmn play before commenting, why you went off the "radio" instead of, you know, clicking a link?

First off, you are fixated on the "eye test" not me. I showed you with numerous exampled in the previous thread how QB's good bad and in-between ALL greatly improved their QB rating when playing with a top 5 O and D. I used factual data to support what I said. Go back to that thread and read my posts about it if you are that heated. Pay me $1,000 and I'll write a 10 page analysis of where RW's production is generated - from throws inside and outside the pocket, rushing attempts, average time in the pocket; I'll break down the historical success of all QBs when playing with varying production from their D and O, I'll compare them throughout early stages of their careers to late, when attempting varying degrees of throws, and I'll weight and attach a score to each throw with 5 footnotes to break down how and why I chose the rating scale.

I'll make that so goddamn detailed that you'll have to hire a statistician, an attorney and Pete Carroll to break it down. And I'll make it flow, with topics organized neatly in a Table of Contents and highly cited factual data.

And I'll title it; "The eye test - conceptualized".

Second, as I've posted a million times before, nearly everything I post here is done from my phone. I cannot access links with my phone.

[RiverDog]

River;

I completely disagree with the assertion that there is "no doubt" about Dez making a football move. How can there be zero doubt when there is no clear definition of what a football move is? That's the entire problem with this rule. It's completely up to the perception of the individual making the call. Some people believe Dez attempted to make a football move by taking 3 steps towards the end zone and then extending his arm towards the goal line, some didn't. In my opinion, regardless of whether he was falling to the ground involuntarily (not a football move), he did make a conscious effort to extend his arm to the goal line before he hit the ground with the intent of scoring. And that act (of voluntarily extending the arm) was entirely separate from the involuntary act of falling, and in fact could be interpreted as a separate "football move".

Who knows? Does anyone know what he was thinking on the way down? How many steps do you have take before you've established possession and the act of falling is unrelated to the catch and instead the result of a separate football move? If 2 feet hit the ground and you then alter your body position for an oncoming defender, is the act of moving your body a football move? If Dez was at the 50 YD line instead of the goal line, does he even extend his arm to cause the purported incompletion?

The entire thing is ridiculous. Two feet down and possession should be a catch.

Another rule change to benefit the offense.

[HumanCockroach]

River;

I completely disagree with the assertion that there is "no doubt" about Dez making a football move. How can there be zero doubt when there is no clear definition of what a football move is? That's the entire problem with this rule. It's completely up to the perception of the individual making the call. Some people believe Dez attempted to make a football move by taking 3 steps towards the end zone and then extending his arm towards the goal line, some didn't. In my opinion, regardless of whether he was falling to the ground involuntarily (not a football move), he did make a conscious effort to extend his arm to the goal line before he hit the ground with the intent of scoring. And that act (of voluntarily extending the arm) was entirely separate from the involuntary act of falling, and in fact could be interpreted as a separate "football move".

Who knows? Does anyone know what he was thinking on the way down? How many steps do you have take before you've established possession and the act of falling is unrelated to the catch and instead the result of a separate football move? If 2 feet hit the ground and you then alter your body position for an oncoming defender, is the act of moving your body a football move? If Dez was at the 50 YD line instead of the goal line, does he even extend his arm to cause the purported incompletion?

The entire thing is ridiculous. Two feet down and possession should be a catch.

I would think that at least ONE step, while under control would be a good place to start, as Dez didn't accomplish that task. Pretty simple, he took zero "controlled" steps, and has a questionable attempt at the goal line, never establishing possession as is the rule of possession, and so, as the rule explains much complete the process of the catch ( ie control the ball to the ground). Not that hard to grasp, not that difficult to tell he hadn't done so, and really quite simple to see he didn't meet the requirments necessary to constitute a catch.

[burrrton]

Pay me $1,000 and I'll write a 10 page analysis of where RW's production is generated

Captain Eye Test, if you think anyone would be stupid enough to pay you a dollar to write up anything when you can't even tell the difference between objective and subjective determinations, you're drunk and need to sleep it off.

Also, you don't need to do all that, because many, many others have already done so. You know why you should fcking know that?

BECAUSE WE'VE LINKED THEM TO YOU SIX WAYS TO SUNDAY.

Click a fcking link and shut the h3ll up already.

I cannot access links with my phone.

Tell me what phone you have- I know of none that will bring up http://www.hawkshack.com but no other site.

I'm a developer- maybe I can work something up for you so you can speak from a position of knowledge instead of ignorance.

[burrrton]

Another rule change to benefit the offense.

That's what I said earlier- I suppose we could come up with something stupid easy to determine (two hands touch the ball and one or more toes inbounds?), but all that does is make it even *harder* for a DB to make a stop.

[RiverDog]

They can't do what Future suggests and just call it a reception with control and two feet. Otherwise, we're going to have one helluva lot of fumbles when a receiver drops the ball when the defender arrives almost simultaneously to dislodge the ball. There has to be some sort of action that would indicate that the receiver has survived that initial grasping of the ball and has "put it away" and turns from a receiver into a ball carrier.

They might go for something along the lines HC suggests and add some sort of terminology to define "a football move", like running in a controlled fashion, but even that isn't going to change Dez's near catch into a reception as he was off balance the entire time. I also don't think putting in a one second or full count time requirement will help, either, unless we want the booth making a decision on every close catch, of which happens multiple times during a game.

Personally I'm OK with the rule as it is. If anything, the league needs to do a better job of educating the fans as to what constitutes a catch. It seems there was near unanimous agreement amongst football people that Dez's catch did not meet the standard. Once I saw the reverse angle shot, I sure as hell didn't think it was a catch, and it didn't take the booth very long to review it.

[Zorn76]

Bump.

Let's get this thing to 100 posts, guys.

[kalibane]

Surprise Surprise... Future is wrong again.

[Hawktown]

it seems to me that the coaches should be teaching their players to NOT be greedy and just tuck the ball into their chest instead of reaching for the goal line in an attempt to score. there will be another play, in this instance especially. He would have been better off keeping hold of the ball and just tuck the ball in and make another play.

[burrrton]

it seems to me that the coaches should be teaching their players to NOT be greedy and just tuck the ball into their chest instead of reaching for the goal line in an attempt to score.

I don't know that you want to coach that out of them, but maybe on 4th-down in a close "win or go home" playoff game, discretion would be the better part of valor.

Reasonable people can disagree, but in this case, though, I'm not convinced he was truly going for the goal as much as breaking his fall anyway.

[NorthHawk]

In any case, it looks like there will be some type of discussion about that rule.
I hope it's simplified and 2 feet down with one stride whether falling or not.

Basically I hope they remove the undefined "Football Move" criteria as that is subjective to the viewer.

[burrrton]

I hope it's simplified and 2 feet down with one stride whether falling or not.

Yes, that's just what the NFL needs- something to make it easier for the offense.

[Hawktawk]

Listen to yourselves people. When you say maybe he should have just fallen down and secured the ball instead of trying to score YOU ARE MAKING MY POINT!He made a football move period, advancing the ball 4 yards and taking 3 discernible steps while intentionally switching hands with the ball and extending it towards the goal line.The same F'd up Mafioso ref Gene Seratore who screwed Calvin Johnson made the call. Surprise surprise. It was a football move on both plays. It is that interpretation that was wrong and it was applied by the same God@mn ref in both instances. So instead of seeing it decided on the field we see it decided under a hood. I almost wish replay had never been instituted. Its a push at best.It has reversed some obviously bad calls but it also reverses great plays such as Dezs catch. And sometimes we see things that clearly look one way in slow mo and they make the other determination anyway. Way too much referee influence on the game anymore and now Blandino controls every replay call from NY.
Its a system rife for abuse by dishonest people and I for one have a hard time believing all the powers that be are pure as the driven snow..

[HumanCockroach]

However you "feel" like slicing that play, the rule is black and white, a receiver MUST complete the process of the catch. Hence it wasn't a catch in slo mo, or in regular speed, and most saw it that way at the time of the play. ( minus a few "the league is corrupt, no matter what" fans, and Dallas fans). They got it right, and kudos to them, for calling it right.

[RiverDog]

it seems to me that the coaches should be teaching their players to NOT be greedy and just tuck the ball into their chest instead of reaching for the goal line in an attempt to score. there will be another play, in this instance especially. He would have been better off keeping hold of the ball and just tuck the ball in and make another play.

I've seen more than a couple of times when a player reaches for the end zone prematurely only to fumble it. Although it wasn't a 'premature' reach, it happened a couple weeks ago when Earl swatted one as a player was trying to reach for the goal line. Obi might need to help me here, but it seems to me like U of O lost a really big game a few years back when a player fumbled while several yards away from the goal line when he risked possession of the ball to reach for the goal line. I compare it to a players, particularly linemen, trying to scoop up a fumble and run with it. Everyone wants to score a TD, but there's a fine line between making a worthy Herculean effort and a stupid risk. Dez should have worried about putting it away and make the catch first, especially when considering it was a critical 4th down play.

[Hawktawk]

Kaepernick lost one that way this season. The problem is he didn't have the ball at the end of the play.

I'm Don Quixote as usual(I have some media support) but to me it was a catch and always will be, sort of like DJ in XL. The ref made the wrong call.

Dez made a football move, a move not too many other guys could make but he was clearly making a secondary move to high pointing the ball at the 5. Bad call, bad ref, bad rule.

And to me (some media support) there is not INDISPUTABLE evidence the ball ever touches the ground, because Bryant's arm is also on the ground and is frankly the same color as the ball. Remember them not overruling the Baldwin forearm fumble even though the ball appeared to have touched the ground and bounced 10 feet in the air?Why? it blended with the background...

Cant have it both ways can we? Screw conventional wisdom. It was the wrong call, The refs are terrible. Its nauseating to think we could be the dejected ones Sunday because of some ref with an agenda, like 40. Anyone remember? And I still have to watch that creepy looking skeletor Leavy every Sunday 10 years later. Are you kidding me?

The last 2 Dallas games ended with a thud instead of a bang in large part because of officials controversial calls or non calls or picking up a flag on a ridiculously right call. Debating whether a team should be able to overcome it is a separate discussion entirely.
I'm sick of the officiating in the NFL. It stinks.

[HumanCockroach]

And yet in this instance you are arguing to leave MORE up to the officials judgement. Makes zero sense, and something I simply can't grasp about those arguing for it being a catch. In this instance, Dez makes a play that is clear cut, plain as day, not the letter of the rule, and is ruled on, by the letter of the rule ( NO gray area no matter what people are arguing) and that isn't what you want in this instance.

I agree officiating has been horrible for several years, but IMHO there should be LESS judgement calls, not MORE as you are arguing for here.

You are complaining about officials making bad calls, bad JUDGEMENT calls, and in an instance where JUDGEMENT does NOT factor in to a call, you are arguing it SHOULD be a JUDGEMENT call. Pick a side....

[Hawktawk]

And yet in this instance you are arguing to leave MORE up to the officials judgement. Makes zero sense, and something I simply can't grasp about those arguing for it being a catch. In this instance, Dez makes a play that is clear cut, plain as day, not the letter of the rule, and is ruled on, by the letter of the rule ( NO gray area no matter what people are arguing) and that isn't what you want in this instance.

I agree officiating has been horrible for several years, but IMHO there should be LESS judgement calls, not MORE as you are arguing for here.

You are complaining about officials making bad calls, bad JUDGEMENT calls, and in an instance where JUDGEMENT does NOT factor in to a call, you are arguing it SHOULD be a JUDGEMENT call. Pick a side....

The dispute for me is 100 percent on the stupid "football move" portion of the rule. He made a football move which is a subjective judgement call but IMO he clearly did. The ref called it a catch and he was 3 feet from the play including when Dez rolled into the end zone and juggled the ball. So the ref ruled he had made a football move. Seratore overruled him. Its probably just semantics but we are going to disagree on it forever.

The NFL needs to clean house. The Seratores, Leavys, Morellis, Hochuli. See Ya. Get some 40 something athletic guys with officiating credentials who are independently contracted and have to sign an agreement to be polygraphed in order to referee in the league. Same for the Blandinos in executive wing. I'm tired of the same lousy refs grandstanding and mucking up the game and there is too much distrust of this trillion dollar baby with its antitrust exemption..

[HumanCockroach]

Seratore overruled him.

Um, no. The play was challenged by GB, reviewed in NY and Seratore and co, were over ruled. It was a challenge, that was reviewed by instant replay, not a repeat of the week before of one ref on the field over ruling another, once it was challenged, it was 100% out of the hands of the officials on the field.

[RiverDog]

Um, no. The play was challenged by GB, reviewed in NY and Seratore and co, were over ruled. It was a challenge, that was reviewed by instant replay, not a repeat of the week before of one ref on the field over ruling another, once it was challenged, it was 100% out of the hands of the officials on the field.

And I might add that the challenge itself did not take very long compared to a lot of challenges. Fox's analyst also said immediately that it was not a catch and that the call on the field would be overruled. That right there should be an indication that there was not a lot of confusion amongst the refs about what constitutes a 'football move'. It's only us fans, or rather some fans, that can't seem to come to grips with the conclusion.

As far as re-visiting this rule in the off season, they did that after the Calvin Johnson TD was taken away several years ago and they decided not to make any changes. I don't know what's changed since then that would make them want to make any changes to this rule or how to interpret it, but it seems pretty clear to me that the rule has achieved its goal of taking the ambiguity out of officiating and making the game easier to call.