NoSaint Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 http://deadspin.com/nfl-changes-the-dez-bryant-rule-makes-it-worse-1719867338 The "dez bryant rule," if you will, has been changed. deadspin argues that it is now worse. we will see how it plays out on the field... A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. 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 until after his initial contact with 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. further info, the old rule for comparison, and commentary at the link. i wonder how long a guy has to be upright to demonstrate he is a runner?
Big C Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 The ambiguity of this rule is still bothersome, but is there a way around it? When Dez hit the ground, how was the ball not going to touch the ground at all? With his momentum, there really is no way to control the ball enough to satisfy the rule. He had two feet down, he had the ball, he held the ball... I don't know.
JESSEFEFFER Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 SJ in Miami in 2012 and Goodwin at home vs. the Chiefs in 2013 were worse in my book. SJ lost the ball after hitting the ground in the endzone and rolling over and Marquise had the ball pinned to his helmet while on the ground and the defender dislodged it well after the play was legitimately over. I wish I could find the clips but, then again, I'd probably just want to throw something at my computer monitor. When Dez made his play I was convinced it would be a "no catch" and would have been upset if they allowed it when considering those two plays invovling the Bills. There is no way that the nuance of reaching for the endzone with the ball being becoming "a football move" when he never had been balanced and upright with the ball would have set right with me.
Jukester Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 For gawd's sake, let's make these rules so complicated that no one can decipher them. If someone catches the ball, has control, and has two feet down, it's a catch, pure and simple. If they hit the ground afterward and the ball pops loose, it's a fumble. Anyone that watches football knows the Dez Bryant and Calving Johnson plays should have been catches.
Steve Billieve Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 And I thought the previous rule was confusing. I think the new rule is 'we know a catch when we see one!'
Hot Buffalo Wings Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 (edited) Why would that be worse? Makes sense to me. I don't think Dez necessarily deserved that "catch". Great effort of course but not a catch. For gawd's sake, let's make these rules so complicated that no one can decipher them. If someone catches the ball, has control, and has two feet down, it's a catch, pure and simple. If they hit the ground afterward and the ball pops loose, it's a fumble. Anyone that watches football knows the Dez Bryant and Calving Johnson plays should have been catches. Anyone who knows football knows that there are way too many variations of certain plays not to make a rule as detailed as some are. It's not always so cut and dry. Edited July 24, 2015 by Hot Buffalo Wings
PromoTheRobot Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 The ball budged out of his hand when he hit the ground. Therefore, not a catch.
Beerball Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 The ambiguity of this rule is still bothersome, but is there a way around it? When Dez hit the ground, how was the ball not going to touch the ground at all? With his momentum, there really is no way to control the ball enough to satisfy the rule. He had two feet down, he had the ball, he held the ball... I don't know.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) NFL refs make a lot of questionable calls because it's impossible to get them all right as well as what player or coach or GM or owner or ref or fans thinks is true there are just as many who think it is false. The "Catch" Rule should be anything and then there should be another rule simply called DAORTWAC, which stands for Disregard All Other Rules That Was A Catch. It would solve most controversies except some people bitching it wasn't a catch, which is inevitable no matter what. Edited July 25, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 they will use it against da Bills and allow it for all opponents
FLbills Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 Not for nothing, but in the clip of the replay in the article, didn't his elbow touched the ground before anything else. Therefore he should have been down at that spot. Maybe I'm just off
rstencel Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) I always understood that you had to either make a football move, or take 3 steps after having control of the ball. Even in bounds or two footing as catching on sideline if you lost control of the ball when hit the ground without satisfying that criteria it wasn't considered a catch before this rule change. Actually it isn't a change of rule, more of a clarification to attempt to make rulings more consistent I believe. Not for nothing, but in the clip of the replay in the article, didn't his elbow touched the ground before anything else. Therefore he should have been down at that spot. Maybe I'm just off No you have to maintain control of the ball all the way through when hit the ground. When his elbow hit the ground, he could no longer make any more forward progress, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have to maintain control of the ball, and prevent it from hitting the ground after that point. Edited July 25, 2015 by rstencel
Hot Buffalo Wings Posted July 25, 2015 Posted July 25, 2015 It's been a while since I've seen that play. I have no problem with that not being a catch. I understand it's close but control the ball. I think most fans have a gripe because they watched it in slow motion too many times...
3rdnlng Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 http://deadspin.com/nfl-changes-the-dez-bryant-rule-makes-it-worse-1719867338 The "dez bryant rule," if you will, has been changed. deadspin argues that it is now worse. we will see how it plays out on the field... further info, the old rule for comparison, and commentary at the link. i wonder how long a guy has to be upright to demonstrate he is a runner? Well, if it's over 4 hours he'd better see his doctor.
Formerly Allan in MD Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 The ambiguity of this rule is still bothersome, but is there a way around it? When Dez hit the ground, how was the ball not going to touch the ground at all? With his momentum, there really is no way to control the ball enough to satisfy the rule. He had two feet down, he had the ball, he held the ball... I don't know. Yes, it was a catch.
T master Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 http://deadspin.com/nfl-changes-the-dez-bryant-rule-makes-it-worse-1719867338 The "dez bryant rule," if you will, has been changed. deadspin argues that it is now worse. we will see how it plays out on the field... further info, the old rule for comparison, and commentary at the link. i wonder how long a guy has to be upright to demonstrate he is a runner? Welcome to the new NFL where like other things that i won't get into , common sense is thrown out , no where to be found !! I thought that 1) If a knee or any 2 body parts touch the ground you are down ? if that be the case then when that happens if you have control at that split second it should be ruled a catch regardless because you are down ! And if i recall isn't there a rule that says the ground cannot cause a fumble ? So if while in the process of a catch your knee or 2 body parts touch the ground & control has been established (which means the player is then down) if the player has control at that point then when you hit the ground (which cannot cause a fumble) you bobble or lose control of the ball the player is already down so WTF ?? I would love to have that discussion with the NFL officials for what ever that clarification is ??? Unless of coarse i dreamed these rules up or they have in fact been changed , but if they are still in the rule book something is way wrong with the NEW catch rule for the past few years !!
ALF Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) If a player is tackled and loses control of the ball at or after the time he makes contact with the ground, the player is treated as down and the ball is not in play. However, in the NFL and CFL, if a ball carrier falls without an opponent contacting him, the ground can indeed cause a fumble. this may have been the old rule ? Edited July 26, 2015 by ALF
Nanker Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 It's been a while since I've seen that play. I have no problem with that not being a catch. I understand it's close but control the ball. I think most fans have a gripe because they watched it in slow motion too many times... I disagree. If it were not in the end zone, it would be a catch. Possession of the ball - check. Both feet down in-bounds - check. Down by contact - check. The play is over at that point. That's the criteria that should be used consistently - whether in the field of play or in the end zone. It takes the mental gymnastics completely out of the equation. If a player is tackled and loses control of the ball at or after the time he makes contact with the ground, the player is treated as down and the ball is not in play. However, in the NFL and CFL, if a ball carrier falls without an opponent contacting him, the ground can indeed cause a fumble. this may have been the old rule ? The ground could never cause a fumble is what the rules were before this end zone gerrymandering began. It's horse crap rules now.
Recommended Posts