Now THAT'S a crap call

[jrry32]

Yeah, the golden Taint play is a whole different deal because he never was “going to the ground.” Tiki Barber definitely messed up in describing it that way. Subjective call as to whether Taint had “established himself as a runner”....pereira thought no, replay official thought yes.

Taint ended up on the ground. You can't argue that he wasn't going to the ground. And what about Victor Cruz? Here's another example (skip to 0:48):

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uySgPxkv88o


The NFL doesn't enforce these rules consistently. Why should anyone believe they understand their own rules?

 

[jrry32]

#dezcaughtit

If I had written the rule, it would be a catch. Unfortunately, these bozos did, so it isn't.

 

[XXXIVwin]

Taint ended up on the ground. You can't argue that he wasn't going to the ground. And what about Victor Cruz?

The NFL doesn't enforce these rules consistently. Why should anyone believe they understand their own rules?

Alright, gonna let this go.

Taint was never “going to the ground.” That’s the whole point of this play. Yes, eventually Taint fell to the ground well at the end, after he stumbled backwards over the other player. But clearly he wasn’t falling during the process Of making the catch— again, that’s the whole point!

One can disagree with the rule itself. But to try to argue that the NFL doesn’t “understand” its own rules...that’s a bit of a stretch.

 

[jrry32]

Alright, gonna let this go.

Taint was never “going to the ground.” That’s the whole point of this play. Yes, eventually Taint fell to the ground well at the end, after he stumbled backwards over the other player. But clearly he wasn’t falling during the process Of making the catch— again, that’s the whole point!

One can disagree with the rule itself. But to try to argue that the NFL doesn’t “understand” its own rules...that’s a bit of a stretch.

If Taint was "never" going to the ground, how did he end up there? He started to fall when the defender grabbed him after he took his first step. He was absolutely going to the ground. To claim otherwise is to make an excuse for the inconsistent officiating. How is Taint not going to the ground but Dez is here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt5d9FoSXIA


You never addressed the Victor Cruz play (or the other Dez Bryant play). Here are two other plays:

View: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000097071/Rivers-and-Alexander-connect-again

View: http://www.detroitlions.com/media-center/videos/Johnsons-touchdown-overturned/65b1fa5e-82a1-44ef-b1d3-1e7e2f52455f


One of the two is a TD. The other was overturned.

The rule isn't enforced with any sort of consistency. As I said before, the NFL doesn't understand its own rule.

 

[XXXIVwin]

If Taint was "never" going to the ground, how did he end up there?

As I said before, the NFL doesn't understand its own rule.

Jrry, sorry man, but either you do not understand the rule or you are willfully trying to misunderstand it.

“Going to the ground” means that IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING THE CATCH it is inevitable that the receiver will fall to the ground.

Ask one hundred people about the Dez catch, and one hundred people will agree that Dez is FALLING as he makes the catch. After Dez jumps up and catches it, it is literally impossible for him not to fall.

By the same token, ask one hundred people if it is INEVITABLE that Taint would fall after making that catch. (The key is “inevitable”— i.e. is gravity doing its thing and Taint has NO CHANCE to stay upright.). Taint doesn’t jump, he catches it in stride, then takes three or four steps, and THEN loses his balance. One hundred people would agree that Taint wasn’t “inevitably falling” AS he made the catch. Taint was RUNNING as he made the catch.

I’m ok with the idea of changing the rule. But the claim that “the NFL doesn’t understand its own rules” just doesn’t hold water.

 

[jrry32]

Jrry, sorry man, but either you do not understand the rule or you are willfully trying to misunderstand it.

“Going to the ground” means that IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING THE CATCH it is inevitable that the receiver will fall to the ground.

Ask one hundred people about the Dez catch, and one hundred people will agree that Dez is FALLING as he makes the catch. After Dez jumps up and catches it, it is literally impossible for him not to fall.

By the same token, ask one hundred people if it is INEVITABLE that Taint would fall after making that catch. (The key is “inevitable”— i.e. is gravity doing its thing and Taint has NO CHANCE to stay upright.). Taint doesn’t jump, he catches it in stride, then takes three or four steps, and THEN loses his balance. One hundred people would agree that Taint wasn’t “inevitably falling” AS he made the catch. Taint was RUNNING as he made the catch.

I’m ok with the idea of changing the rule. But the claim that “the NFL doesn’t understand its own rules” just doesn’t hold water.

I gave you five or six plays that all had different outcomes. You've ignored all of them to continually restate the NFL's claims on the Taint "catch" which don't make any sense.

Do you remember the Jimmy Graham catch against the Rams that got overturned last week? It took longer for him to "go to the ground" than Golden Taint. Golden Taint was going to the ground unless we're interpreting the rule in a completely inconsistent manner. He had one step on his feet before he started going to the ground. That's not enough time to complete the process of the catch. The idea that Taint took three or four steps before losing his balance is a total farce. Just ask Mike Pereira and Dean Blandino, who don't agree with each other on the outcome of that play:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...knows-what-a-catch-is/?utm_term=.26cdca8e5ee7

 

[XXXIVwin]

I gave you five or six plays that all had different outcomes. You've ignored all of them to continually restate the NFL's claims on the Taint "catch" which don't make any sense.

Do you remember the Jimmy Graham catch against the Rams that got overturned last week? It took longer for him to "go to the ground" than Golden Taint. Golden Taint was going to the ground unless we're interpreting the rule in a completely inconsistent manner. He had one step on his feet before he started going to the ground. That's not enough time to complete the process of the catch. The idea that Taint took three or four steps before losing his balance is a total farce. Just ask Mike Pereira and Dean Blandino, who don't agree with each other on the outcome of that play:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...knows-what-a-catch-is/?utm_term=.26cdca8e5ee7

Jrry, maybe if we could meet in a bar somewhere and have a couple of beers we could hash all this out, but I don't think we are going to reach consensus in a message board format. It's too hard to track the other person's viewpoint without body language, gestures, referring to specific points on video, and so on.

I feel like I understand the way the NFL interprets its own rules. You think the NFL doesn't understand their own rules. I think we are just going to have to accept that we are not going to convince each other.

As to a few of your vid clips:

Johnson catch: clearly going to the ground, clearly lost possession of the ball on the ground ( while trying to transfer possession of the ball from one hand to the other). To me, completely understandable why it was ruled "no catch."

Rivers to Alexander play: Alexander going to the ground, receiver maintained possession with ONE HAND ONLY the entire time, even if ball grazed the ground, the receiver maintained sufficient control of the ball from beginning to end to qualify as a catch. To me, completely understandable why it was ruled "touchdown."

Graham play vs. the Rams: clearly he was "going to the ground and did not "survive the ground." To me, completely understandable why the ruling was "incompletion."

Golden Taint play: Yes, this is a tough play and involves subjectivity. However, it's important to understand the specific nature of of the disagreement between Pereira and Blandino. At no point does Pereira claim Taint was "going to the ground." At no point does Blandino state that Taint was "going to the ground." They are in agreement regarding this aspect. So while you state that "the idea that Taint took three or four steps before losing his balance is a total farce. Just ask Mike Pereira and Dean Blandino," well, both of them would disagree with you on that point. I've counted the steps that Taint makes, and after he secures the ball he takes three full steps, all of which occur when he is perfectly upright.

Blandino and Pereira disagreed about whether or not Taint had "established himself as a runner" before being stripped of the ball. On this play, that is a completely separate issue from the "going to the ground." If you listen closely you will realize that neither one of them makes the case that Taint was "going to the ground."

Jrry, every single one of these plays are close and therefore challenging. Again, I would concede that the current rules (obviously) create a lot of confusion for fans and announcers and players. But in my opinion, it is impossible to create a rule that completely eliminates subjectivity.

Totally understandable that there would be opposing viewpoints in this debate. I definitely think the catch rule is flawed in its current form. Our point of disagreement is about consistent enforcement of an admittedly flawed rule. So, I'm inclined to try to leave this debate alone for now and just focus on the whole "Go Rams" sorta thing.

 

[jrry32]

Rivers to Alexander play: Alexander going to the ground, receiver maintained possession with ONE HAND ONLY the entire time, even if ball grazed the ground, the receiver maintained sufficient control of the ball from beginning to end to qualify as a catch. To me, completely understandable why it was ruled "touchdown."

The ball bounced out of Alexander's hand after he hit the ground. It was actually clearer that the ball hit the ground on that play than it was on the overturned Jesse James TD.

Golden Taint play: Yes, this is a tough play and involves subjectivity. However, it's important to understand the specific nature of of the disagreement between Pereira and Blandino. At no point does Pereira claim Taint was "going to the ground." At no point does Blandino state that Taint was "going to the ground." They are in agreement regarding this aspect. So while you state that "the idea that Taint took three or four steps before losing his balance is a total farce. Just ask Mike Pereira and Dean Blandino," well, both of them would disagree with you on that point. I've counted the steps that Taint makes, and after he secures the ball he takes three full steps, all of which occur when he is perfectly upright.

Blandino and Pereira disagreed about whether or not Taint had "established himself as a runner" before being stripped of the ball. On this play, that is a completely separate issue from the "going to the ground." If you listen closely you will realize that neither one of them makes the case that Taint was "going to the ground."

The disagreement over whether he established himself as a runner is because if he didn't, he had to survive going to the ground. Nobody needed to talk about the going to the ground aspect of it all because if he didn't establish himself as a runner, it was a clear interception.

Taint was already leaning forward when his second foot was about to hit because the defender grabbed him. At that point, he was losing his balance.

Jrry, every single one of these plays are close and therefore challenging. Again, I would concede that the current rules (obviously) create a lot of confusion for fans and announcers and players. But in my opinion, it is impossible to create a rule that completely eliminates subjectivity.

You don't need to remove subjectivity. You need to remove absurd results. Having a 50/50 call not go your way is part of football. Having what everyone knows to be a catch get overruled because of a bad rule (that isn't enforced consistently) should not be part of football.

Totally understandable that there would be opposing viewpoints in this debate. I definitely think the catch rule is flawed in its current form. Our point of disagreement is about consistent enforcement of an admittedly flawed rule. So, I'm inclined to try to leave this debate alone for now and just focus on the whole "Go Rams" sorta thing.

Fair enough.

 

[XXXIVwin]

You don't need to remove subjectivity. You need to remove absurd results. Having a 50/50 call not go your way is part of football. Having what everyone knows to be a catch get overruled because of a bad rule (that isn't enforced consistently) should not be part of football.
.

I agree with the above, well said. (Well, I agree with everything except for the "enforced consistently" part).

Regarding Alexander; yes, the football clearly touched the ground. A receiver can slam the ball into the ground if he wants, and it would still be a catch,as long as he maintains control of the ball. In the opinion of the replay official (and mine as well), Alexander maintained control.

When you write, "The disagreement over whether he (Taint) established himself as a runner is because if he didn't, he had to survive going to the ground" ,that is just not accurate. Neither Blandino nor Pereira thought Taint had to survive the ground because neither thought Taint was falling.

(BTW, according to the current NFL rule, it's always a binary choice. It's one or the other. If you pass the "going to the ground" test, you never have to pass the "establish yourself as a runner test." And if you pass the "establish yourself as a runner" test, you never have to pass the "going to the ground" test. It's always one or the other, never both.)

In the Taint play, everything about "going to the ground" is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the play. The entire question of Taint's "balance" or whether he was "falling" did not enter into the decision-making process for either Pereira and Blandino.

Blandino and replay official think: Taint maintained possession long enough to become a runner, therefore it was a TD before he was stripped of the ball.

Pereira thinks: Taint did not maintain possession long enough to become a runner, therefore when he was stripped it became a live ball, and since it was caught by an opponent, it was an interception.

On this play, there were never any possible circumstances where Taint would have to "survive the ground." None. Tiki Barber completely mangled his commentary on the play, and unfortunately contributed to unnecessary confusion.

Again, I wish I could explain this better in person.

 

[Rynie]

If I had written the rule, it would be a catch. Unfortunately, these bozos did, so it isn't.

I'd argue with you, but Dez doesn't catch anything anymore, so it's pointless.