View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently February 17th, 2019, 6:21 am

Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
 Inside Slant: The counterintuitive 'process' 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12534
Post Inside Slant: The counterintuitive 'process'
ESPN wrote:
Inside Slant: The counterintuitive 'process'
September, 12, 2013
By Kevin Seifert |
Tim Fuller/USA TODAY Sports
Calvin Johnson dropped a would-be TD catch because he didn't complete the "process of the catch."

In 2010, I sat in the Soldier Field press box and watched as "process of the catch" became a term of great derision and mystery. Four seasons later, it seems, nothing has changed. Players, fans, media members and even officials remain confused about the corresponding rule, what it means, and how it should be implemented.

Three plays from Week 1 help illustrate our continuing state of disorder, one that first became evident when Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson lost an apparent game-winning touchdown in 2010 after leaving the ball on the ground to go celebrate. As we (thought we) learned at the time, the NFL rulebook includes this note in Rule 3, Section 2, Article 7:

"A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting 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, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery."

Johnson lost another touchdown Sunday, against the Minnesota Vikings, after replay officials and referee John Parry ruled -- correctly -- that he did not control the ball through the entire process of the catch. When you watch the replay, you see Johnson gather Matthew Stafford's pass in a firm grasp with two hands and with two feet on the ground at the 1-yard line. He dove across the goal line, but the ball trickled out when his arms hit the ground.

Regardless of what you think about the rule, Parry's decision made sense given its wording -- at least until Sunday night. In the third quarter at AT&T Stadium, New York Giants receiver Victor Cruz was awarded an 18-yard touchdown catch under what seemed to be identical circumstances to the play ruled incomplete a few hours earlier in Detroit.

Cruz made a leaping grab at the 1-yard line, turned toward the end zone and stretched the ball with his right hand over the goal line. When the ball hit the ground, it squirted out of his hand. Cruz did not regain possession.

What was the difference between Cruz's touchdown and Johnson's incompletion? I suppose you could argue that Cruz wasn't going to the ground as he made the catch. His dive over the goal line was a separate action, coming after he technically gained possession.

Regardless, the rule put referee Tony Corrente in a tough spot, and it's not at all clear that he made the right call. Former NFL vice president of officiating Mike Pereira, now a Fox Sports analyst, tweeted this week: "The Cruz catch was ruled complete. It should not have. Ball came lose when he hit the ground. He did not complete the process."

In the aftermath, no one from the Dallas Cowboys complained about the call, from what I could tell. The knowledgeable announcing duo of Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth didn't immediately question it, either. The play passed the smell test, as did Johnson's, and applying the "process rule" seemed artificial and awkward to the layman.

That sense seems especially vivid when considering our third play, also from the Lions' victory over the Vikings. In the second quarter, Lions running back Joique Bell took a handoff at the 1-yard line, leaped and stretched the ball over the goal line. Almost instantaneously, Vikings safety Jamarca Sanford knocked the ball lose.

Parry initially ruled the play a fumble and awarded possession to the Vikings on the recovery. Upon reviewing the replay, however, Parry noted correctly that the ball crossed the plane a moment before Sanford dislodged it. In such situations, the play is dead the moment the ball crossed the plane. The ruling is a touchdown. Nothing that happens afterward matters at all.

So why is the Bell play dead the moment the ball crosses the plane, while the Johnson play is not? That question has always bothered me. It's as if the NFL has two separate rules for possession in the end zone, one for a running play and one for the pass.

The clinical answer is that the league does not consider Johnson to be in possession of the ball as he falls to the ground. He can have the ball firmly in grasp, with two feet on the ground, but if he is falling, the process rule means he must have possession until after he has landed.

Only then, according to the rule, could Johnson be in possession and be awarded the touchdown that Bell got by crossing the plane long before he fell to the ground and an instant before he fumbled.

I can understand that explanation in a vacuum, but too often this rule leads to decisions that don't pass the obvious smell test. The league considered but ultimately abandoned attempts to rewrite the rule a few years ago. Here's hoping the smart men on the competition committee revive those discussions. ... ve-process

Detroit vs. Everybody
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

September 12th, 2013, 5:27 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 10408
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Inside Slant: The counterintuitive 'process'
I stand by what I've said time and time against.


Worst wording, worst understanding, worst implemented.

The rule originally was written about players diving for a ball, who never get their feet back on the ground. If a player JUMPS up for a ball, as opposing to DIVES (lays out) for a ball, you have different dynamics involved entirely.

In order for the NFL to fix this, they must define a 'catch', and do it right. Any player who established CONTROL of the football and has put two feet down in the field of play, or the end zone, is considered to have 'caught' the football. Falling down after both feet are down should NOT be considered a process of a catch, since many times players do NOT fall down after 'catching' the ball. Stating the falling down is part of the 'process' means that ALL players catching a ball would fall down. As such, any player who doesn't fall down after getting both hands on the ball, has not completed the process of a catch, and therefore the pass should be considered incomplete.

The way the rule is written, it is about a player 'going to the ground IN ORDER to secure a loose ball (make a catch). When a player has both hands on the football, and both feet hit the ground, they are NO LONGER trying to secure a loose ball, but instead have established control and have begun to make the 'football move' that is so often brought up.


I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

September 13th, 2013, 9:18 am
5th Round Pick - Traded
User avatar

Joined: February 28th, 2007, 12:13 pm
Posts: 1019
Post Re: Inside Slant: The counterintuitive 'process'
If this were COD, M2K's post would have been a head shot.

If you think education is tough, try being stoopid.

September 13th, 2013, 10:31 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 3 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot] and 36 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.