Twitter: Competition Committee says Dez caught it **merged**

[BlindFaith]

Mr. War and Peace throwing out rambling? No, you quoted the rules and then gave your usual misinterpretation of what they mean, all the time by focusing on the word receiver that has absolutely nothing to do with how one can interpret the rule.

Jesus, do we have to bring in a third grade English teacher to settle this debate? Is that all it needed to take over the course of three years?

So now ridicule me because I can express a cogent thought? That I take the time to factually put into context the rule? I've rarely met your type before, in all seriousness.

 

[blindzebra]

Did you read this?

7. So, we can now clarify for you what the rule actually means.
A. If a player - Player being just a player (no other made up definition for him)
B. goes to the ground - meaning at some point the player goes from not on the ground to being on the ground
C. in the act of catching a pass - This means that if the player has not completed the catch process and somewhere from the beginning of the catch process to the completion of the catch process they are judged to being going to the ground.
Beginning - of the catch process starts from the first milisecond that the ball touches a players hand - Start of possessing the ball
Through - getting two feet down
To - Making an act common to the game

The only way that Dez caught the ball is if he had become a runner before he was judged to be going to the ground.

8. So, at what point do you say Dez was going to the ground?

How can you not understand what this says? How? how? Unless English is not your first language. Maybe? Who knows.

Tell me how, after reading this, you can still say

"where in the 2014 rule does it say that 8.1.3.a.b.c needs to be complete before going to the ground begins?"

IT SAYS IT RIGHT IN THE VERY RULE THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T AT ALL UNDERSTAND.

Trolling. Trolling is just spouting out nonsense that has no value in the discussion. Trolling is chest thumping and ridicule. Trolling is persisting with dialog that is in stark contrast with the actual truth.

Who has done that? Who deflects questions or flat out doesn't answer them? Who denies the overwhelming opinions from experts? Who continues to think they are right in light of the actual facts? Who makes up new rules on the fly?

You are simply in denial. This was an attempt at your intervention. But trying to have a rational discussion with someone beyond reason is simply hopeless. Hopeless.

No what that says is if the player stays in the catch process from beginning of the fall to hitting the ground they must maintain possession. What it does not say is that they cannot complete that process and become a runner...Yeah and I am the one that does not understand it and makes up stuff.

 

[blindzebra]

Jesus, do we have to bring in a third grade English teacher to settle this debate? Is that all it needed to take over the course of three years?

So now ridicule me because I can express a cogent thought? That I take the time to factually put into context the rule? I've rarely met your type before, in all seriousness.

Ah yes more insults.
And a cogent thought is usually succinct.

 

[BlindFaith]

Ah yes more insults.

You're ignored. I'll only be responding to Percy going forward. Thanks for playing.

 

[blindzebra]

You're ignored. I'll only be responding to Percy going forward. Thanks for playing.

Thank God, but I feel bad for Percy, he doesn't deserve it.

 

[Kevinicus]

And Dez isn't a receiver, he is a player. You go from player to runner. You don't go from player, to receiver to runner. Unless you have some other rule book you're looking at. And if you don't, STOP MAKING THINGS UP!!!!!

You do realize the rule book uses the term "receiver" to apply to an offensive player eligible to catch a pass...right? In fact, it uses the term for those who are not eligible. They are called ineligible receivers.

Dez absolutely is a "receiver" when he lines up on every play. Sometimes he becomes a runner.

 

[blindzebra]

You do realize the rule book uses the term "receiver" to apply to an offensive player eligible to catch a pass...right? In fact, it uses the term for those who are not eligible. They are called ineligible receivers.

Dez absolutely is a "receiver" when he lines up on every play. Sometimes he becomes a runner.

Of all the nonsense these guys have crapped out in this thread this fixation on receiver is possibly the most moronic, but if your argument is toast you grab for what you can.

 

[MarcusRock]

Yes. He has some receiver VS runner concoction he's trying to brew up.

This is exactly why they don't answer questions. Because once they do slip up and actually do try, they start creating their own logic.

LOL. And when they can't answer a question, they get all "outraged" with righteous indignation to cloud the fact that they didn't answer your question as you just saw. I call them kryptonite questions. Now where's that parrot to say my jokes are lame?

 

[blindzebra]

LOL. And when they can't answer a question, they get all "outraged" with righteous indignation to cloud the fact that they didn't answer your question as you just saw. I call them kryptonite questions. Now where's that parrot to say my jokes are lame?

Big difference between can't and having no desire to waste time answering moronic questions that you think are clever.

Since we are talking questions I am still waiting on a rule citation for your magic lunge.

 

[BlindFaith]

LOL. And when they can't answer a question, they get all "outraged" with righteous indignation to cloud the fact that they didn't answer your question as you just saw. I call them kryptonite questions. Now where's that parrot to say my jokes are lame?

Exactly. I'm done with them all, except Percy. The only way I can keep my sanity is to ignore the nonsense.

We've posted factual, thought out explanations for a rule that is not really that hard to understand if you read it and not just say "omg, he did all kind of stuff. that has to be a catch"

I really have nothing more to say and nothing more really needs to be clarified. If Percy has a couple more "what about's" in him, I'll answer. But that's it. This should be a closed case.

 

[rkell87]

lol - you really are a child. What next? Are you going to call me a poo poo head or tell me your dad can beat up my dad?

The rule is that a player first has to have control of the ball, then get 2 feet down, then make the "football move". You can't rearrange the order to suit you, and in any case, getting control of the is not a "football move" - it is a separate element of the 3 step catch process. Try reading the rule instead of acting like a 6 year old while talking about something you haven't bothered to read or try and understand.

Catch ball, uncatch ball, recatch ball. Not hard dumb dumb

 

[blindzebra]

Exactly. I'm done with them all, except Percy. The only way I can keep my sanity is to ignore the nonsense.

We've posted factual, thought out explanations for a rule that is not really that hard to understand if you read it and not just say "omg, he did all kind of stuff. that has to be a catch"

I really have nothing more to say and nothing more really needs to be clarified. If Percy has a couple more "what about's" in him, I'll answer. But that's it. This should be a closed case.

Funny isn't this like the 20th time we have heard this speech? Frankly, I can't recall a single thread you have posted in that wasn't on this topic, 2719 posts and 2700 of them have been in Dez catch threads.

 

[MarcusRock]

Big difference between can't and having no desire to waste time answering moronic questions that you think are clever.

Since we are talking questions I am still waiting on a rule citation for your magic lunge.

Clever? Some of my questions are in direct response to claims you've made so they're natural questions to someone making a claim. Don't know why people wouldn't want to answer those when statements they make lead directly to those questions on the same topic. Unless ...

My rule citation is demonstrated in the case plays (3 of them - lunge, lunge, lunge). Still waiting for where it's written in the rules that rules for catches meant for someone on their feet automatically apply to someone going to the ground. That theory prompts questions like why Item 6 trumping a,b,c doesn't mean the same thing for Item 1 or why number of steps don't matter when going to the ground is applied. But those are "clever" questions so of course you won't "waste your time" with them. Uh huh. We get it.

 

[Gator88]

Exactly. I'm done with them all, except Percy. The only way I can keep my sanity is to ignore the nonsense.

We've posted factual, thought out explanations for a rule that is not really that hard to understand if you read it and not just say "omg, he did all kind of stuff. that has to be a catch"

I really have nothing more to say and nothing more really needs to be clarified. If Percy has a couple more "what about's" in him, I'll answer. But that's it. This should be a closed case.

None of what you have posted makes anywhere close to as much sense as if you read "going to the ground" as hitting the ground though. Everything makes sense if you look at it that way, rather than the convoluted logic when you read "going to the ground" as beginning to fall.

 

[blindzebra]

Clever? Some of my questions are in direct response to claims you've made so they're natural questions to someone making a claim. Don't know why people wouldn't want to answer those when statements they make lead directly to those questions on the same topic. Unless ...

My rule citation is demonstrated in the case plays (3 of them - lunge, lunge, lunge). Still waiting for where it's written in the rules that rules for catches meant for someone on their feet automatically apply to someone going to the ground. That theory prompts questions like why Item 6 trumping a,b,c doesn't mean the same thing for Item 1 or why number of steps don't matter when going to the ground is applied. But those are "clever" questions so of course you won't "waste your time" with them. Uh huh. We get it.

Case plays are not rules. A.R. 15.95 gives you the rule and it is 8.1.3.c, you know acts common to the game, the heading the case play is under.

 

[BlindFaith]

None of what you have posted makes anywhere close to as much sense as if you read "going to the ground" as hitting the ground though. Everything makes sense if you look at it that way, rather than the convoluted logic when you read "going to the ground" as beginning to fall.

That's a small part of it.

The bigger part is "in the act of catching a pass"

It has been interpreted, incorrectly, to mean "in the act of making an act common to the game"

That interpretation leaves off the first two parts of the catch process.

Emotion can play tricks on your eyes sometimes.

 

[blindzebra]

That's a small part of it.

The bigger part is "in the act of catching a pass"

It has been interpreted, incorrectly, to mean "in the act of making an act common to the game"

That interpretation leaves off the first two parts of the catch process.

Emotion can play tricks on your eyes sometimes.

What a load of crap.

The catch process is 8.1.3.a.b.c, the act of catching a pass ends when you make an act common to the game, you know the title of the case play you love to point to, the one that directly ties to 8.1.3.c, and the one you misinterpret.

 

[MarcusRock]

Case plays are not rules. A.R. 15.95 gives you the rule and it is 8.1.3.c, you know acts common to the game, the heading the case play is under.

Well then Item 1, especially since A.R. 8.12 and A.R. 8.13 are titled "Going to the Ground." A lunge gets one out of being subject to it. Oh look, in 15.95 too.

So will you answer why Item 6 trumping a,b,c doesn't mean the same thing for Item 1 or why number of steps don't matter when going to the ground is applied?

 

[Kevinicus]

That's a small part of it.

The bigger part is "in the act of catching a pass"

It has been interpreted, incorrectly, to mean "in the act of making an act common to the game"

That interpretation leaves off the first two parts of the catch process.

Emotion can play tricks on your eyes sometimes.

What is this nonsense? It has not been interpreted in whatever nonsensical mess you just posted.

 

[Gator88]

That's a small part of it.

The bigger part is "in the act of catching a pass"

It has been interpreted, incorrectly, to mean "in the act of making an act common to the game"

That interpretation leaves off the first two parts of the catch process.

Emotion can play tricks on your eyes sometimes.

It's been what, 3 years? While I was emotional about it when it happened, I've gotten over it since it's been plenty of time since then. This is all about what makes the most logical sense to me.