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

[DogFace]

You analyze Johnson all the way to the ground because direct from each of the case plays here, if you lunge you can escape going to the ground (in 2014 and 2015 per A.R. 8.12). Did Blandino say that Johnson could have escaped going to the ground had he gotten 2 feet down or was he again, just describing what was happening in this example that came up early in 2013 as a player that was deemed going to the ground so he could compare it to someone who wasn't going to the ground? He wasn't establishing rules here, he was explaining them from two examples that just happened in NFL play. You're attempting to draw conclusions of rule establishment for something that was solely meant as an example.

Yes. He cleary did say you could escape going to the ground if you complete the 3 part process in order.

Blandino on the Calvin Johnson play in the video:
“If you can perform all parts-in that order-you have a catch. If —NOT— and you’re going to the ground you have to maintain possession.”
“He did not have both feet down prior to the reach so this is all one process.”


This says very plainly if he would’ve had two feet down it would NOT have been all one process. One process being the control and going to the ground. Rather it would’ve been part 3 of the catch process completed WHILE he was going to the ground.

These are his quotes. You’ve had trouble reading and understanding examples before as @FloridaRob has pointed out. Read them carefully and you WILL finally understand.


You’re wrong. They beat you. Badly. Admit it and “walk away” or really walk away. You lost badly and despite your absolutely horrible personality and false sense of confidence you made a good argument. Or at least it’s polite to tell you that.

Don’t leave the debate mad. Just leave. It’s over.

​

 

[DallasEast]

dodge noun \ ˈdäj \

Definition of dodge
1: an act of evading by sudden bodily movement
2: an artful device to evade, deceive, or trick
3: avoid post #396

 

[DogFace]

dodge noun \ ˈdäj \

Definition of dodge
1: an act of evading by sudden bodily movement
2: an artful device to evade, deceive, or trick
3: avoid post #396

Believe it or not he answered(sort of) that question in another thread when I believe I had the pleasure of first meeting this wonderful human. He’s probably embarrassed to answer it again.

He said I was crying about the streak and had no evidence that it was extraordinary. I told him something to the effect that I thought the streak was unprecedented. He said I was being emotional about my team and that I was alleging a CONSPIRACY(his fav word)against my team.

He’s also a big fan of the Butler unsportsmanlike call and it being warranted and not out of the ordinary.

 

[nathanlt]

Believe it or not he answered(sort of) that question in another thread when I believe I had the pleasure of first meeting this wonderful human. He’s probably embarrassed to answer it again.

He said I was crying about the streak and had no evidence that it was extraordinary. I told him something to the effect that I thought the streak was unprecedented. He said I was being emotional about my team and that I was alleging a CONSPIRACY(his fav word)against my team.

He’s also a big fan of the Butler unsportsmanlike call and it being warranted and not out of the ordinary.

He can't be a Dallas fan. Definitely a troll, could be an NFL PR guy trying to wear down any resistance to the NFLs boondoggle of bizarre referee decisions. Maybe a Stephen A. Smith clone.

 

[GMO415]

That does a lot of good now.

Watch them **** up some more next season

 

[gimmesix]

That does a lot of good now.

Watch them **** up some more next season

That is the scary part ... that they could make it worse.

 

[DogFace]

From the video percy posted

Blandino on the Calvin Johnson play in the video:
“If you can perform all parts-in that order-you have a catch. If —NOT— and you’re going to the ground you have to maintain possession.”
“He did not have both feet down prior to the reach so this is all one process.”


This says very plainly if he would’ve had two feet down it would NOT have been all one process. One process being the control and going to the ground. Rather it would’ve been part 3 of the catch process completed WHILE he was going to the ground.


I’d love to hear anyone dispute or try to say what he says is not completely clear.

@BlindFaith @OmerV @MarcusRock @the other guy

 

[DallasEast]

That is the scary part ... that they could make it worse.

That is a valid concern. A receiver establishing control with two feet inbounds equals catch. It should become one of, if not the most briefly worded entries in the NFL rulebook.

 

[MarcusRock]

dodge noun \ ˈdäj \

Definition of dodge
1: an act of evading by sudden bodily movement
2: an artful device to evade, deceive, or trick
3: avoid post #396

LOL. I'll be honest, I missed your post in the midst of everything otherwise I definitely would have answered it because I have addressed it before, including to the person now parroting you and others. I don't respond to parrots who bring nothing to a discussion of their own.

As for the no-calls of holds against Dallas' opponents, the question I ask about that is how frequent of an occurrence is this in the NFL? Has it never happened in the history of the game or does this type of streak happen every year to teams? The case for something fishy is obviously bolstered if it's the former but I've seen no support for that anywhere, just people drawing conclusions because it "seems funny." Ironically, that's what's happening here with people saying the rules "changed" between 2014 and 2015 but have avoided questions about support for such when I present support that says they didn't change. Now there's a dodge.

I've seen articles written on the no holding thing but I never saw anything relating to what I ask about it. I ask because it's not rare that teams go entire games without getting holding penalties called against them. I think Carolina had 6 (or 8?) such games like that last season, as did Green Bay. Maybe some teams are just more disciplined than others, but if people aren't backing up claims with anything then we can all just make assertions and claim they're true because they "seem" to sound right.

 

[gimmesix]

That is a valid concern. A receiver establishing control with two feet inbounds equals catch. It should become one of, if not the most briefly worded entries in the NFL rulebook.

The only problem that I see with that is "establishing control." Officials have difficulty when things aren't spelled out for them. (For that matter, they have difficulty when things are.)

I think you have to quantify it. Looking at the Bryant and Johnson plays, things happen quickly. I think I counted to two on Bryant's play after he clearly had control of the ball before the ground knocked it out. On Johnson, I believe I counted to three. (This was the other day, so I'm not 100 percent sure that's correct.) Not two seconds or three seconds, just 1-2-3.

So would a rule saying "the receiver has to have the ball secured (not moving in his hands) for more than the count of 1 after getting two feet down" be fair? This would eliminate it being considered a fumble when a receiver loses control of the ball after getting hit immediately when the ball is in his grasp. I think there has to be a moment where if it's knocked loose, it's not a catch.

I'd probably need to go back and look at some bang-bang incompletions to see if that's fair.

 

[nathanlt]

The only problem that I see with that is "establishing control." Officials have difficulty when things aren't spelled out for them. (For that matter, they have difficulty when things are.)

I think you have to quantify it. Looking at the Bryant and Johnson plays, things happen quickly. I think I counted to two on Bryant's play after he clearly had control of the ball before the ground knocked it out. On Johnson, I believe I counted to three. (This was the other day, so I'm not 100 percent sure that's correct.) Not two seconds or three seconds, just 1-2-3.

So would a rule saying "the receiver has to have the ball secured (not moving in his hands) for more than the count of 1 after getting two feet down" be fair? This would eliminate it being considered a fumble when a receiver loses control of the ball after getting hit immediately when the ball is in his grasp. I think there has to be a moment where if it's knocked loose, it's not a catch.

I'd probably need to go back and look at some bang-bang incompletions to see if that's fair.

I'd say that if the official sees in real time that the momentum and direction of the ball is changed about the width of the football itself, it is not a bang bang play. The initial ruling must be made before replay is viewed, so that indisputable evidence is needed to overturn that ruling.

That's straightforward.

 

[gimmesix]

I'd say that if the official sees in real time that the momentum and direction of the ball is changed about the width of the football itself, it is not a bang bang play. The initial ruling must be made before replay is viewed, so that indisputable evidence is needed to overturn that ruling.

That's straightforward.

I'm not quite sure I understand. I've seen receivers standing with both feet down, catch the pass with two hands and immediately get hit and lose control of the ball. They had control for a moment, but couldn't maintain it.

How are you saying that should be handled?

 

[nathanlt]

I'm not quite sure I understand. I've seen receivers standing with both feet down, catch the pass with two hands and immediately get hit and lose control of the ball. They had control for a moment, but couldn't maintain it.

How are you saying that should be handled?

If they possess the ball long enough to stop the trajectory/momentum of the throw, and create and control a new direction of the balls movement, then it should be a catch.

 

[DallasEast]

LOL. I'll be honest, I missed your post in the midst of everything otherwise I definitely would have answered it because I have addressed it before, including to the person now parroting you and others. I don't respond to parrots who bring nothing to a discussion of their own.

A reply? Interesting. Allow me to re-post completely what you are referring to for other members:

Poor decision on when to throw the flag? So they should look the other way when they spot fouls occurring? I mean, people think this anyway for Cowboys opponents but when people cry out, aren't they crying out for a "fairly called game?" Or do they just want all the calls to go their way?

[Bold] Question: What was your opinion concerning the officiating that did not result in a single offensive hold called on opposing linemen during a 20+ consecutive quarters streak last season?

...fast forward to the present:

As for the no-calls of holds against Dallas' opponents, the question I ask about that is how frequent of an occurrence is this in the NFL?

This question holds relevance only if blatant offensive holding did not occur. Blatant offensive holding did occur occasionally during the streak. Blatant offensive holding happens in every game and every team. For clarification sake, are you stating "Yes, blatant offensive holding did not occur at any time during the streak in my opinion." Or are you stating blatant offensive holding did occur during the streak but was not flagged by officials as a consequence?

Has it never happened in the history of the game or does this type of streak happen every year to teams?

My answers: 'Of course' and 'In varying degrees'.

The case for something fishy is obviously bolstered if it's the former but I've seen no support for that anywhere, just people drawing conclusions because it "seems funny."

Convenient.

Ironically, that's what's happening here with people saying the rules "changed" between 2014 and 2015 but have avoided questions about support for such when I present support that says they didn't change. Now there's a dodge.

dude. Now back to this discussion.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-offi...ly-good/officials-responsibilities-positions/

Umpire (U)
General Responsibilities
Maintains control at the LOS by watching for holding penalties and blocking infractions

Allow me the opportunity of slightly modifying my original question:

[Bold] Question: What do you consider were the contributing factors concerning umpires, participating on multiple officiating crews, who did not call a single offensive hold on opposing linemen during a 20+ consecutive quarters streak last season?

Be assured, I will understand if you do not see this reply, like the previous reply, before you see another member reference my latest reply within their reply to me. lol. Now THAT'S a lot of replies.

 

[gimmesix]

If they possess the ball long enough to stop the trajectory/momentum of the throw, and create and control a new direction of the balls movement, then it should be a catch.

Yes, but what is "long enough"? I think the officials need concrete directions.

 

[Idgit]

I'm not quite sure I understand. I've seen receivers standing with both feet down, catch the pass with two hands and immediately get hit and lose control of the ball. They had control for a moment, but couldn't maintain it.

How are you saying that should be handled?

Two feet/one non-foot body part down, and control of the ball should be a catch. Maintaining control once you have it ought to be irrelevant. If you have control and get hit and lose it, it's a fumble just like it would be for any other player. If it happens too much with receivers, teams should consider changing their game plan re: the windows they're willing to throw it into.

This still leaves debate around what 'control' is, but that's much easier to define than what's currently being debated.

 

[Aviano90]

Yes, but what is "long enough"? I think the officials need concrete directions.

This isn't directed at you, just using your post to make my point.


Your comment is the exact reason why controversy over what is or is not a catch will always exist. What seems simple to one person, will get complicated by someone else trying to make an argument when they want to.

 

[DallasEast]

The only problem that I see with that is "establishing control." Officials have difficulty when things aren't spelled out for them. (For that matter, they have difficulty when things are.)

I think you have to quantify it. Looking at the Bryant and Johnson plays, things happen quickly. I think I counted to two on Bryant's play after he clearly had control of the ball before the ground knocked it out. On Johnson, I believe I counted to three. (This was the other day, so I'm not 100 percent sure that's correct.) Not two seconds or three seconds, just 1-2-3.

So would a rule saying "the receiver has to have the ball secured (not moving in his hands) for more than the count of 1 after getting two feet down" be fair? This would eliminate it being considered a fumble when a receiver loses control of the ball after getting hit immediately when the ball is in his grasp. I think there has to be a moment where if it's knocked loose, it's not a catch.

I'd probably need to go back and look at some bang-bang incompletions to see if that's fair.

I slightly agree but would only modify the wording of my rule example to, "A receiver establishing control of the ball at or before taking his second step inbounds equals catch." As you said, bang-bang plays happen. In my opinion, a receiver catches a legal pass if he has not boggled the ball before landing that second foot inbounds. Otherwise, he is juggling the ball up to that crucial point and did not establish control of the ball.

 

[nathanlt]

Yes, but what is "long enough"? I think the officials need concrete directions.

Long enough is not a time measurement, but a visual confirmation that the ball does not simply stop it's trajectory, but begins a new trajectory that the receiver maintains, that, from frame to frame, cover at least the length of the football.

 

[Kevinicus]

So we know that a lunge ends going to the ground. Do you have any examples of another act common to the game ending going to the ground? Because I have a case play (A.R. 8.12) from 2014 and 2015 that shows "switching hands" does not end going to the ground. We already know that steps are irrelevant in going to the ground. Gee, why is that? Don't people also try to claim that Dez took an "extra step" to make it 3? What's different about a lunge that ends going to the ground that other "acts common to the game" do not?

A.R. 8.12 for reference:

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted
by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right
arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the
goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out.
Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The pass is complete. When the receiver hits the ground in the end
zone, it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of
the catch. Since the ball crossed the goal line, it is a touchdown. If the ball is short of the goal line, it is a catch,
and A2 is down by contact.​

I'm sure you've already been corrected on this, but exactly where does this case play say that "switching hands" does not end going to the ground? Why do you have to make things up instead of use logic and common sense?