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

[MarcusRock]

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


...fast forward to the present:
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?
My answers: 'Of course' and 'In varying degrees'.
Convenient.
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:




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.

Sorry but I'm not even understanding what your point is concerning all this. My question has relevance for those claiming the "conspiracy of the no holds" but only against Dallas. If you're claiming blatant holding happens "in every game and every team" (is there support for your opinion or do you really re-watch all NFL games to look for specifically for holding?) then is there also a conspiracy that works for Carolina and Green Bay who each went at least 6 games during the season without an offensive hold being called against them?

 

[MarcusRock]

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?

See, but that's the thing Kevin. No one has addressed this and have repeatedly avoided my questions on it. Catch theorists want to avoid this case play and try to cling to the falsehood that the 15.95 case play was the play that most closely resembled the Dez play but it's actually this one. One of the "bajillion football moves" catch theorists claim is that Dez "switched hands" with the ball on the way to the ground. I put it in quotes because you can't switch from two hands to one, you just take one hand off. But anyways, the same thing happens here in this case play where the receiver catches the ball and then the ball ends up "in his right arm." So that would be a "tuck" too, right, which catch theorists also claim was a Dez football move on the way to the ground. If you read this case play, do any of those football moves end going to the ground per the ruling? And he was going to the ground, otherwise the case play wouldn't be titled "Going to the Ground."

So what does the ruling say ends this receiver from going to the ground to make this a catch? Was it those multiple "football moves" as claimed by catch theorists? I mean, that's a straighter line to a completion because it checks off all 3 parts of the catch rule, right? The answer to these questions is why catch theorists currently want to divert to a "catch Blandino in his words" boondoggle. But what do you say about this case play?

 

[Bleedblue1111]

How is going from two hands with control, to one hand with control, not considered as switching hands? Seems illogical.

 

[MarcusRock]

How is going from two hands with control, to one hand with control, not considered as switching hands? Seems illogical.

We can debate those semantics back and forth but even if it is, does it count as a football move to complete the 3-part process of a catch in that case play 8.12?

 

[Bleedblue1111]

We can debate tho semantics back and forth but even if it is, does it count as a football move to complete the 3-part process of a catch in that case play 8.12?

Honestly, I won't go there. Waaay to confusing for me. I do wonder if Blandino ever referred to the case plays that evening, though.

 

[MarcusRock]

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?

Oh, and about logic and common sense, did you see how this thread got its start and how logic and common sense were treated in the face of emotion? LOL.

 

[MarcusRock]

Honestly, I won't go there. Waaay to confusing for me. I do wonder if Blandino ever referred to the case plays that evening, though.

I don't believe he did and it's why people have a problem with him because it would have probably helped, which is fine and all, but what does the rule book say? That was in existence in black and white before the season even began. Does splitting hairs over what Blandino said make the call correct or does the black and white rule book? What catch theorists are attempting to do is a piñata approach where they blindly search for something to hit on and then say, "Ah ha! Now you have to throw the whole thing out." That works if you don't have a rule book to refer to but there is one, which is why it's avoided when brought up or outright twisted to compare different parts of the same rule across years instead of a like for like comparison.

 

[Bleedblue1111]

I don't believe he did and it's why people have a problem with him because it would have probably helped, which is fine and all, but what does the rule book say? That was in existence in black and white before the season even began. Does splitting hairs over what Blandino said make the call correct or does the black and white rule book?

I don't believe he did and it's why people have a problem with him because it would have probably helped, which is fine and all, but what does the rule book say? That was in existence in black and white before the season even began. Does splitting hairs over what Blandino said make the call correct or does the black and white rule book? What catch theorists are attempting to do is a piñata approach where they blindly search for something to hit on and then say, "Ah ha! Now you have to throw the whole thing out." That works if you don't have a rule book to refer to but there is one, which is why it's avoided when brought up.

I still believe that type of play should be rewarded as a catch, so I'm just hoping they adjust the rule, so it will be in the future.

 

[DallasEast]

Sorry but I'm not even understanding what your point is concerning all this.

Curious.

In my original reply, I bolded and enlarged the text of your question as follows:

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?

Umpires, literally, stare only at the offensive line to spot fouls. Umpires take one of three actions when blatant offensive holding occurs during a play:

1. Do not throw their flag if they did not see a blatant hold occur
2. Throw their flag if they see a blatant hold occur
3. Choose to not throw their flag if they see a blatant hold occur

Conspiracy or no conspiracy, it is completely illogical to assume multiple umpires never saw a single blatant offensive hold occur in over 20 quarters. The only logical conclusion is that one or more umpires chose option three during the streak in question.

You asked the question: "So they should look the other way when they spot fouls occurring?" The logical answer would be, "They chose to look the other way when they spot fouls occurring, so yes."

My question has relevance for those claiming the "conspiracy of the no holds" but only against Dallas.

I never said 'only against Dallas', thus, again, your question holds no relevance within our mutual conversation.

If you're claiming blatant holding happens "in every game and every team" (is there support for your opinion or do you really re-watch all NFL games to look for specifically for holding?) then is there also a conspiracy that works for Carolina and Green Bay who each went at least 6 games during the season without an offensive hold being called against them?

Again, (and this pertains to any team in any sport that codifies a penalty related to blatant holding):

Conspiracy or no conspiracy, it is completely illogical to assume multiple umpires never saw a single blatant offensive hold occur in over 20 quarters. The only logical conclusion is that one or more umpires chose option three during the streak in question.

 

[MarcusRock]

Curious.

In my original reply, I bolded and enlarged the text of your question as follows:
Umpires, literally, stare only at the offensive line to spot fouls. Umpires take one of three actions when blatant offensive holding occurs during a play:

1. Do not throw their flag if they did not see a blatant hold occur
2. Throw their flag if they see a blatant hold occur
3. Choose to not throw their flag if they see a blatant hold occur

Conspiracy or no conspiracy, it is completely illogical to assume multiple umpires never saw a single blatant offensive hold occur in over 20 quarters. The only logical conclusion is that one or more umpires chose option three during the streak in question.

You asked the question: "So they should look the other way when they spot fouls occurring?" The logical answer would be, "They chose to look the other way when they spot fouls occurring, so yes."
I never said 'only against Dallas', thus, again, your question holds no relevance within our mutual conversation.
Again, (and this pertains to any team in any sport that codifies a penalty related to blatant holding):

Conspiracy or no conspiracy, it is completely illogical to assume multiple umpires never saw a single blatant offensive hold occur in over 20 quarters. The only logical conclusion is that one or more umpires chose option three during the streak in question.

Has it happened for that long a period before in the history of the sport?

 

[DallasEast]

Has it happened for that long a period before in the history of the sport?

Length of time is irrelevant. Whether a blatant hold occurs is pertinent only.

 

[MarcusRock]

Length of time is irrelevant. Whether a blatant hold occurs is pertinent only.

Well, you said that blatant holding goes on in every game and for every team. Would it be "illogical to assume" that you've confirmed this by watching every single NFL game in existence since you started watching to look for holds that you're no doubt qualified to identify (I'm assuming) like an official?

 

[DallasEast]

Well, you said that blatant holding goes on in every game and for every team. Would it be "illogical to assume" that you've confirmed this by watching every single NFL game in existence since you started watching to look for holds that you're no doubt qualified to identify (I'm assuming) like an official?

omg

Thanks for the convo Charlie Sheen. I'm out.

 

[blindzebra]

See, but that's the thing Kevin. No one has addressed this and have repeatedly avoided my questions on it. Catch theorists want to avoid this case play and try to cling to the falsehood that the 15.95 case play was the play that most closely resembled the Dez play but it's actually this one. One of the "bajillion football moves" catch theorists claim is that Dez "switched hands" with the ball on the way to the ground. I put it in quotes because you can't switch from two hands to one, you just take one hand off. But anyways, the same thing happens here in this case play where the receiver catches the ball and then the ball ends up "in his right arm." So that would be a "tuck" too, right, which catch theorists also claim was a Dez football move on the way to the ground. If you read this case play, do any of those football moves end going to the ground per the ruling? And he was going to the ground, otherwise the case play wouldn't be titled "Going to the Ground."

So what does the ruling say ends this receiver from going to the ground to make this a catch? Was it those multiple "football moves" as claimed by catch theorists? I mean, that's a straighter line to a completion because it checks off all 3 parts of the catch rule, right? The answer to these questions is why catch theorists currently want to divert to a "catch Blandino in his words" boondoggle. But what do you say about this case play?

Who avoided the case play? We introduced it for God's sake. The problem is you have no idea what you are talking about, and just long talking in circles and lying.

This is really easy to understand for everyone except you apparently. 15.95 is the case play under ACT common to the game. Notice it says ACT
AND NOT LUNGE. Clearly it is intended to illustrate that an act common to the game ends Item 1.

Here is the rule on player possession:
Rule 3 Article 7 Player Possession.
Item 1: Player in Possession. A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball
with his hands or arms.
Item 2: Possession of Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a
player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands,
completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no
possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

Once again the catch rule:
Rule 8 Sec 1 Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is
complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.).

Notice how the rules say ANY ACT COMMON TO THE GAME.

IT DOES NOT SAY LUNGE AT ALL, LUNGE WAS SO IMPORTANT TO THE RULE THAT IT GOT LUMPED IN WITH THE ETC.

CONSIDER THE CASE PLAYS ADDRESSED AND YOUR ARGUMENT DESTROYED.

 

[DallasEast]

#winning in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

 

[blindzebra]

Oh, and about logic and common sense, did you see how this thread got its start and how logic and common sense were treated in the face of emotion? LOL.

What is funny is you think you are the one using logic and common sense.

 

[MarcusRock]

Who avoided the case play? We introduced it for God's sake. The problem is you have no idea what you are talking about, and just long talking in circles and lying.

This is really easy to understand for everyone except you apparently. 15.95 is the case play under ACT common to the game. Notice it says ACT
AND NOT LUNGE. Clearly it is intended to illustrate that an act common to the game ends Item 1.

Here is the rule on player possession:
Rule 3 Article 7 Player Possession.
Item 1: Player in Possession. A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has a firm grip and control of the ball
with his hands or arms.
Item 2: Possession of Loose Ball. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a
player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands,
completely on the ground inbounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground, there is no
possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone.

Once again the catch rule:
Rule 8 Sec 1 Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is
complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.).

Notice how the rules say ANY ACT COMMON TO THE GAME.

IT DOES NOT SAY LUNGE AT ALL, LUNGE WAS SO IMPORTANT TO THE RULE THAT IT GOT LUMPED IN WITH THE ETC.

CONSIDER THE CASE PLAYS ADDRESSED AND YOUR ARGUMENT DESTROYED.

Someone's triggered.

For case play 8.12, I listed two of those "any acts." What did the ruling say about what made that a completed pass?

 

[blindzebra]

Someone's triggered.

For case play 8.12, I listed two of those "any acts." What did the ruling say about what made that a completed pass?

It says an act common to the game in one and the time to make an act common to the game, which means you refer to what the rule says about an act common to the game...you know where it says the catch process ends with ANY ACT COMMON TO THE GAME.

 

[DogFace]

Someone's triggered.

For case play 8.12, I listed two of those "any acts." What did the ruling say about what made that a completed pass?

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.


You asked the question about the Calvin play. No one else answered and I did so I’m parroting?
You’re hilarious and weak.

Blandino proved you wrong. Everyone knows it. Change the subject. Attack, deflect, just don’t attempt to counter what Blandino said because I made it so you can’t by clarifying.



You’re wrong.

 

[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.

^^^ That’s where you asked. I answered.

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.


Can you at least try to explain where I parroted someone?

Then we can go off on one of your avoidance tangents.

You lost.