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

[DogFace]

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 going to the ground. Rather it would’ve been part 3 of the catch process completed WHILE he was going to the ground.


It was a catch. No one will dispute this. @MarcusRock has trouble admitting when he’s wrong. Him avoiding this says all I need to know.

Though, I’ll hammer it home for fun!

You lost.

 

[Kevinicus]

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?

You are assuming things from what the case play says. Nowhere does it ever say that the left hand is on the ball. It also doesn't imply a "tuck." You are assuming. You have thoroughly embarrassed yourself here.

 

[Kevinicus]

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.

Other people showing a lack of common sense does not eliminate you as a strong source of the same.

 

[MarcusRock]

You are assuming things from what the case play says. Nowhere does it ever say that the left hand is on the ball. It also doesn't imply a "tuck." You are assuming. You have thoroughly embarrassed yourself here.

You're right. I'm assuming that most catches aren't made with 1 hand but with 2 like the vast majority of human beings would. The case play doesn't say. But it does say that the ball ended up in his "right arm" so it somehow got there from his hand, unless he caught the ball not only with 1 hand but with one 1 arm to boot. Since it says that he controlled the ball and then got 1 foot down before being contacted, then he was in the air at the time of the catch. So since you mentioned logic and common sense, was what I just mentioned something that happens in the NFL all the time to make it commonplace to the point that this is expected even moreso than 2-handed catches?

But forget all that. I asked you what you thought of the case play. Obviously, you think I'm wrong. How do you explain what did happen in the case play?

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

Funny, why didn't the 8.12 case play just say one of those "acts" I listed completed the catch? Instead, they mention that lunging was not part of the process of the catch in both cases. In 15.95, the receiver only had control and 2 feet, and then lunged which it says fulfilled the time element. No other act was present. Otherwise, that would mean only control and 2 feet is necessary to complete a catch while going to the ground which we know is not true. In 8.12 there are multiple "acts" listed but yet again, the ruling only mentions the lunge. Why is that? No wonder y'all want to cling only to 15.95 because 8.12 proves that these "acts" that were similar to what Dez did meant nothing in the case play titled, "Going to the Ground."

You received all this information when I corrected you in this post but I understand your need to keep to your erroneous stance.

 

[Kevinicus]

You're right. I'm assuming that most catches aren't made with 1 hand but with 2 like the vast majority of human beings would. The case play doesn't say. But it does say that the ball ended up in his "right arm" so it somehow got there from his hand, unless he caught the ball not only with 1 hand but with one 1 arm to boot. Since it says that he controlled the ball and then got 1 foot down before being contacted, then he was in the air at the time of the catch. So since you mentioned logic and common sense, was what I just mentioned something that happens in the NFL all the time to make it commonplace to the point that this is expected even moreso than 2-handed catches?

But forget all that. I asked you what you thought of the case play. Obviously, you think I'm wrong. How do you explain what did happen in the case play?

How do I explain what did happen? It's simple. The player got control, 2 feet, and then made a act common to the game, completing the catch.

How the ball got to be in is right arm is not clear from what is given. Nor is WHEN it got there (I think you are also assuming this occurred after his 2nd foot came down). All we know is that it is there when he braces/lunges and that completing the catch process trumped going to the ground.

 

[MarcusRock]

How do I explain what did happen? It's simple. The player got control, 2 feet, and then made a act common to the game, completing the catch.

How the ball got to be in is right arm is not clear from what is given. Nor is WHEN it got there (I think you are also assuming this occurred after his 2nd foot came down). All we know is that it is there when he braces/lunges and that completing the catch process trumped going to the ground.

What was the act common to the game that made it a catch. There could be several in there.

 

[Kevinicus]

Funny, why didn't the 8.12 case play just say one of those "acts" I listed completed the catch? Instead, they mention that lunging was not part of the process of the catch in both cases. In 15.95, the receiver only had control and 2 feet, and then lunged which it says fulfilled the time element. No other act was present. Otherwise, that would mean only control and 2 feet is necessary to complete a catch while going to the ground which we know is not true. In 8.12 there are multiple "acts" listed but yet again, the ruling only mentions the lunge. Why is that? No wonder y'all want to cling only to 15.95 because 8.12 proves that these "acts" that were similar to what Dez did meant nothing in the case play titled, "Going to the Ground."

You received all this information when I corrected you in this post but I understand your need to keep to your erroneous stance.

The only "acts" listed in 8.12 are brace and lunge, which occur simultaneously. Again...making things up that aren't there.

 

[blindzebra]

Funny, why didn't the 8.12 case play just say one of those "acts" I listed completed the catch? Instead, they mention that lunging was not part of the process of the catch in both cases. In 15.95, the receiver only had control and 2 feet, and then lunged which it says fulfilled the time element. No other act was present. Otherwise, that would mean only control and 2 feet is necessary to complete a catch while going to the ground which we know is not true. In 8.12 there are multiple "acts" listed but yet again, the ruling only mentions the lunge. Why is that? No wonder y'all want to cling only to 15.95 because 8.12 proves that these "acts" that were similar to what Dez did meant nothing in the case play titled, "Going to the Ground."

You received all this information when I corrected you in this post but I understand your need to keep to your erroneous stance.

Oh, brother. Do you expect a case play for every possible scenario? Logic and common sense my butt. Yeah, a lunge was so important to going to the ground that it never appeared in the rule book. It was simply an example of one possible football act, not the only football act. I really love how you keep saying you corrected me, when all you did was completely misinterpret the rules and case plays.

Still waiting on your rule citation saying that a lunge is the only act to end Item 1, and FYI case plays are not rules. You need rule, section, article, etc. Percy and I supplied ours with 3.7.2 and 8.1.2.c. So let's see yours or shut up.

I am even willing to one-up the poll challenge, you go bye. bye for 6 months if you lose, if I lose it is a lifetime ban. Time to put up or shut up.

 

[blindzebra]

The only "acts" listed in 8.12 are brace and lunge, which occur simultaneously. Again...making things up that aren't there.

Yeah, he showed us the magical lunge, that is never mentioned in the rule book, while we supplied case plays backed by actual rule citations.

He thinks he has me because I used the words before the lunge when explaining why it was not part of the catch process. In one case time made him a runner, in the other it was the act of bracing and lunging that ended the catch process. He just can't grasp that the reason a lunge isn't part of the catch process is because they are a runner, not a receiver at that point.

 

[MarcusRock]

The only "acts" listed in 8.12 are brace and lunge, which occur simultaneously. Again...making things up that aren't there.

So the brace and lunge were the things that made this a catch in 8.12?

 

[Beast_from_East]

Jeez guys, yall are getting a little worked up over this with all the name calling and back and forth.

I will say this.............it was not the last play of the dam game, there was still over 4 min on the clock and all Green Bay would have needed is a TD to win.

HELLO!!!!!

In what world does our defense stop Rogers from driving the field and scoring with 4 min left, seriously guys, we would have lost either way.

 

[blindzebra]

Jeez guys, yall are getting a little worked up over this with all the name calling and back and forth.

I will say this.............it was not the last play of the dam game, there was still over 4 min on the clock and all Green Bay would have needed is a TD to win.

HELLO!!!!!

In what world does our defense stop Rogers from driving the field and scoring with 4 min left, seriously guys, we would have lost either way.

The outcome of the game is not relevant to the discussion, it is the misapplication of the rule that is what matters.

 

[MarcusRock]

Oh, brother. Do you expect a case play for every possible scenario? Logic and common sense my butt. Yeah, a lunge was so important to going to the ground that it never appeared in the rule book. It was simply an example of one possible football act, not the only football act. I really love how you keep saying you corrected me, when all you did was completely misinterpret the rules and case plays.

Still waiting on your rule citation saying that a lunge is the only act to end Item 1, and FYI case plays are not rules. You need rule, section, article, etc. Percy and I supplied ours with 3.7.2 and 8.1.2.c. So let's see yours or shut up.

I am even willing to one-up the poll challenge, you go bye. bye for 6 months if you lose, if I lose it is a lifetime ban. Time to put up or shut up.

Again, when you bungled the explanation of 15.95, you said the following: "The time element has A1 keeping his balance and lunging, The time being met ended the catch process, which ended going to the ground. That is why the lunge was not part of the catch, A1 is a runner because he completed a,b, and c. BEFORE the lunge."

When I corrected you I mentioned that if the player was a runner before he lunged then only control and 2 feet was necessary to complete the catch because no other act occurred there. It doesn't even mention "keeping his balance" like you added. So are control and 2 feet down the only things necessary to end going to the ground? If so, then people have a right to be upset about the Dez play because he clearly had those accomplished. Do you see how you were wrong here?

 

[MarcusRock]

The only "acts" listed in 8.12 are brace and lunge, which occur simultaneously. Again...making things up that aren't there.

So it was the lunge that did it in 8.12. Lunge was the only thing listed in 15.95. When do you think the catch process was completed in that case play? Before or after the lunge?

 

[blindzebra]

Again, when you bungled the explanation of 15.95, you said the following: "The time element has A1 keeping his balance and lunging, The time being met ended the catch process, which ended going to the ground. That is why the lunge was not part of the catch, A1 is a runner because he completed a,b, and c. BEFORE the lunge."

When I corrected you I mentioned that if the player was a runner before he lunged then only control and 2 feet was necessary to complete the catch because no other act occurred there. It doesn't even mention "keeping his balance" like you added. So are control and 2 feet down the only things necessary to end going to the ground? If so, then people have a right to be upset about the Dez play because he clearly had those accomplished. Do you see how you were wrong here?

I just said that the reason the lunge was not part of the catch process was because the lunge was made by a runner. Any act common to the game or time enough to do so completes part c, the act itself changes receiver to runner. It doesn't require two separate acts. You are a receiver when all you have done parts a and b, you immediately become a runner when you complete c. Before may have been a poor choice to explain that, but it in no way changes the point that any act common to the game ends Item 1.

 

[aria]

So did he catch it or not?

 

[jobberone]

Be civil or the thread will be closed.

 

[MarcusRock]

I just said that the reason the lunge was not part of the catch process was because the lunge was made by a runner. Any act common to the game or time enough to do so completes part c, the act itself changes receiver to runner. It doesn't require two separate acts. You are a receiver when all you have done parts a and b, you immediately become a runner when you complete c. Before may have been a poor choice to explain that, but it in no way changes the point that any act common to the game ends Item 1.

Then what was the "act" in 15.95 that allowed this receiver to be considered a runner BEFORE the lunge as you stated where no other "act" was listed before said lunge?

 

[blindzebra]

Then what was the "act" in 15.95 that allowed this receiver to be considered a runner BEFORE the lunge as you stated where no other "act" was listed before said lunge?

Time enough to do the act of a lunge...which has been said by me over and over and over and over and over. Time enough to take a step, time enough to avoid a defender, time enough to turn up field, spin, hurdle, tuck the ball, or even reach all work as well because they are all acts common to the game performed by a runner.