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

[MarcusRock]

The rules say your take is wrong, repeating it over and over won't change it. Besides the rules also say any act common to the game, so after Dez's second foot landed, that step...act common to the game...moving the ball to his dominate hand that was closest to the end zone...act common to the game...even if you buy Blandino's BS about not enough of a lunge, that reach...act common to the game. And back to that not enough of a lunge, by saying Dez attempted to lunge, that is admitting that he was attempting a move of a runner and not a receiver, thus meeting the time enough to make an act common to the game because the rules say;
Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.

No the rules don't. Dez was going to the ground the whole way. The only thing he could have done was prove that he wasn't going to the ground. I've said from the beginning that they are 2 different paths. You're subject to one or the other. That's like saying the Ertz catch and the Jesse James no-catch involved the same set of rules. Why wasn't James' play ruled a catch? Likewise, no amount of flailing the arms would have stopped Dez from going to the ground. Lunging would have. The case plays show this. All of them show a lunge interrupting going to the ground. All of them. No other act gives him credit for a missing part (c), which is why steps are irrelevant in going to the ground. They don't prove you aren't going to the ground. Per the case plays, the act of lunging does.

 

[blindzebra]

No the rules don't. Dez was going to the ground the whole way. The only thing he could have done was prove that he wasn't going to the ground. I've said from the beginning that they are 2 different paths. You're subject to one or the other. That's like saying the Ertz catch and the Jesse James no-catch involved the same set of rules. Why wasn't James' play ruled a catch? Likewise, no amount of flailing the arms would have stopped Dez from going to the ground. Lunging would have. The case plays show this. All of them show a lunge interrupting going to the ground. All of them. No other act gives him credit for a missing part (c), which is why steps are irrelevant in going to the ground. They don't prove you aren't going to the ground. Per the case plays, the act of lunging does.

In 2014 an act common to the game was in the rules and in 2017 it was not...it is that whole rule change in 2015...you know the one you claim never happened.

 

[DogFace]

No the rules don't. Dez was going to the ground the whole way. The only thing he could have done was prove that he wasn't going to the ground. I've said from the beginning that they are 2 different paths. You're subject to one or the other. That's like saying the Ertz catch and the Jesse James no-catch involved the same set of rules. Why wasn't James' play ruled a catch? Likewise, no amount of flailing the arms would have stopped Dez from going to the ground. Lunging would have. The case plays show this. All of them show a lunge interrupting going to the ground. All of them. No other act gives him credit for a missing part (c), which is why steps are irrelevant in going to the ground. They don't prove you aren't going to the ground. Per the case plays, the act of lunging does.

No the rules don't. Dez was going to the ground the whole way. The only thing he could have done was prove that he wasn't going to the ground. I've said from the beginning that they are 2 different paths. You're subject to one or the other. That's like saying the Ertz catch and the Jesse James no-catch involved the same set of rules. Why wasn't James' play ruled a catch? Likewise, no amount of flailing the arms would have stopped Dez from going to the ground. Lunging would have. The case plays show this. All of them show a lunge interrupting going to the ground. All of them. No other act gives him credit for a missing part (c), which is why steps are irrelevant in going to the ground. They don't prove you aren't going to the ground. Per the case plays, the act of lunging does.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

In that video which you now ignore because I pointed out exactly what Blandino said that proved you wrong he uses the word reach. Not lunge.
The reach was the third part of the catch process. Not a lunge. He uses the word reach. The reach of course wasn’t even necessary. Only the time to reach.

It was only incomplete because he didn’t get two feet down after control and before the reach. An act common to the game. Any act could complete the catch process on the way to the ground if preceded by control and two feet.

Blandino’s explanation in that video says it all:
“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.”

You were saying that if a player was going to the ground then the going to the ground rules trumped the 3 part catch process. You were proved wrong.
Then you moved on and became a lunge theorist.
Time to move on again. “Time” for ANY act common to the game completes the process.

The rule is clear.

 

[DogFace]

In 2014 an act common to the game was in the rules and in 2017 it was not...it is that whole rule change in 2015...you know the one you claim never happened.

He’ll likely now go back to challenging you on if the rule changed or not.

 

[blindzebra]

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

In that video which you now ignore because I pointed out exactly what Blandino said that proved you wrong he uses the word reach. Not lunge.
The reach was the third part of the catch process. Not a lunge. He uses the word reach. The reach of course wasn’t even necessary. Only the time to reach.

It was only incomplete because he didn’t get two feet down after control and before the reach. An act common to the game. Any act could complete the catch process on the way to the ground if preceded by control and two feet.

Blandino’s explanation in that video says it all:
“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.”

You were saying that if a player was going to the ground then the going to the ground rules trumped the 3 part catch process. You were proved wrong.
Then you moved on and became a lunge theorist.
Time to move on again. “Time” for ANY act common to the game completes the process.

The rule is clear.

There were basically three scenarios in the case plays on going to the ground. Two where they landed as a receiver and did and did not maintain control, and one where a football move ended Item 1. They lazily copy and pasted the act common to the game case play and the going to the ground one so both said lunge so the only way they can overcome that is by saying that only a lunge can end Item 1. Of course the rule book does not say that, in fact a lunge is not even listed as an act common to the game. Their entire argument is based on the words of the guy who made the call and a completely fabricated rule interpretation about a magical lunge.

 

[DogFace]

There were basically three scenarios in the case plays on going to the ground. Two where they landed as a receiver and did and did not maintain control, and one where a football move ended Item 1. They lazily copy and pasted the act common to the game case play and the going to the ground one so both said lunge so the only way they can overcome that is by saying that only a lunge can end Item 1. Of course the rule book does not say that, in fact a lunge is not even listed as an act common to the game. Their entire argument is based on the words of the guy who made the call and a completely fabricated rule interpretation about a magical lunge.

I get you saying the magical lunge now. I couldn’t even believe that’s what he was trying to say in the other thread.

I’m not sure he even believes that is the only way to not be subject to the going to the ground rule. It’s silly at this point.

I think Blindfaith said they must gather themselves. The case nor the rules say anything about having to lunge or gather.

The catch process is simple.
Control
Two feet
Time for any act common to the game.

For a long time weren’t they saying the 3 part process couldn’t be competed while going to the ground? That’s why percy asked why Blandino was looking for a football move after the fall began.

Now he’s saying maybe, but only if you lunge. Many have mentioned they can’t make caseplays for every conceivable scenario.

I guess he disagrees. Again.

 

[blindzebra]

Let's talk about the credibility of Blandino. Stand up comic and IT geek who never officiated a game on the field gets an IT job with the NFL. Works his way up to replay official and somehow gets named VP of officiating. It is like saying if you are good at Madden you are qualified to coach in the NFL.

Summer of 2014 this person who has the power to affect the outcome of games through officiating and replay, who should avoid any situation that could be seen as a conflict of interest, gets caught by TMZ partying with Stephen Jones in Vegas on the Cowboys' party bus. This gives the impression of favoritism, regardless if there is any. This shows terrible judgment on his part and he got publicly roasted for it. After the controversy in the Detroit game this perceived favoritism of Dallas based on the party bus resurfaced.
Is his experience, ethical judgment, and overall credibility really there? Keep in mind more than one poster supporting the overturn have been critical of his ability to express his judgment on calls, one even calling him an idiot.

Credible? I think not.

 

[aria]

So he caught it?

 

[nathanlt]

Let's talk about the credibility of Blandino. Stand up comic and IT geek who never officiated a game on the field gets an IT job with the NFL. Works his way up to replay official and somehow gets named VP of officiating. It is like saying if you are good at Madden you are qualified to coach in the NFL.

Summer of 2014 this person who has the power to affect the outcome of games through officiating and replay, who should avoid any situation that could be seen as a conflict of interest, gets caught by TMZ partying with Stephen Jones in Vegas on the Cowboys' party bus. This gives the impression of favoritism, regardless if there is any. This shows terrible judgment on his part and he got publicly roasted for it. After the controversy in the Detroit game this perceived favoritism of Dallas based on the party bus resurfaced.
Is his experience, ethical judgment, and overall credibility really there? Keep in mind more than one poster supporting the overturn have been critical of his ability to express his judgment on calls, one even calling him an idiot.

Credible? I think not.

Great points!

NFL officials don't owe Cowboys opponents anything because Blandino looked like he was playing favorites.
NFL officials don't owe Cowboys opponents an illegitimate on the field ruling, because of the Lions receiver grabbing Hitchens facemask/taking away PI
NFL officials don't owe Cowboys anything because of the Dez catch that was taken away, other than an apology. Nothing will compensate that atrocity anyway.
End vendetta calls!!

NFL officials must do their best to minimize mistakes, and make correct calls every time.

 

[DogFace]

So he caught it?

Yep

 

[MarcusRock]

In 2014 an act common to the game was in the rules and in 2017 it was not...it is that whole rule change in 2015...you know the one you claim never happened.

Then where's the support that the rules changed? You can't just create a story in thin air with no support, particularly when there is support against what you're claiming. You've seen it. There's a difference in words changing and the rule changing. Where's your support for your convenient story?

So if you're now trying to claim that it wasn't necessary to commit an act common to the game, why were all the questions to Pereira and Blandino about whether Dez did commit one? Why not just ask if Dez had "time enough?" As I said when I corrected you, the lunge in those case plays proves "time enough," otherwise you can fall without doing anything. That makes no sense. You are also trying to apply the rules meant for a receiver on their feet versus one falling to the ground. They are 2 different scenarios with different sets of rules. That's the difference between Ertz and James I was making. You can't apply rules where they don't apply.

If an act is turning upfield, how does Dez "turn" upfield when he's already jumped in the direction of upfield? Same with advancing the ball. If you jump in the direction of advancing, you can't claim you advanced. Those are for a receiver catching a pass on his feet. So if you're going to the ground, none of those things apply because it has its own set of rules: hold on to the ball. So if you're going to the ground, how do you prove you aren't? The case plays show you. There is no magic timer that says you had "time enough," is there?

 

[OmerV]

Because it is obviously confusing and can be misinterpreted like happened on the Dez play?

The officials are instructed on the rules, and the proper interpretation of them. The refs aren't just thrown a rule book and told "you're on your own". Besides, they didn't say they need to clarify the rule, they said they need to relax the going to the ground requirement. And besides that, the NFL has not said they refs called that play wrong, they merely said they want that play to be a catch going forward.

 

[OmerV]

Butch Johnson was going to the ground, lol. Where's the outrage in Denver?

I didn't think that should have been a catch at the time - thought the Cowboys got away with one there.

 

[MarcusRock]

Let's talk about the credibility of Blandino. Stand up comic and IT geek who never officiated a game on the field gets an IT job with the NFL. Works his way up to replay official and somehow gets named VP of officiating. It is like saying if you are good at Madden you are qualified to coach in the NFL.

Summer of 2014 this person who has the power to affect the outcome of games through officiating and replay, who should avoid any situation that could be seen as a conflict of interest, gets caught by TMZ partying with Stephen Jones in Vegas on the Cowboys' party bus. This gives the impression of favoritism, regardless if there is any. This shows terrible judgment on his part and he got publicly roasted for it. After the controversy in the Detroit game this perceived favoritism of Dallas based on the party bus resurfaced.
Is his experience, ethical judgment, and overall credibility really there? Keep in mind more than one poster supporting the overturn have been critical of his ability to express his judgment on calls, one even calling him an idiot.

Credible? I think not.

TMZ assertions aside, character assassination only works if Blandino was establishing the rules with his statements, not explaining rules already in existence. People not being happy with the way he explained them amounts to "style points" and doesn't count. Was he wrong with rule application? If you think so, again, where is your support? Certainly he'd be called out by the press everywhere if he was wrong. Where is your support if that's what you think?

 

[nathanlt]

Then where's the support that the rules changed? You can't just create a story in thin air with no support, particularly when there is support against what you're claiming. You've seen it. There's a difference in words changing and the rule changing. Where's your support for your convenient story?

So if you're now trying to claim that it wasn't necessary to commit an act common to the game, why were all the questions to Pereira and Blandino about whether Dez did commit one? Why not just ask if Dez had "time enough?" As I said when I corrected you, the lunge in those case plays proves "time enough," otherwise you can fall without doing anything. That makes no sense. You are also trying to apply the rules meant for a receiver on their feet versus one falling to the ground. They are 2 different scenarios with different sets of rules. That's the difference between Ertz and James I was making. You can't apply rules where they don't apply.

If an act is turning upfield, how does Dez "turn" upfield when he's already jumped in the direction of upfield? Same with advancing the ball. If you jump in the direction of advancing, you can't claim you advanced. Those are for a receiver catching a pass on his feet. So if you're going to the ground, none of those things apply because it has its own set of rules: hold on to the ball. So if you're going to the ground, how do you prove you aren't? The case plays show you. There is no magic timer that says you had "time enough," is there?

Don't pretend that you want an answer, you ignore every answer that you are given. C'mon!

 

[OmerV]

Let's talk about the credibility of Blandino. Stand up comic and IT geek who never officiated a game on the field gets an IT job with the NFL. Works his way up to replay official and somehow gets named VP of officiating. It is like saying if you are good at Madden you are qualified to coach in the NFL.

Summer of 2014 this person who has the power to affect the outcome of games through officiating and replay, who should avoid any situation that could be seen as a conflict of interest, gets caught by TMZ partying with Stephen Jones in Vegas on the Cowboys' party bus. This gives the impression of favoritism, regardless if there is any. This shows terrible judgment on his part and he got publicly roasted for it. After the controversy in the Detroit game this perceived favoritism of Dallas based on the party bus resurfaced.
Is his experience, ethical judgment, and overall credibility really there? Keep in mind more than one poster supporting the overturn have been critical of his ability to express his judgment on calls, one even calling him an idiot.

Credible? I think not.

If Blandino's objectivity was compromised by partying with Stephen Jones, why would he support the call going against the Cowboys? Seems Blandino being friends with Stephen Jones and still saying the ruling against the Cowboys was correct would actually support the idea that he is giving his truthful viewpoint.

Another point, who do you have to rely on that is better qualified to comment on this than Blandino that said it wasn't a catch?

 

[blindzebra]

If Blandino's objectivity was compromised by partying with Stephen Jones, why would he support the call going against the Cowboys? Seems Blandino being friends with Stephen Jones and still saying the ruling against the Cowboys was correct would actually support the idea that he is giving his truthful viewpoint.

Another point, who do you have to rely on that is better qualified to comment on this than Blandino that said it wasn't a catch?

As usual, the point is beyond your ability to understand.

 

[blindzebra]

TMZ assertions aside, character assassination only works if Blandino was establishing the rules with his statements, not explaining rules already in existence. People not being happy with the way he explained them amounts to "style points" and doesn't count. Was he wrong with rule application? If you think so, again, where is your support? Certainly he'd be called out by the press everywhere if he was wrong. Where is your support if that's what you think?

Ah yes the where is your support coming from the king of never giving any.

 

[blindzebra]

The officials are instructed on the rules, and the proper interpretation of them. The refs aren't just thrown a rule book and told "you're on your own". Besides, they didn't say they need to clarify the rule, they said they need to relax the going to the ground requirement. And besides that, the NFL has not said they refs called that play wrong, they merely said they want that play to be a catch going forward.

LOL.

 

[blindzebra]

Then where's the support that the rules changed? You can't just create a story in thin air with no support, particularly when there is support against what you're claiming. You've seen it. There's a difference in words changing and the rule changing. Where's your support for your convenient story?

So if you're now trying to claim that it wasn't necessary to commit an act common to the game, why were all the questions to Pereira and Blandino about whether Dez did commit one? Why not just ask if Dez had "time enough?" As I said when I corrected you, the lunge in those case plays proves "time enough," otherwise you can fall without doing anything. That makes no sense. You are also trying to apply the rules meant for a receiver on their feet versus one falling to the ground. They are 2 different scenarios with different sets of rules. That's the difference between Ertz and James I was making. You can't apply rules where they don't apply.

If an act is turning upfield, how does Dez "turn" upfield when he's already jumped in the direction of upfield? Same with advancing the ball. If you jump in the direction of advancing, you can't claim you advanced. Those are for a receiver catching a pass on his feet. So if you're going to the ground, none of those things apply because it has its own set of rules: hold on to the ball. So if you're going to the ground, how do you prove you aren't? The case plays show you. There is no magic timer that says you had "time enough," is there?

A lot of words requesting facts already established.
Here is an idea, how about presenting support that is not just Blandino said so? After all that resource was so good at his job he no longer has it and the league is scrambling to fix what got broken under his watch.