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

[OmerV]

Since we are rehashing everything:



Another thing these momentum to the ground people need to look at is what happens to Shields. As they jumped their bodies are parallel to the side line with Shield slightly in front. as they land Shields falls in a straight line while Dez goes from several feet outside the yard marks but lands inside the one yard line has mark. Both landed and turned, but only Dez moved closer to the side line. If he is falling based on just momentum why did his fall take a drastic turn? Because he is trying to extend for the pylon.

So, it's your contention that Sheilds was running and jumping identical to how Dez was - steps the same, jumping at exactly the same point in time, and at the same trajectory, and same velocity and same path, and same height and at the same angle and with the same body lean and turn in the air as Dez, and therefore their bodies would have to have landed exactly the same way, and that the only explanation for them not is that Dez was in full control?

Have you ever played a sport?

There is a reason Dez was able to get the ball with 2 hands and all Sheilds could do was reach back and swipe at it with one hand. Dez made an adjustment before and during the jump that Sheilds did not. The timing of their jumps were different. Their paths to the ball were different. Their steps were different. Sheilds was running ahead of Dez, thus why he reached back to swipe at the ball while Dez was reaching forward to get the ball. And look at the landing - Dez landed on his left foot and Sheilds landed on his right, which also affected how they each fell. Bottom line is Sheilds movements were not identical to Dez's, therefore it's ridiculous to suggest they should have fallen in exactly the same way.

Hell, their landings were dramatically different anyway. Any slight difference in running jumping, reaching for the ball, body positioning etc can account for that difference.

 

[blindzebra]

And just for those saying that the rule did not change:
Here you go, take note of the red.
2014:

Rule 8 Section 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.).

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.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact
by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

The rule to illustrate a football move to become a runner in 2014:
Rule 3 section 25.2
(i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.). Note that it says etc. meaning that this is not an all inclusive list.

2015 rules:
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 after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner (see 3-2-7 Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Here is 3-2-7:
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.

So in 2015 we have some changes, we get upright long enough to clearly become a runner, yet the ways you can become a runner shrinks. But Dean, I thought this was to clarify the catch rule? That is what you said, it was not a change just making it clearer.

2016:
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 after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

3-2-7:
A player has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact
of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.

In 2016 they add a few more items to 3-2-7, but we still have no clarification of what upright long enough means.

2017: Is identical to 2017

For fun here is 2012 and 2013:

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.).

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.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

3-2-7 just says act common to the game.

As you can see acts common to the game was removed in 2015, how is removing what makes a receiver a runner clarifying the rule? Upright long enough to become a runner is added to Item 1. How is that clearer? Where in the previous years is it stated that you must be a runner before going to the ground? 3.2.7 goes from a long list of acts plus an etc. to just avoid or ward off an opponent. Again, wasn't this supposed to be a clarification of the existing rule? Then why did so many sections change and the wording become more vague?

Then there is this from Percy:
2014
A.R. 15.95
Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.
In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not
have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

2015
A.R. 15.95
Does not become runner prior to going to ground
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then, still in control of the ball, he reached out for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A20.
In this situation, the receiver had not clearly become a runner before going to the ground. In order to complete the catch, he must maintain control until after his
initial contact with the ground. The act of reaching out with the ball does not trump the requirement to maintain control of the ball when he lands.

This clearly shows that an act common to the game could end Item 1 after a player started going to the ground in 2014. In 2015 he had to be a runner BEFORE going to the ground.

Then we have the much repeated case play:

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.

Based on the 2015 version of A.R. 15.95 the player in this play did not become a runner before going to the ground, he was not upright long enough before going to the ground.

Now the Blandino Boys will scoff at this and talk about that good all magical lunge, you know the lunge that does not exist under 8.1.3.c or 3.2.7, or anywhere else in the rules.

Also worth noting, is how they attempted to make the 2015 version of A.R. 15.95 read a lot like the Dez play, I wonder why? Because it is the very reason that so many people were saying that they changed the rules to retroactively make the overturn correct. All the evidence is right here. The rules and case plays are quoted directly as they appear in the rule and case books.

 

[MarcusRock]

I get it now. You hope people have not been following the discussion or won't read through the thread so you can make your outragous claims and demands for proof. I tore you apart last night with rule support on this and we supplied support for the rule change too.

Your rule support is there's a magic stopwatch that measures "time enough" for going to the ground when the case plays clearly outline otherwise. You also attempt to apply rules for a player on their feet to a player going to the ground. Different rules. When you can show a player "turning upfield" in mid-air, let me know. You proved again that my correcting you was validated.

Support doesn't mean you repeat your created story multiple times. Who or what else supports your "claim" that the rules changed besides what you all have created in your brains? I have posted support that says the rules didn't change. Show me how any of this wrong ans what else supports your claim?

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...anges-and-points-of-emphasis-to-watch-in-2015
"Let's be clear. The rule that disallowed an apparent catch by Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the NFC divisional playoffs, and another by Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2009, remains unchanged in substance. The NFL did modify its wording, however, in hopes of making the rule make more sense to players, fans and media members in cases where a player is falling while in the process of making a catch."

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy
"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rule-and-it-might-actually-be-more-confusing/
"The interesting part here is that Dez Bryant's no-catch, the thing that sparked the rule change, would still be a no-catch under the new rule."

So again, where is your support? Is there any?

 

[MarcusRock]

Since we are rehashing everything:



Another thing these momentum to the ground people need to look at is what happens to Shields. As they jumped their bodies are parallel to the side line with Shield slightly in front. as they land Shields falls in a straight line while Dez goes from several feet outside the yard marks but lands inside the one yard line has mark. Both landed and turned, but only Dez moved closer to the side line. If he is falling based on just momentum why did his fall take a drastic turn? Because he is trying to extend for the pylon.

Trying and executing are different things. The case plays don't say an attempt fulfills a time requirement, they say the "act of lunging" does. That means you actually do it. With your magic stopwatch theory they can just fall to the ground without performing anything. That makes no sense. Why did people ask if Dez' attempt might qualify? Wouldn't they have just asked, "wasn't there 'time enough' there?"

 

[blindzebra]

So, it's your contention that Sheilds was running and jumping identical to how Dez was - steps the same, jumping at exactly the same point in time, and at the same trajectory, and same velocity and same path, and same height and at the same angle and with the same body lean and turn in the air as Dez, and therefore their bodies would have to have landed exactly the same way, and that the only explanation for them not is that Dez was in full control?

Have you ever played a sport?

There is a reason Dez was able to get the ball with 2 hands and all Sheilds could do was reach back and swipe at it with one hand. Dez made an adjustment before and during the jump that Sheilds did not. The timing of their jumps were different. Their paths to the ball were different. Their steps were different. Sheilds was running ahead of Dez, thus why he reached back to swipe at the ball while Dez was reaching forward to get the ball. And look at the landing - Dez landed on his left foot and Sheilds landed on his right, which also affected how they each fell. Bottom line is Sheilds movements were not identical to Dez's, therefore it's ridiculous to suggest they should have fallen in exactly the same way.

Hell, their landings were dramatically different anyway. Any slight difference in running jumping, reaching for the ball, body positioning etc can account for that difference.

Sure they were. They had identical body positions up until they landed. When they landed both turned to the left, yet Shields continued in a straight line, while Dez went from facing forward toward the goal line to way left for the pylon.

 

[blindzebra]

Your rule support is there's a magic stopwatch that measures "time enough" for going to the ground when the case plays clearly outline otherwise. You also attempt to apply rules for a player on their feet to a player going to the ground. Different rules. When you can show a player "turning upfield" in mid-air, let me know. You proved again that my correcting you was validated.

Support doesn't mean you repeat your created story multiple times. Who or what else supports your "claim" that the rules changed besides what you all have created in your brains? I have posted support that says the rules didn't change. Show me how any of this wrong ans what else supports your claim?

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...anges-and-points-of-emphasis-to-watch-in-2015
"Let's be clear. The rule that disallowed an apparent catch by Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the NFC divisional playoffs, and another by Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2009, remains unchanged in substance. The NFL did modify its wording, however, in hopes of making the rule make more sense to players, fans and media members in cases where a player is falling while in the process of making a catch."

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy
"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rule-and-it-might-actually-be-more-confusing/
"The interesting part here is that Dez Bryant's no-catch, the thing that sparked the rule change, would still be a no-catch under the new rule."

So again, where is your support? Is there any?

Ah yes post the press releases from the NFL, that is proof all right. The guy that made the overturn, who led the competition committee that changed the rule, that announced the "clarification"...see the common element in all of that?

 

[MarcusRock]

And just for those saying that the rule did not change:
Here you go, take note of the red.
2014:

Rule 8 Section 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.).

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.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must
lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact
by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field
of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass
is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

The rule to illustrate a football move to become a runner in 2014:
Rule 3 section 25.2
(i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an
opponent, etc.). Note that it says etc. meaning that this is not an all inclusive list.

2015 rules:
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 after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner (see 3-2-7 Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Here is 3-2-7:
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.

So in 2015 we have some changes, we get upright long enough to clearly become a runner, yet the ways you can become a runner shrinks. But Dean, I thought this was to clarify the catch rule? That is what you said, it was not a change just making it clearer.

2016:
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 after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

3-2-7:
A player has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact
of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.

In 2016 they add a few more items to 3-2-7, but we still have no clarification of what upright long enough means.

2017: Is identical to 2017

For fun here is 2012 and 2013:

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.).

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.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

3-2-7 just says act common to the game.

As you can see acts common to the game was removed in 2015, how is removing what makes a receiver a runner clarifying the rule? Upright long enough to become a runner is added to Item 1. How is that clearer? Where in the previous years is it stated that you must be a runner before going to the ground? 3.2.7 goes from a long list of acts plus an etc. to just avoid or ward off an opponent. Again, wasn't this supposed to be a clarification of the existing rule? Then why did so many sections change and the wording become more vague?

Then there is this from Percy:
2014
A.R. 15.95
Act common to game
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.
In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not
have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.

2015
A.R. 15.95
Does not become runner prior to going to ground
Third-and-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his second foot down and then, still in control of the ball, he reached out for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A20.
In this situation, the receiver had not clearly become a runner before going to the ground. In order to complete the catch, he must maintain control until after his
initial contact with the ground. The act of reaching out with the ball does not trump the requirement to maintain control of the ball when he lands.

This clearly shows that an act common to the game could end Item 1 after a player started going to the ground in 2014. In 2015 he had to be a runner BEFORE going to the ground.

Then we have the much repeated case play:

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.

Based on the 2015 version of A.R. 15.95 the player in this play did not become a runner before going to the ground, he was not upright long enough before going to the ground.

Now the Blandino Boys will scoff at this and talk about that good all magical lunge, you know the lunge that does not exist under 8.1.3.c or 3.2.7, or anywhere else in the rules.

Also worth noting, is how they attempted to make the 2015 version of A.R. 15.95 read a lot like the Dez play, I wonder why? Because it is the very reason that so many people were saying that they changed the rules to retroactively make the overturn correct. All the evidence is right here. The rules and case plays are quoted directly as they appear in the rule and case books.

Do you not know the difference between words changing and a rule's essence changing? Who else had the breaking news of this NFL "coverup?" As I said before, when you rest on conspiracy, you have no stance. It's just "we wuz robbed" but need no proof other than just what we say. Better inform these news outlets below. They missed the memo from Scooby and friends,

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...anges-and-points-of-emphasis-to-watch-in-2015
"Let's be clear. The rule that disallowed an apparent catch by Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the NFC divisional playoffs, and another by Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2009, remains unchanged in substance. The NFL did modify its wording, however, in hopes of making the rule make more sense to players, fans and media members in cases where a player is falling while in the process of making a catch."

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy
"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rule-and-it-might-actually-be-more-confusing/
"The interesting part here is that Dez Bryant's no-catch, the thing that sparked the rule change, would still be a no-catch under the new rule."

 

[blindzebra]

Trying and executing are different things. The case plays don't say an attempt fulfills a time requirement, they say the "act of lunging" does. That means you actually do it. With your magic stopwatch theory they can just fall to the ground without performing anything. That makes no sense. Why did people ask if Dez' attempt might qualify? Wouldn't they have just asked, "wasn't there 'time enough' there?"

Still waiting for that rule citation that says that, where in 8.1.3 or 3.2.7 does it say that a lunge is the only act?

 

[MarcusRock]

Ah yes post the press releases from the NFL, that is proof all right. The guy that made the overturn, who led the competition committee that changed the rule, that announced the "clarification"...see the common element in all of that?

All of these are press releases from the NFL? The official Cowboys site, ESPN, and CBS Sports?

Who backs your conspiracy theory? Who? I ask and you and percy avoid. This is where the last thread finished up. You have no support for a theory you made up in the face of support directly against it. Why are you all to be believed with no backup?

 

[blindzebra]

Do you not know the difference between words changing and a rule's essence changing? Who else had the breaking news of this NFL "coverup?" As I said before, when you rest on conspiracy, you have no stance. It's just "we wuz robbed" but need no proof other than just what we say. Better inform these news outlets below. They missed the memo from Scooby and friends,

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...anges-and-points-of-emphasis-to-watch-in-2015
"Let's be clear. The rule that disallowed an apparent catch by Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the NFC divisional playoffs, and another by Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2009, remains unchanged in substance. The NFL did modify its wording, however, in hopes of making the rule make more sense to players, fans and media members in cases where a player is falling while in the process of making a catch."

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy
"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rule-and-it-might-actually-be-more-confusing/
"The interesting part here is that Dez Bryant's no-catch, the thing that sparked the rule change, would still be a no-catch under the new rule."

Saw the links to the press release from Blandino the first dozen times you posted it as so-called evidence. Now how about finding some actual evidence within the rules that can support it.

 

[MarcusRock]

Still waiting for that rule citation that says that, where in 8.1.3 or 3.2.7 does it say that a lunge is the only act?

It's the only act shown to get one out of going to the ground via the case plays. You know, the ones YOU brought to the discussion without knowing how to explain them, hence my correction of you. You say those acts aren't necessary yet the case plays show them being performed and being the reason one escapes going to the ground. You attempt to apply rules for a receiver on their feet to a player going to the ground. Different rules, which is why going to the ground reigns unless you show you're not going to the ground. Same okie-doke y'all try to pull with saying the rules "changed." Again, where's your support?

 

[blindzebra]

All of these are press releases from the NFL? The official Cowboys site, ESPN, and CBS Sports?

Who backs your conspiracy theory? Who? I ask and you and percy avoid. This is where the last thread finished up. You have no support for a theory you made up in the face of support directly against it. Why are you all to be believed with no backup?

They are reporting what was in the release, do try to keep up.
Kinda like if Joe Blow wrote an article on this thread and said Marcus says he is right, versus in reading through the thread Joe Blow says Marcus is right.

Big difference...but I am sure all you will read in that is Marcus and right.

 

[blindzebra]

It's the only act shown to get one out of going to the ground via the case plays. You know, the ones YOU brought to the discussion without knowing how to explain them, hence my correction of you. You say those acts aren't necessary yet the case plays show them being performed and being the reason one escapes going to the ground. You attempt to apply rules for a receiver on their feet to a player going to the ground. Different rules, which is why going to the ground reigns unless you show you're not going to the ground. Same okie-doke y'all try to pull with saying the rules "changed." Again, where's your support?

I love how you never address it. Shift it to an non-issue. Shell I start linking everytime you screwed up in these threads? There were about 6 posts last night alone where I spanked you hard. If you did know what you were talking about, you would know that every scenario isn't covered in case plays, they'd need thousands of pages to cover every possible example. Further, if something was that special, one would think they would have said something somewhere in the rules about it. But no, it is the special secret rule that only Blandino and Steretore knew about, and one that completely contradicts the upright long enough to become a runner before going to the ground rule change of 2015.

 

[MarcusRock]

Saw the links to the press release from Blandino the first dozen times you posted it as so-called evidence. Now how about finding some actual evidence within the rules that can support it.

The okie-doke you and percy pull is you compare 2014 part (c) with the 2015 going to the ground rule phrase "upright long enough." Why don't you compare the 2 part (c)s with each other since they each talk about the time element of the a-b-c catch rule? The other lie is that you have to be "upright long enough" to be a runner when part (c) of 2015 says you only need to "clearly become a runner" which can be done via an act or "time enough" to do an act just like 2014. The "upright long enough" phrase is part of that different rule of going to the ground and is only a descriptor of when a player is considered going to the ground. Previous rules only started with "If a player goes to the ground..." Well in 2015 they now tell you when you're considered going to the ground. Before the ref just made the determination but didn't say what the ref was looking for. This is what clarifying language is meant to do and why the rule essence never changed, only the words. Even you get that.

I have support for this. Where is the support for your book chapter you posted above?

 

[MarcusRock]

They are reporting what was in the release, do try to keep up.
Kinda like if Joe Blow wrote an article on this thread and said Marcus says he is right, versus in reading through the thread Joe Blow says Marcus is right.

Big difference...but I am sure all you will read in that is Marcus and right.

The press never debunk things? They never do exposés? They never check for cover-ups? They just print whatever's given to them without checking to see if it's true?

What NFL press release gives an opinion like this?

"The interesting part here is that Dez Bryant's no-catch, the thing that sparked the rule change, would still be a no-catch under the new rule."​

LOL. If you're going to reach, you have to execute the reach. So where's your support for your story?

 

[blindzebra]

The okie-doke you and percy pull is you compare 2014 part (c) with the 2015 going to the ground rule phrase "upright long enough." Why don't you compare the 2 part (c)s with each other since they each talk about the time element of the a-b-c catch rule? The other lie is that you have to be "upright long enough" to be a runner when part (c) of 2015 says you only need to "clearly become a runner" which can be done via an act or "time enough" to do an act just like 2014. The "upright long enough" phrase is part of that different rule of going to the ground and is only a descriptor of when a player is considered going to the ground. Previous rules only started with "If a player goes to the ground..." Well in 2015 they now tell you when you're considered going to the ground. Before the ref just made the determination but didn't say what the ref was looking for. This is what clarifying language is meant to do and why the rule essence never changed, only the words. Even you get that.

I have support for this. Where is the support for your book chapter you posted above?

All I can do is laugh. You do realized that upright long enough contradicts the 8.12 case play right? It says 8.1.3.c must be completed before you go to the ground. That did not happen in that case play.

So one more time consider yourself spanked.

 

[MarcusRock]

I love how you never address it. If you did know what you were talking about, you would know that every scenario isn't covered in case plays, they'd need thousands of pages to cover every possible example. Further, if something was that special, one would think they would have said something somewhere in the rules about it. But no, it is the special secret rule that only Blandino and Steretore knew about, and one that completely contradicts the upright long enough to become a runner before going to the ground rule change of 2015.

There are 3 case plays that only mention a lunge allowing a player to escape going to the ground. If there were so many options they could have used from the list of "acts" why weren't they used? It's because you're trying to use the okie-doke to apply rules meant for a receiver on their feet to a receiver who is going to the ground. That has its own set of rules. Otherwise, why use a lunge in all 3 examples? They had 3 to choose from and used a lunge in all of them. Use logic.

 

[blindzebra]

The press never debunk things? They never do exposés? They never check for cover-ups? They just print whatever's given to them without checking to see if it's true?

What NFL press release gives an opinion like this?

"The interesting part here is that Dez Bryant's no-catch, the thing that sparked the rule change, would still be a no-catch under the new rule."​

LOL. If you're going to reach, you have to execute the reach. So where's your support for your story?

Again, your's is all based on Blandino's words. You know the guy so bad at his job he no longer has it.

 

[MarcusRock]

All I can do is laugh. You do realized that upright long enough contradicts the 8.12 case play right? It says 8.1.3.c must be completed before you go to the ground. That did not happen in that case play.

So one more time consider yourself spanked.

You have to laugh because you can't answer the question about support for your ruse. This is why you and percy just keep repeating it and he even edits out my asking it in his replies to my posts to continue his story.

Is there support for your story of rules changing or not?

 

[blindzebra]

There are 3 case plays that only mention a lunge allowing a player to escape going to the ground. If there were so many options they could have used from the list of "acts" why weren't they used? It's because you're trying to use the okie-doke to apply rules meant for a receiver on their feet to a receiver who is going to the ground. That has its own set of rules. Otherwise, why use a lunge in all 3 examples? They had 3 to choose from and used a lunge in all of them. Use logic.

Why isn't the magical lunge in the rule book? Either they screwed up the rules or they screwed up the case book. Still does not answer why 8.12 contradicts upright long enough.