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

[percyhoward]

Let's take a vote.

I say "If a player goes to the ground out of bounds" means "If a player's body hits the ground out of bounds."

Who agrees or disagrees?

 

[TwoDeep3]

I honestly didn't mean some poster at the zone, but somebody associated with officiating in the NFL.

I did say those exact words to you. You suggested there was no wording in any rule about falling. You were correct. But I saw falling and going to the ground as the same. Not calling you out, buddy.

 

[BlindFaith]

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

Thomas catch, two steps, going to ground, reach with two hands, lands, loses ball, ruled complete.

That would be Blandino himself saying the exact opposite of your gather and lunge theory.

Yes, catch, two steps THEN going to the ground.

Not catch, one foot ,GOING TO THE GROUND, more steps, stumbling, partial lunging, reaching.

You really don't understand the falling concept. Or what determines going to the ground.

 

[KJJ]

I don't know why I let myself get sucked back in. I guess I just want those folks who are actually interested in how the rule works to not get side tracked by this #conspiracy nonsense.

Until they change it, it will be enforced just as we have explained.

And the next time another one of these catches come up, the same 3 or 4 guys will come in saying "how's that a catch". Or "why wasn't that a catch". They don't understand the rule.

It’s the offseason and it’s easy to get sucked back into these threads. Unfortunately you have at least one poster who keeps showing up and can’t handle these discussions like an adult. Once someone starts getting the better of BZ he melts down and it becomes a full on personal attack. His MO is so predictable it’s laughable. You can almost hear the screws in his head grinding.

 

[percyhoward]

I did say those exact words to you. You suggested there was no wording in any rule about falling. You were correct. But I saw falling and going to the ground as the same. Not calling you out, buddy.

No offense taken. And thanks.

I will count that as your vote.

 

[BlindFaith]

Let's take a vote.

I say "If a player goes to the ground out of bounds" means "If a player's body hits the ground out of bounds."

Who agrees or disagrees?

What point are you trying to make.

Yes, player going to the ground means player ends up on ground.

A player could gather themselves before ending up in the ground. But a player going out of bounds would be gathering themselves out of bounds. Not legal. They have to maintain possession.

Now, if all they had to do was reach or shift hands, before hitting the ground, then they wouldn't. But do you ever here anyone say, "well, he reached the ball out while going out of bounds, so why isn't it a catch."

Does that help you out?

 

[blindzebra]

Yes, catch, two steps THEN going to the ground.

Not catch, one foot ,GOING TO THE GROUND, more steps, stumbling, partial lunging, reaching.

You really don't understand the falling concept. Or what determines going to the ground.

LOL, whatever. Thomas was off balance and falling as he took the steps.

Why your argument is wrong?

The lunge takes place under acts common to the game. Where in 8.1.3.c or 3.2.7 does it say gather or lunge? Where does it say brace? Besides time, where is anything in those case plays shown in the rule book?

You like to keep saying logic, where is the logic of it not being in the rules? If that is the only way, and a step, reach, turning upfield or any other act doesn't apply, why are they listed?

They are listed because the rule says that part c is complete when ANY ACT common to the game occurs. It does not say only when these acts occur.

 

[percyhoward]

Yes, player going to the ground means player ends up on ground.

Good. So in Item 2, "If a player goes to the ground..." means "If a player's body hits the ground..."

And you'd agree that in Item 1, it means the same thing, correct?

 

[BlindFaith]

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

Two feet and a reach ended Item 1. Right there, right from your boys mouth.

We debunked that one too. Again, I'm not here to explain why or how Blandino explains things.

Bottom line, if he had both feet down and a reach it still wouldn't have been ruled a catch because he never regained his balance.

 

[BlindFaith]

Good. So in Item 2, "If a player goes to the ground..." means "If a player's body hits the ground..."

And you'd agree that in Item 1, it means the same thing, correct?

Going to the ground means that once a player has two feet down that their body ends up on the ground.

 

[KJJ]

The best example of what two feet down means is the Julius Thomas play, the Larry Fitzgerald play and the Ertz play. All three of those players had both feet firmly planted on the ground when they made the catch. That’s two feet down! When a receiver goes into the air to catch a football and lands on both feet while their momentum is taking them to the ground that’s not having two feet down. Not only do some not understand what going to the ground means but some don’t understand what having two feet down means.

 

[percyhoward]

Going to the ground means that once a player has two feet down that their body ends up on the ground.

You'd agree that "goes to the ground" means the same thing in both items, then?

Item 1
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass...
Item 2.
If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds in the process of making a catch...

Item 1
If a player's body hits the ground in the act of catching a pass...
Item 2
If a player's body hits the ground out-of-bounds in the process of making a catch...

 

[BlindFaith]

You'd agree that "goes to the ground" means the same thing in both items, then?

Item 1
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass...
Item 2.
If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds in the process of making a catch...

Item 1
If a player's body hits the ground in the act of catching a pass...
Item 2
If a player's body hits the ground out-of-bounds in the process of making a catch...

What are you cherry picking here?

Post the complete rule you want me to explain to you.

Not sure how else I can say it. But yes, going to the ground after two feet down means his "body" is on the ground.

 

[percyhoward]

Post the complete rule you want me to explain to you.

Sure. Here are the complete Items 1 and 2 from 2014.

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.

Item 2: Sideline Catches
If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain
complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

 

[BlindFaith]

Sure. Here are the complete Items 1 and 2 from 2014.

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.

Item 2: Sideline Catches
If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain
complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

Ok.

I still stand by if after getting two feet down and the player is going to the ground it means that the players body will end up on the ground.

 

[blindzebra]

The best example of what two feet down means is the Julius Thomas play, the Larry Fitzgerald play and the Ertz play. All three of those players had both feet firmly planted on the ground when they made the catch. That’s two feet down! When a receiver goes into the air to catch a football and lands on both feet while their momentum is taking them to the ground that’s not having two feet down. Not only do some not understand what going to the ground means but some don’t understand what having two feet down means.

LOL, seriously?

The rule says two feet. Neither Ertz or Thomas had two feet firmly planted, they were moving. When you run, or walk one foot is followed by the other. It does not make a difference if that foot comes down from 6 inches or 3 feet, it still counts as a foot down.

 

[percyhoward]

I still stand by if after getting two feet down and the player is going to the ground it means that the players body will end up on the ground.

Obviously, "goes to the ground" means the same thing in Item 1 as it does in Item 2.

The player's body hits the ground, right?

 

[blindzebra]

We debunked that one too. Again, I'm not here to explain why or how Blandino explains things.

Bottom line, if he had both feet down and a reach it still wouldn't have been ruled a catch because he never regained his balance.

LOL, you have got to be freaking kidding. So now Blandino is wrong, but it is okay because he just explained it wrong? Is that what you are telling me?

In that video he described a player going to the ground, getting control and two feet down and reaching, and it was a catch, no way around it. He made an example of how the rule should be called (CAN YOU SAY CASE BOOK PLAY) where a player never gathered, never regained balance, and did not lunge. So it means only one of two things:
1. Blandino does not know the catch rule.
2. You do not know the catch rule.

 

[KJJ]

LOL, seriously?

The rule says two feet. Neither Ertz or Thomas had two feet firmly planted, they were moving. When you run, or walk one foot is followed by the other. It does not make a difference if that foot comes down from 6 inches or 3 feet, it still counts as a foot down.

Two feet down in the NFL occurs during the catch process. Thomas and Ertz’s feet never left the ground to make their catches. Their catches occurred with two feet down enabling them to turn up field and begin running which established them as runners. All these catches that have been overturned were due to the receivers leaving the ground to make the catch. Neither Calvin Johnson, Dez or Jesse James had two feet down during the catch process.

They left the ground during the catch process and began going to the ground in one piece, which under the rule required them to survive the ground with the ball. Your definition of what two feet down is couldn’t be more wrong. You continue to prove you don’t understand any aspect of the rule. You don’t know what going to the ground is and you don’t know what two feet down is in relation to the rule.

 

[percyhoward]

Neither Calvin Johnson, Dez or Jesse James had two feet down during the catch process.

Like a breath of fresh air, isn't it?