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

[big dog cowboy]

Glad we settled that!

Oh wait...........

 

[BlindFaith]

I’m just going by what I’ve seen and by what Mike Pereira said. If anyone has a video of a Raiders receiver having the same thing happen I would love to see it and see what year it was. The Johnson play made big news because everyone was shocked that the catch was overturned. First time I had ever seen anything like that and couldn’t believe a rule like that existed.

And watch the whole thing. There is a perfect example that Pereira talks about where a WR gets smashed at the same time he gets two feet down and it's a fumble. Exactly why they put back in become a runner.

 

[KJJ]

First time I’ve seen that play. That’s exactly like the plays we’ve seen with Johnson and Dez. What a crazy rule. The league appears to be ready to do something about it. That play should add a new element to these debates.

 

[MarcusRock]

Glad we settled that!

Oh wait...........

LOL. Oh my.

 

[Sarge]

Why do so many like to torture yourselves?

 

[BlindFaith]

No. That's what the conspiracy theorists say happened. But maybe you meant that.

"Time enough" to commit an act was replaced with "clearly become a runner" which likewise can be demonstrated with an act or time so nothing changed there. "Upright long enough" is just a descriptor for when someone is considered to be going to the ground. That descriptor didn't exist before so they attempted to clarify what refs were using to judge slapping the going to the ground tag on someone.

Yes.

 

[BlindFaith]

First time I’ve seen that play. That’s exactly like the plays we’ve seen with Johnson and Dez. What a crazy rule. The league appears to be ready to do something about it. That play should add a new element to these debates.

It should have no bearing. The rules were changed 2 years later to include become a runner. When that play happened they did not have to make an act common or become a runner.

 

[BlindFaith]

LOL. Oh my.

Lol. Right?

 

[MarcusRock]

Why do so many like to torture yourselves?

Torture? Dude, this is fun. I have wrested Wakanda from the forum's "it was a catch" champion, even with a rematch title shot, lol.

 

[KJJ]

It should have no bearing. The rules were changed 2 years later to include become a runner. When that play happened they did not have to make an act common or become a runner.

They’ll get rid of the “going to the ground” part of the rule. It’s ridiculous! Another play where the receiver was going up to make the catch. Do you know if that was a regular season or preseason game? Never seen the refs dressed in that color scheme.

 

[blindzebra]

No. That's what the conspiracy theorists say happened. But maybe you meant that.

"Time enough" to commit an act was replaced with "clearly become a runner" which likewise can be demonstrated with an act or time so nothing changed there. "Upright long enough" is just a descriptor for when someone is considered to be going to the ground. That descriptor didn't exist before so they attempted to clarify what refs were using to judge slapping the going to the ground tag on someone.

Did you read what you wrote? The removed act common to the game, and added upright long enough, that you just said didn't exist before, but it didn't change?

 

[blindzebra]

Torture? Dude, this is fun. I have wrested Wakanda from the forum's "it was a catch" champion, even with a rematch title shot, lol.

Only in your own mind.

 

[BlindFaith]

They’ll get rid of the “going to the ground” part of the rule. It’s ridiculous! Another play where the receiver was going up to make the catch. Do you know if that was a regular season or preseason game? Never seen the refs dressed in that color scheme.

Regular season. Throwback for the refs

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Tbh, I went from thinking the pass was incomplete when I first saw it in real time to thinking the overturn was a terrible call—all thanks to the kinds of arguments and research seen in this thread.

 

[MarcusRock]

Did you read what you wrote? The removed act common to the game, and added upright long enough, that you just said didn't exist before, but it didn't change?

We're talking rule essence. That's beyond the grasp of people who solely operate in the world of literal.

 

[blindzebra]

Tbh, I went from thinking the pass was incomplete when I first saw it in real time to thinking the overturn was a terrible call—all thanks to the kinds of arguments and research seen in this thread.

Glad to know there are open-minded and level headed posters on the forum.

 

[BlindFaith]

They’ll get rid of the “going to the ground” part of the rule. It’s ridiculous! Another play where the receiver was going up to make the catch. Do you know if that was a regular season or preseason game? Never seen the refs dressed in that color scheme.

Maybe. That's about the only thing they haven't tried yet. But then at what point do you rule it a catch. Many scenarios they have to think about.

 

[blindzebra]

We're talking rule essence. That's beyond the grasp of people who solely operate in the world of literal.

Yeah coming from the guy that thinks that case plays can only be used literally.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Glad to know there are open-minded and level headed posters on the forum.

Really? Where?

 

[MarcusRock]

Yeah coming from the guy that thinks that case plays can only be used literally.

But I had to correct you on those case plays in this linked post. Otherwise, you'd go on believing in a magic stopwatch theory.