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

[Kevinicus]

No, my support is in addition to my own reading and understanding of the rules. Catch theorists have nothing additional to back what they say besides what they've come up with on their own, which is why those unanswered questions we keep asking continue to go unanswered. I mean, if you all are uncovering some gargantuan coverup by the NFL, why does no one else in the sports world see it despite the huge controversy this play caused? Did the NFL threaten everyone's first borns so they're all keeping it quiet? Where's your support beyond CowboysZone? Is there any?

Gargantuan cover-up? Are you insane? It's simply PR. Every major organization does it. How naive are you?

 

[DogFace]

A no parrot policy would save you keystrokes.

Your little sayings are so stupid. Who are you?
1. Lame Star Wars jokes
2. Catch theorists
3. CONSPIRACY
4. Ring leader
5. Your name for Blindfaith -squadron leader
6. Now parrot policy

Am I missing any?
L-A-M-E

 

[Kevinicus]

The constitution is subjective, particularly due to changing societal views.

Dear Lord, this explains a lot.

A rulebook should not be subjective. No one has said that the wording they used was the best.

Agreed.

But no one from your side has given any evidence that ANY act common to the game can complete the catch process.

Simply false. A ton has been offered...and consistently ignored by cherry picking and demanding that case plays should exist for every possible scenario.

The only act listed in AR 15 is time + lunge. If that was it, and no other examples were there. You would have a case. Honestly.

But you guys just stop there. AR 15 sets time + LUNGE as the act.

Misreading as usual.

8.12 and 8.13 define what that time is. Brace + lunge and balance + lunge. Not one single example of any other act. Yet you guys just insist that ANY other act can be just inserted as you see fit. And most of you don't even acknowledge those two case plays.

More misreading.

Then when we back you into a corner on that, you shift to that he wasn't really falling. And you do this so you can shoehorn in part c of the catch process where any act basically makes one a runner. That's when the still photos come in. Somehow after Dez got his second foot down that he never would have continued to fall. Or that he wasn't really falling to begin with and that all the moves he made completed the process.

False statements. You never backed anyone into a corner, and you guys are the ones who go off and tangents and then when we explain that too you say we are cherry picking even though we are consistent and you guys keep moving around.

So, answer this:
1. Do you believe ANY act can complete the catch process while a player is going to the ground?

Any act "common to the game", yes, absolutely...in 2014.

2. Do you think Dez was falling?

At what point in the play?

 

[DogFace]

You don't read anything we post do you?

8.12 and 8.13

I’m asking.

So the case plays are the rules? Did they take out others? Yes. You’re right I haven’t read all of the 2013-14 case plays and or rules.

Are you saying Dez’s catch would’ve been correctly ruled a catch in 2013?

So you are conceding there’s no difference between the plays in the video and the Dez play. Only that the rules(caseplays) changed making what was ruled a catch and non catch?

 

[MarcusRock]

Gargantuan cover-up? Are you insane? It's simply PR. Every major organization does it. How naive are you?

So the entire sports world press is involved in engaging in "PR" for the NFL too? Is that what you're claiming as to the reason why there's no support for anything catch theorists are claiming?

 

[Kevinicus]

So the entire sports world press is involved in engaging in "PR" for the NFL too? Is that what you're claiming as to the reason why there's no support for anything catch theorists are claiming?

No, the press is lazy, and nothing close to the entire press covered this topic at all, let alone by doing an in-depth analysis. Are you really trying to present the press as your argument now?

 

[MarcusRock]

No, the press is lazy, and nothing close to the entire press covered this topic at all, let alone by doing an in-depth analysis. Are you really trying to present the press as your argument now?

No. The press is the support for my argument that I made to combat misinformation. The press wasn't so lazy that they couldn't analyze and cover the rule re-wording of the catch rule from 2014 to 2015 and offer the following conclusions:

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."​

Surely, you've seen that before. Again, catch theorists claim the opposite of this support so I am asking where theirs is. If these main media players are wrong in their assessments, surely other media outlets would be chomping at the bit to call them out on it. This is the catch theorists main argument: that the NFL changed its rules to hide that they were wrong on Dez' play and yet this question from me and my side has gone unanswered in not 1, not 2, but 3 recent threads on this topic (that I've been part of at least). Where is the additional support for the catch theorists conclusions if they're so "obvious?" Does it exist, Kevin?

 

[blindzebra]

Show me where AR 15 is in the 2013 case book. Or a case play reference to Act Common to the Game where the AR 15 from 2014 is.

And I copied and pasted because he obviously didn't take the time to read the 2013 rules.

The rules that are word for word identical to 2012 and 2014, those rules?

 

[OmerV]

Simply false. A ton has been offered...and consistently ignored by cherry picking and demanding that case plays should exist for every possible scenario.




At what point in the play?

I don't believe anyone has said there should be a case play for every scenario. I think it's just a matter of, when citing a case play, making sure the case play actually covers the scenario it is being used it to represent.

 

[Kevinicus]

No. The press is the support for my argument that I made to combat misinformation. The press wasn't so lazy that they couldn't analyze and cover the rule re-wording of the catch rule from 2014 to 2015 and offer the following conclusions:

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."​

Surely, you've seen that before. Again, catch theorists claim the opposite of this support so I am asking where theirs is. If these main media players are wrong in their assessments, surely other media outlets would be chomping at the bit to call them out on it. This is the catch theorists main argument: that the NFL changed its rules to hide that they were wrong on Dez' play and yet this question from me and my side has gone unanswered in not 1, not 2, but 3 recent threads on this topic (that I've been part of at least). Where is the additional support for the catch theorists conclusions if they're so "obvious?" Does it exist, Kevin?

The media is just repeating the NFL's comments on the matter. They are not making assessments. That is not evidence of anything except the NFL is trying to make it seem like everything is the same, and they're just making it better for everyone to understand...PR. You're naive enough to fall head over heels for it.

It's extremely sad that you think some media posts parroting (like that word, right?) constitutes support. It's the sign of not having an argument. I could post articles of others going through the entire rule, like some have done here, and saying the NFL was wrong. Being able to post articles that say that doesn't give my argument any more support than it did before (though the arguments in those articles may make great points).

Your fascination with "additional support" is truly fascinating and absurd. And what you think actually provides additional support is even more so. All you have to do is look at the words in the rule. All you have to do is look at how the rule was handled before Dez and how it was handled after (hint: not the same). Media articles repeating what the NFL tells them is not support. It's not even analysis.

 

[Kevinicus]

I don't believe anyone has said there should be a case play for every scenario. I think it's just a matter of, when citing a case play, making sure the case play actually covers the scenario it is being used it to represent.

Um, you didn't say it directly, but by your refusal to let a single case play cover a multitude of scenarios under the same heading, that is exactly what you did. And you know it. It's why you, in particular, have been called out on it repeatedly.

 

[blindzebra]

The constitution is subjective, particularly due to changing societal views.

A rulebook should not be subjective. No one has said that the wording they used was the best.

But no one from your side has given any evidence that ANY act common to the game can complete the catch process.

The only act listed in AR 15 is time + lunge. If that was it, and no other examples were there. You would have a case. Honestly.

But you guys just stop there. AR 15 sets time + LUNGE as the act.

8.12 and 8.13 define what that time is. Brace + lunge and balance + lunge. Not one single example of any other act. Yet you guys just insist that ANY other act can be just inserted as you see fit. And most of you don't even acknowledge those two case plays.

Then when we back you into a corner on that, you shift to that he wasn't really falling. And you do this so you can shoehorn in part c of the catch process where any act basically makes one a runner. That's when the still photos come in. Somehow after Dez got his second foot down that he never would have continued to fall. Or that he wasn't really falling to begin with and that all the moves he made completed the process.

So, answer this:
1. Do you believe ANY act can complete the catch process while a player is going to the ground?
2. Do you think Dez was falling?

Just yes or no.

Again misrepresenting the facts:

Here are the 2013 and 2014 rules for a catch:
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

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.

There was no clarification, that case play was in the 2012 case book too, so from 2012 to 2015 the catch rules were the same.

As for acts common to the game, notice what ends the catch process:

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.

/www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
Blandino says right here that had Johnson got two feet down before the reach, it would have been a TD, and then used the Thomas play where he was going to the ground, off balance, took two stumbling steps and reached, ruling complete. Control, 2 feet, and an act common to the game. No time, balance and lunge. No Brace and lunge, just two feet and another act common to the game.

There are your facts. There is your rule support. Your theory has no rule book support, it is just conjecture on your part.

 

[BlindFaith]

Dear Lord, this explains a lot.



Agreed.



Simply false. A ton has been offered...and consistently ignored by cherry picking and demanding that case plays should exist for every possible scenario.


Misreading as usual.

More misreading.


False statements. You never backed anyone into a corner, and you guys are the ones who go off and tangents and then when we explain that too you say we are cherry picking even though we are consistent and you guys keep moving around.


Any act "common to the game", yes, absolutely...in 2014.

At what point in the play?

Misreading. Lol Its exactly what the case plays say. And speaking of which, which case play says any act can be performed since you think any act can.

You pick. This is your fantasy. Since you seem that at some point he wasnt, how about when do you think he was up right and then when do you think he started to fall.

And agreed. It does say a lot.

 

[blindzebra]

Um, you didn't say it directly, but by your refusal to let a single case play cover a multitude of scenarios under the same heading, that is exactly what you did. And you know it. It's why you, in particular, have been called out on it repeatedly.

LOL, did he just say every scenario can't be covered but for this one area it was? How convenient.

8.1.3.c clearly says ANY ACT COMMON TO THE GAME. It is officiating 101 that you read the rule to understand the intent of the case play. They are taking the case play and applying it to the rule, but ignoring what the rule says.

 

[blindzebra]

Misreading. Lol Its exactly what the case plays say. And speaking of which, which case play says any act can be performed since you think any act can.

You pick. This is your fantasy. Since you seem that at some point he wasnt, how about when do you think he was up right and then when do you think he started to fall.

And agreed. It does say a lot.

Too bad the rules and Blandino himself don't say that.

 

[BlindFaith]

I’m asking.

So the case plays are the rules? Did they take out others? Yes. You’re right I haven’t read all of the 2013-14 case plays and or rules.

Are you saying Dez’s catch would’ve been correctly ruled a catch in 2013?

So you are conceding there’s no difference between the plays in the video and the Dez play. Only that the rules(caseplays) changed making what was ruled a catch and non catch?

Spin, avoid, distract. Glad to know you haven't read any of the case plays. The only factual thing you've said this whole time.

 

[BlindFaith]

The rules that are word for word identical to 2012 and 2014, those rules?

Spin and non answering of questions. Show me where AR 15 is in the 2013 rules.

 

[BlindFaith]

Again misrepresenting the facts:

Here are the 2013 and 2014 rules for a catch:
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

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.

There was no clarification, that case play was in the 2012 case book too, so from 2012 to 2015 the catch rules were the same.

As for acts common to the game, notice what ends the catch process:

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.

/www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again
Blandino says right here that had Johnson got two feet down before the reach, it would have been a TD, and then used the Thomas play where he was going to the ground, off balance, took two stumbling steps and reached, ruling complete. Control, 2 feet, and an act common to the game. No time, balance and lunge. No Brace and lunge, just two feet and another act common to the game.

There are your facts. There is your rule support. Your theory has no rule book support, it is just conjecture on your part.

Nope. Your whole argument hinges on AR 15. Where is AR 15 in the 2013 rules? And all this is doing is trying to explain a play from 2013 that the guy who hasn't even read any of the case plays has brought up.

But to get things back to the actual year of the Dez catch, let me ask you the same as Mr PR cover up.

1. So you think ANY act common can complete the catch process while a player is going to the ground?
2. Do you think Dez was falling?

 

[blindzebra]

Spin and non answering of questions. Show me where AR 15 is in the 2013 rules.

Show a link to the 2013 casebook.

 

[blindzebra]

Spin and non answering of questions. Show me where AR 15 is in the 2013 rules.

AR 15 is a case play, that comes in a case book, it is not a rule found in the rule book.