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

[OmerV]

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.

A single case play is not supposed to cover a multitude of scenarios, it is intended to cover the scenario that individual case sets up. That's why it sets up a scenario - not to be ignored or applied to any multitude of other scenarios as the reader chooses to apply to it, but to explain a situation and what the ruling would be in that situation. There would be no sense in creating a case play if all if it didn't make it clear as to what it applied to.

 

[blindzebra]

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.

I've read them and you are misinterpreting them and have zero rules citations to back them up.

 

[blindzebra]

A single case play is not supposed to cover a multitude of scenarios, it is intended to cover the scenario that individual case sets up. That's why it sets up a scenario - not to be ignored or applied to any multitude of other scenarios as the reader chooses to apply to it, but to explain a situation and what the ruling would be in that situation.

That situation, if all situations are not included you must refer to the rules, and the rules say ANY ACT COMMON TO THE GAME. Nobody on your side has ever shown rule support for your assertions. Where is a citation saying balance and lunge? Where is the citation singling them out?

 

[BlindFaith]

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.

For an upright player.

Can you not understand the going to the ground rule? If a player goes to the ground IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING A CATCH.

Was Dez ever in the process of making a catch? Did Dez go to the ground?

The only acts in the rules for what can be done by a player going to the ground are:

AR 15 Defining the act common. The only act common. Time +lunge

8.12 Under going to the ground to clarify the time element from AR 15
brace + lunge

8.13 Further clarification of what the time element is
Regains balance + lunge

Those are the only things in the rulebook. You adding whatever you want does not count. You saying, we'll they can't add everything, does not count.

If it was to be enforced that way they would have just said in AR 15 any act common instead of time + lunge.

Then have a couple case plays where a guy JUST reaches, or switches hands or takes extra steps. But they don't. Both case plays refer to gathering themselves and then lunging. And that is all.

Geeze. How can you not see that?

 

[BlindFaith]

Show a link to the 2013 casebook.

You find it. Do your own work. Clearly you've read it, right? Since you just know they are the same.

 

[Kevinicus]

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.

That Constitution thing still gets me, but I shouldn't be surprised...but

I mean, Dez certainly wasn't falling at the snap, or as he ran down the field.

I would say Dez started to fall when Shield's leg tripped him up just after his 2nd foot came down. It's possible he was falling previously, but I do not think he was. There's no way to be sure. THIS is something that is subjective. However, it's also not something that is all that relevant. Whether he was falling prior to his first foot coming down, or after his 2nd (but before an Act - I think even you would admit if it was after an Act it would be a catch), it was a catch.

 

[OmerV]

That situation, if all situations are not included you must refer to the rules, and the rules say ANY ACT COMMON TO THE GAME. Nobody on your side has ever shown rule support for your assertions. Where is a citation saying balance and lunge? Where is the citation singling them out?

You are changing the subject now - the fact is, ALL cases cannot be included in a SINGLE case. A case play refers to a particular case - hence the use of the word "case". There is no one scenario that can apply to every scenario.

That said, we've talked about the act common to the game countless times, and I've told you countless times that I believe Item 1 sets out a separate ruling in the event of a player who is going to the ground. You've giving all your reasons why you think I'm wrong, and I've given all mine why I think your wrong, and there is no need to keep giving the same reasons over and over and over again. We will agree to disagree.

 

[BlindFaith]

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

Say what? What are you talking about? Do I need to paste the frickin rules a 100th time. Have you even looked at 8.12 and 8.13? You avoid any questions regarding it like the plague, so you probably haven't.

And Blandino very much did say gather themselves. But I know how much you like to take words, snippets from what he says to try and prove tour point. You never post his comments in complete context. You are trying to shape a position. We always post things in their entirety. We don't post still photos. We don't make up hypotheticals.

Just the facts ma'am.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

Oh come on Kevin. The quotes I use with the links are not from the article quoting the NFL's statements, they are quotes from each article's author themselves. In all 3 cases. That is not parroting. In fact, the ESPN quote I used is from that article's section on the catch rule update titled "Analysis," which you claim the press doesn't do. LOL.

So if you are saying you can "post articles of others going through the entire rule, like some have done here, and saying the NFL was wrong," then why don't you? You and your catch theorist buddies have had months to do so in these 3 threads. And in every thread the question of additional support gets edited out of replies or flat out ignored. In fact, this is the most action I've received to this request yet but it's still the same evasive BS percy gave me before not following through on the challenge. That's where the last thread died.

So, do you have additional support for your erroneous claim that the rule changed in its essence from 2014 to 2015 or will this question serve as kryptonite here as well?

 

[Kevinicus]

A single case play is not supposed to cover a multitude of scenarios, it is intended to cover the scenario that individual case sets up. That's why it sets up a scenario - not to be ignored or applied to any multitude of other scenarios as the reader chooses to apply to it, but to explain a situation and what the ruling would be in that situation. There would be no sense in creating a case play if all if it didn't make it clear as to what it applied to.

100% Wrong. A case play is exactly meant to represent different scenarios that fall under the same rules. In this case, the scenarios covered were completing the catch process while already falling. The specific case play used a lunge/brace, but multiple other acts would be covered. The case play is clear, unless you are willfully trying not to understand it.

 

[BlindFaith]

I've read them and you are misinterpreting them and have zero rules citations to back them up.

How am I misrepresenting them? lol Read them for yourself and tell me what you think they mean. Just because they don't align to what you think is right doesn't mean I'm misrepresenting them. Lol Dear Lord help us.

 

[Kevinicus]

Oh come on Kevin. The quotes I use with the links are not from the article quoting the NFL's statements, they are quotes from each article's author themselves. In all 3 cases. That is not parroting. In fact, the ESPN quote I used is from that article's section on the catch rule update titled "Analysis," which you claim the press doesn't do. LOL.

So if you are saying you can "post articles of others going through the entire rule, like some have done here, and saying the NFL was wrong," then why don't you? You and your catch theorist buddies have had months to do so in these 3 threads. And in every thread the question of additional support gets edited out of replies or flat out ignored. In fact, this is the most action I've received to this request yet but it's still the same evasive BS percy gave me before not following through on the challenge. That's where the last thread died.

So, do you have additional support for your erroneous claim that the rule changed in its essence from 2014 to 2015 or will this question serve as kryptonite here as well?

*sigh*

This isn't "additional support" but since you are obsessed with media articles:

Here is someone saying it should have been a catch:
https://thebiglead.com/2015/01/12/n...tell-you-dez-bryants-was-clearly-not-a-catch/

Here is an article saying the NFL made the rules worse (how is that possible if it's the same?) with their change.
https://********.com/nfl-changes-the-dez-bryant-rule-makes-it-worse-1719867338

That took 2 minutes. There are plenty more (especially on the first).

Your obsession with the media is troubling.

 

[BlindFaith]

That Constitution thing still gets me, but I shouldn't be surprised...but

I mean, Dez certainly wasn't falling at the snap, or as he ran down the field.

I would say Dez started to fall when Shield's leg tripped him up just after his 2nd foot came down. It's possible he was falling previously, but I do not think he was. There's no way to be sure. THIS is something that is subjective. However, it's also not something that is all that relevant. Whether he was falling prior to his first foot coming down, or after his 2nd (but before an Act - I think even you would admit if it was after an Act it would be a catch), it was a catch.

I'm not getting into politics, but things now make sense.

Much more sense then the non sense answer you gave. So basically you only think he started to fall somewhere around his third foot hitting the ground? Please clarify if this is not the case, you didn't really say.

Now he was clearly falling after he lept into the air, but to continue on with your take. Since he started falling after the third step, what act did he do to satisfy AR 15, 8.12 and 8.13?

 

[Kevinicus]

I'm not getting into politics, but things now make sense.

Much more sense then the non sense answer you gave. So basically you only think he started to fall somewhere around his third foot hitting the ground? Please clarify if this is not the case, you didn't really say.

Now he was clearly falling after he lept into the air, but to continue on with your take. Since he started falling after the third step, what act did he do to satisfy AR 15, 8.12 and 8.13?

I didn't really say? I did say, when Shield's leg tripped him, immediately after his 2nd foot came down.

Satisfying the act would be his 3rd foot down (advancing the ball), shifting the ball away from the defender, lunging (pushing off with that 3rd foot), bracing with his left arm, and finally the reach. I could argue the turn towards the pylon, but I'll leave it be for now. Pick one. Any one will do. I'd have to watch again to verify which happened first, but it would either be the extra foot down, or the shifting the ball.

 

[blindzebra]

Say what? What are you talking about? Do I need to paste the frickin rules a 100th time. Have you even looked at 8.12 and 8.13? You avoid any questions regarding it like the plague, so you probably haven't.

And Blandino very much did say gather themselves. But I know how much you like to take words, snippets from what he says to try and prove tour point. You never post his comments in complete context. You are trying to shape a position. We always post things in their entirety. We don't post still photos. We don't make up hypotheticals.

Just the facts ma'am.

I was the ones who posted them, you had no idea what a case play was before I showed you, so yes I read them, and understand how to apply them correctly, unlike you.

How is posting every rule and case play applicable to this play not posting in its entirety? I also posted a link to the entire video segment, so again how is that taking anything out of context? Blandino explicitly said going to the ground and the catch process in that video. He also clearly said that the reason Johnson's play was incomplete was because he did not complete part b of 8.1.3. He got a with control, and c with the reach, but did not get two feet down, so he had to complete Item 1. He then showed Thomas who was going to the ground but completed a, b, and c. No balance, no brace, no lunge but it was a completion.

That is 100% factual, nothing out of context, nothing withheld, just facts. Facts that prove conclusively that you are wrong. But instead of discussing the facts you and yours always resort to nonsensical attacks to avoid the truth.

 

[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.

Actually what they say is an act common to the game ends Item 1. What you are doing is projecting intent on the rules based on ONE POSSIBLE EXAMPLE of an act common to the game. The rules say ANY ACT COMMON TO THE GAME. That is straight from 8.1.3.c. Where in the rule book is balance + lunge, what rule is it under, and don't come back with a case play, case plays are examples of applying the rules, not THE RULE.

 

[MarcusRock]

*sigh*

This isn't "additional support" but since you are obsessed with media articles:

Here is someone saying it should have been a catch:
https://thebiglead.com/2015/01/12/n...tell-you-dez-bryants-was-clearly-not-a-catch/

Here is an article saying the NFL made the rules worse (how is that possible if it's the same?) with their change.
https://********.com/nfl-changes-the-dez-bryant-rule-makes-it-worse-1719867338

That took 2 minutes. There are plenty more (especially on the first).

Your obsession with the media is troubling.

Hahaha. I asked you for additional support for the rule "changing" as you've stated. What is this nonsense? The best part is this quote from the 2nd article: "I guess I would agree that he isn’t a runner in the above clip ..." Wait, what? The author is basically saying that Dez should have been subject to going to the ground then rants on about being confused by the rule. LOL. Maybe I should have asked for "serious" media support, especially since this article starts off with an expletive, demonstrating this outfit's journalistic excellence, no doubt.

This is almost as good as percy posting that link to a "similar" play where Dez was "almost" going to the ground, except he caught the ball on his feet running. LOL. "No" is an answer too, you know? Geez.

 

[blindzebra]

You find it. Do your own work. Clearly you've read it, right? Since you just know they are the same.

Translation...I made up my rule history out of whole cloth.

 

[percyhoward]

Can you not understand the going to the ground rule? If a player goes to the ground IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING A CATCH.

Was Dez ever in the process of making a catch? Did Dez go to the ground?

Was he ever in the process of making a catch? Yes, of course.

Did he go to the ground? Obviously.

But those aren't the questions to ask. The question is:

Did he go to the ground before he completed the catch process?

 

[percyhoward]

This is almost as good as percy posting that link to a "similar" play where Dez was "almost" going to the ground, except he caught the ball on his feet running.

When he caught the ball has nothing to do with what he looks like when he's falling. People were claiming it was obvious that he was falling before Shields tripped him, but he was actually more upright at that point than he was on the play where he scored standing up.

Not that it mattered whether he was falling or not on the catch that was overturned anyway. It was just to show people that there's no way they can conclude he would have fallen without the contact.