No. The acts are defined as time plus lunge, brace plus lunge, regain balance plus lunge.
You're describing the three case book scenarios here -- or at least your interpretation of them. There's also the actual rules in the rule book, and the discussion of those rules in official explanations of similar plays over the years.
You're incorrectly assuming that ANY act could be performed.
If there indeed were certain acts that did not qualify, you'd think that it would have come up at least once prior to 2015. Has anyone produced a quote or posted an official explanation that said anything like "this is an act common to the game, but it does not complete the catch process?" Specifically, I'd like to see proof that a reach didn't qualify, as it was generally believed at the time that it did.
And Blandino specifically says gather in one of the videos. Or that he didn't complete a proper reach. Or that his momentum was taking him to the ground.
That's kind of a mishmash there. On the day of the game, he said the reach wasn't obvious enough (which didn't make much sense, because how did he see it?). Then the next day he changed his explanation to the lunge not being clear enough because Dez didn't gather himself first. He didn't say anything on the second day about the reach needing to be with two hands, which is also weird because you'd think he'd want to be consistent. Typically, the second day's explanation would just be a more in-depth version of the first day's. Here, it was a completely different explanation. Doesn't make sense.
If you want to discuss each and every video again, start posting them again and we'll easily explain them. Like we did time and time again.
My experience with the "Explaining the Calvin Johnson Rule" video is that people tend to watch it and impose their own explanations, as opposed to just listening to the lesson. It's better to look at a transcript. That way you're forced to focus on the message.
The only way this gets resolved is to understand what acts are allowed. Which is why none of you ever answer
1. Why in AR 15 it only says time plus lunge and not just perform any act
2. Why are 8.12 and 8.13 even in there?
3. If 8.12 and 8.13 are just examples, then why are those examples both defining what the time element is in AR 15? Because they all refer to some act plus lunge
4. If any act can be performed while going to the ground, why isn't there one example in a case play saying so for a player going to the ground
I would love for you to finally answer those questions.
1. Two-part answer
A The case book doesn't work like the rule book. A case play is supposed to be an example of a specific play. So it's one specific act that happened on that play, not a list of possible acts. "Any act" is something that would be in the rule book, which is more general and is supposed to apply to all kinds of plays.
B The lunge
is the act common to the game.
Maintaining control long enough to perform the lunge is what actually completed the catch process. That's the time element.
2. and 3. You could make the argument that whoever wrote the 8's saw "goes to the ground" as "starting to fall," and whoever wrote the 15 saw "goes to the ground" as meaning the same as it does Item 2 ("hitting the ground"). 15 is in line with the catch process and the way these kinds of plays were ruled up until 2015. The 8's sound more like they were anticipating "upright long enough" because they're concerned (obsessed?) with the player's balance.
4. See 1A. Remember that at the time, the catch process determined whether a player was going to the ground as a runner or receiver.
