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

MarcusRock

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
17,969
Kevinicus said:
You are absurd to the nth degree. I gave you examples of articles talking about the Dez play and wrong ruling (which you also whined about right before I posted that) as well as someone criticizing the very real changes. Both articles do significantly more "analysis" than the parrot jobs you linked to, and then you complain about them being "serious." You don't like what they say, so they aren't good enough. Yet the slop you post is somehow "additional support." This is trolling behavior you're engaged in.
Click to expand...

I had a very specific question for which you gave me a boondoggle answer. Just say "no, I don't have additional support for my theory" and move on from there. Why the need for being evasive and linking me to crap I didn't ask of you? You have to admit, that second article was crap. How do you say in the article that Dez didn't look like a runner on the play in an article that complains that he was not deemed a runner on the play? Come on, laugh a little. That was priceless, wasn't it?
 
MarcusRock

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,340
Reaction score
17,969
Kevinicus said:
Do you have any actual support besides articles by people parroting the NFL? All you have is a weak logical fallacy contradicted by the same people it relies on. Articles by sports reporters have NO WEIGHT as an argument. You would be kicked out of a debate class with that nomsense.
Click to expand...

They aren't parroting. I outlined clearly that the quotes I pulled are all the authors' own words including one from a section named "Analysis." If my argument is weak with these few additional support pieces, which is by no means exhaustive, what is the strength of an argument that has NO additional support? Even the faked moon landing theory has some additional support.
 
blindzebra

blindzebra

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,560
Reaction score
4,451
MarcusRock said:
They aren't parroting. I outlined clearly that the quotes I pulled are all the authors' own words including one from a section named "Analysis." If my argument is weak with these few additional support pieces, which is by no means exhaustive, what is the strength of an argument that has NO additional support? Even the faked moon landing theory has some additional support.
Click to expand...
Exhaustive and yet you only post the same three over and over and over...
 
Kevinicus

Kevinicus

Well-Known Member
Messages
19,929
Reaction score
12,710
MarcusRock said:
They aren't parroting. I outlined clearly that the quotes I pulled are all the authors' own words including one from a section named "Analysis." If my argument is weak with these few additional support pieces, which is by no means exhaustive, what is the strength of an argument that has NO additional support? Even the faked moon landing theory has some additional support.
Click to expand...

You call what was in that article "analysis?" You are grasping at straws. Arguments should be based on facts, logic, and reason, not useless articles.

And you flat out lie too. Any "support" you don't like you pretend doesn't exist. You lack honesty, intellectual or otherwise. Trolling along you go.
 
blindzebra

blindzebra

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,560
Reaction score
4,451
BlindFaith said:
It was applied correctly. Ask the NFL. It's either that or a massive cover up, a conspiracy if you will.
Click to expand...
No, one person was part of the overturn, one person headed the competition committee that adjusted the rule., and the other person supporting it was his mentor who did a 180 on it the minute he no longer had the job.
 
BlindFaith

BlindFaith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,115
Reaction score
2,624
blindzebra said:
So Mike never read your case play with the magic lunge huh?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing he did, but didn't want to blow the minds of the uninformed.

What he clearly said is that going to the ground trumps everything. That blows up your any act can be performed.

I'll give up a gather which is actually in the rules to get you to give up any act.
 
percyhoward

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
BlindFaith said:
So you just come up with they didn't want to make the rule clear and left a bunch of stuff out. Gotcha.
Click to expand...
Where did you read anything like that my reply? Your questions weren't even about rules -- they were about case plays.

BlindFaith said:
And the lunge is clearly stated as not being part of the process. Time completes the act. Lunge demonstrates that time happened. So what is time? How much time?
Click to expand...
Enough time to lunge. That's how you completed the catch process in 2014, by maintaining control long enough (after two feet down) to perform any act common to the game. The lunge was that act that satisfied the time requirement. The act itself isn't a part of the process, but the time that passes before you perform the act is. The act itself is a separate process. That's why they say, "We felt it was all one process." They mean just the process of the catch, which isn't completed if there's no second act that follows it.

BlindFaith said:
And what time things can then be followed up by a lunge.
Click to expand...
"Time things?"
 
blindzebra

blindzebra

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,560
Reaction score
4,451
BlindFaith said:
I'm guessing he did, but didn't want to blow the minds of the uninformed.

What he clearly said is that going to the ground trumps everything. That blows up your any act can be performed.

I'll give up a gather which is actually in the rules to get you to give up any act.
Click to expand...
Cite gather in the rules, because I can cite any act.

FYI, he said lunge doesn't trump it, so either he is wrong, or the case play is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top