Twitter: Competition Committee says Dez caught it merged

BlindFaith · Mar 5, 2018

BlindFaith said:
Or this one from Blandino himself a day ago. Also clarifying that what Mara said did not mean that the Dez play was a catch, it's that they want to find a way to make it a catch.
https://sportsday.***BANNED-DO-NOT-...rmer-nfl-vp-officiating-dez-bryant-want-catch

I see they banned the link. Just Google Blandino competition committee. It was an interview on the FAN

blindzebra · Mar 5, 2018

BlindFaith said:
Obviously. And you don't even know what argument you're debating against. To be successful at an argument you need to be able to argue the opposing side as well or better than they can.

Well you are obviously losing based on that. After all we are just emotional fans, screaming conspiracy, with no rule knowledge, that introduce case plays without reading them, right?

big dog cowboy · Mar 5, 2018

BlindFaith · Mar 5, 2018

blindzebra said:
And yet we still have not gotten a rule citation from you.

What I gave you is how rule book and case book works together. I have a rule citation that applies to A.R.15.95, you don't. Remember A.R.15.95 is labeled act common to the game and that specifically links it to 8.1.3.c. You know 8.1.3.c that says any act.

The fact that the language that is used within A.R.15.95 is consistent with A.R.8.12, that means that 8.1.3.c also applies there.

That ain't spin, that is fact.

Answer my other questions to you.

Kevinicus · Mar 5, 2018

BlindFaith said:
It's just a BS cop out answer. And believe me, there is nothing you could help me out with. With the exception being, understanding a delusional personality.

It's not BS or a copout. It's the reality of businesses that rely on public perception. I can't help you with the delusional personality. I have been trying to understand you for awhile now and just can't, so it's clearly not a skill I possess. Maybe Marcus can help.

blindzebra · Mar 5, 2018

BlindFaith said:
Answer my other questions to you.

Supply a rule citation for your theory.

BlindFaith · Mar 5, 2018

blindzebra said:
Supply a rule citation for your theory.

QUOTE="BlindFaith, post: 7946724, member: 463"]AR 15 defines what act can be performed for a player going to the ground. The rule doesn't say, if the player goes to the ground they can perform any act common to the game.

It does specifically say TIME + LUNGE. Do we at least agree on what the actual case play says?

Then the other two case plays you always ignore say BRACE + LUNGE and REGAIN BALANCE + LUNGE. So, in your opinion, what are those case plays for? And remember, they are specifically under GOING TO THE GROUND.

Why have them? Or why not have at least one other case play to show ANY other act. But nope. Not a word. But keep on ignoring it as you always do.[/QUOTE]

MarcusRock · Mar 5, 2018

Kevinicus said:
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.

Kevin, these rules aren't rocket science. Plus they're finite to boot. It's not not like there are infinite possibilities so it's not hard to analyze them at all unless you're trying to shoehorn what you want to see. That would be why no one else in the sports world sees what you lot see but sees the opposite instead. And I lie and lack honesty? LOL. You think comparing different parts of different rules to make up a story of the rules changing is on the up and up then? Not to mention answering me with stuff I didn't ask for when the real answer is "no, I don't have anything like that." You didn't strike me as one who projects like our resident parrot but no one is immune I guess.

blindzebra · Mar 5, 2018

BlindFaith said:
QUOTE="BlindFaith, post: 7946724, member: 463"]AR 15 defines what act can be performed for a player going to the ground. The rule doesn't say, if the player goes to the ground they can perform any act common to the game.

It does specifically say TIME + LUNGE. Do we at least agree on what the actual case play says?

Then the other two case plays you always ignore say BRACE + LUNGE and REGAIN BALANCE + LUNGE. So, in your opinion, what are those case plays for? And remember, they are specifically under GOING TO THE GROUND.

Why have them? Or why not have at least one other case play to show ANY other act. But nope. Not a word. But keep on ignoring it as you always do.

Not a rule citation. Support your theory on the case plays with a citation from the rule book.

MarcusRock · Mar 5, 2018

blindzebra said:
For someone who ridicules copy and paste at every turn, you sure do it more than anyone else.

I don't ridicule it. It's quite convenient.

blindzebra · Mar 5, 2018

MarcusRock said:
Kevin, these rules aren't rocket science. Plus they're finite to boot. It's not not like there are infinite possibilities so it's not hard to analyze them at all unless you're trying to shoehorn what you want to see. That would be why no one else in the sports world sees what you lot see but sees the opposite instead. And I lie and lack honesty? LOL. You think comparing different parts of different rules to make up a story of the rules changing is on the up and up then? Not to mention answering me with stuff I didn't ask for when the real answer is "no, I don't have anything like that." You didn't strike me as one who projects like our resident parrot but no one is immune I guess.

You ask 1000 people that are not Cowboy fans if Dez caught it and well over 75 % would say yes. Present them the rule support we have given in this thread and that number would be approaching 90%.

BlindFaith · Mar 5, 2018

Kevinicus said:
It's not BS or a copout. It's the reality of businesses that rely on public perception. I can't help you with the delusional personality. I have been trying to understand you for awhile now and just can't, so it's clearly not a skill I possess. Maybe Marcus can help.

So the NFL, 32 teams, officials, competition comittees. They all are saying it wasn't a catch because it's a PR move? A PR move that has lead to fan uproar. And now radically changing the rules?

This is how you think it went down?

Wouldn't it just be easier to say, we messed up the Dez call. The rule is actually Ok?

You obviously don't work in PR.

BlindFaith · Mar 5, 2018

blindzebra said:
Not a rule citation. Support your theory on the case plays with a citation from the rule book.

Answer the questions I've asked multiple times.

blindzebra · Mar 5, 2018

BlindFaith said:
Answer the questions I've asked multiple times.

Translation...I can't give one so I will turn it on you.
What questions would that be anyway? I don't bother reading stuff remember?

BlindFaith · Mar 5, 2018

blindzebra said:
Not a rule citation. Support your theory on the case plays with a citation from the rule book.

AR 15, 8.12, 8.13 all support a player going to the ground.

BlindFaith · Mar 5, 2018

blindzebra said:
Translation...I can't give one so I will turn it on you.
What questions would that be anyway? I don't bother reading stuff remember?

Oh, I know you don't. Look em up. I've tried to answer everything directed at me. Provide the same courtesy.

blindzebra · Mar 5, 2018

BlindFaith said:
AR 15, 8.12, 8.13 all support a player going to the ground.

Again, those are three case plays, you need a rule that connects it to the rule book.

blindzebra · Mar 5, 2018

BlindFaith said:
Oh, I know you don't. Look em up. I've tried to answer everything directed at me. Provide the same courtesy.

These?

Now, if any act can be performed while falling, why couldn't they have at least 1 example for that? And why doesn't AR 15 just say any act in the case play?

If so, I believe your answer was don't ask me I did not write them.

But I will be above that. These are case plays. Case plays are examples. Rules are what matters most.

So which is a bigger oversight, them not supplying more examples in the case book or not saying a darn thing about your + lunge in the rules?

Kevinicus · Mar 5, 2018

MarcusRock said:
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.

Tell me again how you didn't ask for what I posted.

BlindFaith · Mar 5, 2018

blindzebra said:
You ask 1000 people that are not Cowboy fans if Dez caught it and well over 75 % would say yes. Present them the rule support we have given in this thread and that number would be approaching 90%.

Here's another one. Less close. Still no catch.

Between the two you should have your 1000.
http://www.thebassbarn.com/forum/12...dez-make-catch-not-poll-4.html#/topics/558018

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

THE BIG DOG

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Twitter: Competition Committee says Dez caught it merged