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

[BlindFaith]

What is your take of this explanation by Blandino.
Marcus**** ignored it. Blindfaith says the rules changed after 2013. After scolding me for not reading the rules he was corrected by blindzebra and instructed the rules hadn’t changed.

In the video Calvin is very clearly going to the ground the entire play. Blandino said it would’ve been a catch had he been able to get two feet down prior to the reach.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

BZ was not correct, per usual.

 

[BlindFaith]

You've got my attention with this. Blandino seems to indicate that a player can be established as a runner if going to the ground. This doesn't necessarily change the reason for the ruling with Dez, but it does indicate that had Dez been able to establish better footing and make a more pronounced/definitive dive/reach for the goal line he could have been ruled a runner.

Yes, its called interrupting the fall or gathering. 8.12 and 8.13 clearly say that. The act of bracing or regaining balance plus a lunge/reach.

 

[BlindFaith]

@marcus***k could never admit that. That’s why he’s avoided it while purposely straying off topic once again.

Blindfaith says the rules changed after 2013.

AR 15 was added in after 2013. Some say case plays aren't rules. Ask BZ what his position is today, because it changes from day to day. So you decide if the "rule" changed.

 

[blindzebra]

AR 15 was added in after 2013. Some say case plays aren't rules. Ask BZ what his position is today, because it changes from day to day. So you decide if the "rule" changed.

Wow you love to lie don't you?

 

[blindzebra]

Yes, its called interrupting the fall or gathering. 8.12 and 8.13 clearly say that. The act of bracing or regaining balance plus a lunge/reach.

No, that is called an opinion that has no rule citation to support it.

 

[blindzebra]

BZ was not correct, per usual.

For someone you claim was not correct you sure avoided finding the rule citation to support your nonsense.

 

[blindzebra]

It would have still been ruled correctly, no catch. Prior to 2014 there was no AR 15 (the golden case play that gets used to shoehorn in any possible act)

The case play under acts common to the game...that one? The one linked to the rule saying any act, that one?

Why did they add it under acts common to the game and not BF's fall interrupter?

 

[blindzebra]

lol - sorry, but you are lost. "A case play" ... "A play" ... "A". It's singular, not plural.

A "case play" is a specific case, just as "case law" is looking at a specific case that applies to a legal situation, and the best or worst "case scenario" refers to a specific case involving the best or worst possible outcome. The point of a case play is to take out some of the uncertainty in a situation, not create it by leaving it up to anyone to interpret it's application anyway they see fit.

If this were true how many volumes of cases would they need to cover every situation?

And even if it were like case law you are wrong about it being case specific for use. Cases are used to support different circumstances all the time. Sometimes multiple ones are used to argue a case and a judge decides if they work for the case before them.

Case plays link to rules in the rule book and are a guide not the only possible scenario.

 

[gimmesix]

It was applied correctly. Ask the NFL. It's either that or a massive cover up, a conspiracy if you will.

I don't think that there's a cover-up. What I think is that there is not clear evidence that absolutely defines the play one way or the other, which is why I believe the call should not have been overturned.

Dez gathers the ball in while taking steps. Works the ball into his left hand. Plants his left foot and dives toward the end zone, holding the ball out in front of him.

Under the rules of that year, this would seem to qualify as an act common to the game IF Dez did these things. What the officials argue essentially is Dez didn't do those things. Some of them have said he reached, but only as part of going to the ground and not as a separate act that was part of planting his foot and diving.

It was debatable so the NFL should have followed its replay rules concerning "indisputable evidence." If they had done that, the debate would have been different, but the ruling would have been justifiable because of what the replay rule demands. As it was, it was an unjustified use of the replay rule.

Now, some might not agree that it was indisputable evidence, but go back and look at other calls the NFL has upheld because of that standard. A lot of them are far more disputable than this play.

 

[BlindFaith]

No, that is called an opinion that has no rule citation to support it.

Going to the ground is clearly a rule.

 

[BlindFaith]

For someone you claim was not correct you sure avoided finding the rule citation to support your nonsense.

Look in the 2012 case play. There is no case play for AR 15. And are you now calling case plays rules again?

 

[BlindFaith]

The case play under acts common to the game...that one? The one linked to the rule saying any act, that one?

Why did they add it under acts common to the game and not BF's fall interrupter?

Yes, and incorrectly linked at that by you. I will be posting a breakdown of your failures later.

 

[Kevinicus]

You didn't answer the question. Did you write that nonsense?

And if you have to explain what the article meant in 2 different places, it's obvious whoever wrote this isn't even up on simple football terminology. It's the equivalent of a mommy blog, except it's an obvious casual fan guy talking about sports. I mean, the basic premise of the "outrage" concerning the play is that if it looks like a catch, it should be one. Here, this guy states that Dez doesn't look like a runner. Using the same logic, he should not be deemed a runner which would make going to the ground applicable, but this guy is arguing against that in the same "article," lol. You talk about embarrassing trotting this crap out? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just say you didn't have additional support, lol. So I get why you have to lie and claim that the additional support I posted is just parroting what the NFL said. One of them has a section titled "Analysis" meaning they did the comparison and the author came to a conclusion himself just like the other 2 articles. The real question is if you actually wrote this piece. Did you?

Or...it means you're incapable of understanding something simple?

No I didn't write it (nor did you actually pose a question in that regard before). It's sad that you continue with the logical fallacy nonsense and suggest one writer's opinion is carries more weight than another's opinion? Particularly when the ones you value do not offer analysis, but summaries of NFL fed PR statements. Just putting the word "analysis" does not make it an actual analysis. Of course, if you read what they wrote, and understood it, you might realize that.

You can believe that every single person outside of this thread believes as you do. For argument's sake, I'll even give you that one. I'll play along. You're right, there are not articles that agree with us. We're all alone in this. Everyone else in the world is on your side. Guess what? That doesn't make your argument any stronger, and is indeed a logical fallacy. That is all you have, logical fallacies. Your arguments are broken.

And keep on with your silly attempts to deflect from the fact that you have been utterly embarrassed in this thread and the others. It's okay to admit you are wrong.

 

[BlindFaith]

I don't think that there's a cover-up. What I think is that there is not clear evidence that absolutely defines the play one way or the other, which is why I believe the call should not have been overturned.

Dez gathers the ball in while taking steps. Works the ball into his left hand. Plants his left foot and dives toward the end zone, holding the ball out in front of him.

Under the rules of that year, this would seem to qualify as an act common to the game IF Dez did these things. What the officials argue essentially is Dez didn't do those things. Some of them have said he reached, but only as part of going to the ground and not as a separate act that was part of planting his foot and diving.

It was debatable so the NFL should have followed its replay rules concerning "indisputable evidence." If they had done that, the debate would have been different, but the ruling would have been justifiable because of what the replay rule demands. As it was, it was an unjustified use of the replay rule.

Now, some might not agree that it was indisputable evidence, but go back and look at other calls the NFL has upheld because of that standard. A lot of them are far more disputable than this play.

This is the problem. If you understand the rule, it is pretty cut and dry in the Dez case.

Now, the Fitz play or the Thomas play. Those are much more boarder line. But the Dez play is pretty cut and dry that he was going to the ground, never gathered himself prior to the lunge/reach. Understanding the nuance of the way the rules are written has been a struggle to some. And to be fair, as has been said all along, the rules are poorly written.

 

[Idgit]

I know you guys are having a blast in this terrible thread that won't die, but refrain from directly insulting other posters, please, or you'll end up on the outside of the discussion, looking in with a sad look on your face.

 

[BlindFaith]

It's sad that you continue with the logical fallacy nonsense and suggest one writer's opinion is carries more weight than another's opinion?

Is this seriously what you think? So linking to someone from the NFL, or creditable news outlet that puts in due diligence to understand the rules is the same as linking to Nate, who thinks having one foot touch the ground completes the act of going to the ground? Or to C who admits he hasn't even read all of the rules?

And this coming from someone that thinks it was a big PR move to cover up the fact that they blew the call, all the while creating 100 times the outrage about the rule itself by doing so. You have no cred my man, none.

 

[blindzebra]

Yes, and incorrectly linked at that by you. I will be posting a breakdown of your failures later.

So a case play with a heading ACT COMMON TO THE GAME does not link to the rule covering ACT COMMON TO THE GAME.

 

[blindzebra]

Going to the ground is clearly a rule.

And where within that rule, or any rule, is your stuff + lunge written.

 

[blindzebra]

Look in the 2012 case play. There is no case play for AR 15. And are you now calling case plays rules again?

Wow is all I can say.
Me:
Rule...............................case play.
Rule citation......................case play link.

You:
Case play....................rule.

Case play...................no rule citation to link to so I will go back to........case play and spin the old switching things lie.

 

[MarcusRock]

Or...it means you're incapable of understanding something simple?

No I didn't write it (nor did you actually pose a question in that regard before). It's sad that you continue with the logical fallacy nonsense and suggest one writer's opinion is carries more weight than another's opinion? Particularly when the ones you value do not offer analysis, but summaries of NFL fed PR statements. Just putting the word "analysis" does not make it an actual analysis. Of course, if you read what they wrote, and understood it, you might realize that.

You can believe that every single person outside of this thread believes as you do. For argument's sake, I'll even give you that one. I'll play along. You're right, there are not articles that agree with us. We're all alone in this. Everyone else in the world is on your side. Guess what? That doesn't make your argument any stronger, and is indeed a logical fallacy. That is all you have, logical fallacies. Your arguments are broken.

And keep on with your silly attempts to deflect from the fact that you have been utterly embarrassed in this thread and the others. It's okay to admit you are wrong.

LOL. Glad to hear you didn't write that trash (if you're even telling the truth there). But nice of you to continue repeating a lie. The authors weighed in themselves. They weren't quoting or summarizing anything. Two sets of a specific rule are not hard to analyze. Projection overload on your side. Deflection, embarrassed. Look, like I said, I don't need an admission. I know that'll never come. I just need to "know" and your responses and overall contributions to this discussion confirm that. So back to the sidelines saying "you're wrong" to everyone. Too bad the domain for that story can't be linked to here but the quotes are priceless and too good to let go of.