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

[BlindFaith]

This is an open question for all thread participants:

What do you believe fuels the longevity of these threads questioning the legitimacy of the Bryant no-catch ruling?

I am only posing the question because I think this type of thread would expire quickly after creation under certain conditions.

Ego, pride and ignorance to the rules.

And a desire to explain the real meaning of the rules to those who really want to understand how and why they are inforced.

 

[Kevinicus]

Right. The 3 case plays say so:

Lunge (A.R.15.95)
Lunge (A.R. 8.12)
Lunge (A.R. 8.13)

Even with a smorgasbord of acts common to the game, they spent their 3 shots on the same item. Wonder why that is.

3 case plays, previous rulings, comments, etc.

Perhaps because a lunge (which is not the only thing btw), is one of the most likely acts a player will do when they are starting to fall. It's a final effort to advance the ball. It's also because it comes from actual plays (which I believe 15.95 and 8.12 are the same play). What would be the point in trying to find some other example when you already have one that fits the concept?

Why would they not specify in the rules if there was only one act common to the game that could complete the process? If the rules said, as you seem to think they do, that once you start to fall, there is no completing the process and control must be maintained through contact, and there was one single exception to that, why would that not be mentioned in the rules? Case plays are not to showcase exceptions to rules (part of the rules would do that). They are there to explain and reinforce the concepts of the rules.

 

[BlindFaith]

Except the rule is called going to the ground, not hit the ground.

It's like I've said from the very beginning. It is a yes/no determination. When you have that slapped on you, you have to have the ball survive the ground.

Finally, after three years, we understand what their real issue is.

Not understanding the difference between going to the ground and hits the ground.

Why it took them this long to finally say so is beyond me.

 

[Kevinicus]

True, but the ruling in the game, and Blandino's explanation of the ruling, indicated that Dez did not complete the process.

And they were wrong...the reason for this thread and others. Though, Blandino's explanation doesn't really indicate Dez didn't catch it, but rather that he was trying to save face.

 

[Kevinicus]

Finally, after three years, we understand what their real issue is.

Not understanding the difference between going to the ground and hits the ground.

Why it took them this long to finally say so is beyond me.

Several people have told you this repeatedly. @percyhoward tried for quiet a while to get you to understand this. "Going to the ground" at least in 2014 including hitting the ground.

I believe at one point you even admitted that, at least in one instance, it did in fact mean hitting the ground.

 

[DallasEast]

Don’t mince words, Bones. What do you really think?

Jim, I have told you the same thing a thousand times about this particular subject. I'm a doctor! Not a psychoanalyst!

 

[DallasEast]

Ego, pride and ignorance to the rules.

And a desire to explain the real meaning of the rules to those who really want to understand how and why they are inforced.

Would you self-define the desire as necessary and/or excessive?

 

[BlindFaith]

Would you self-define the desire as necessary and/or excessive?

The only things necessary in life are eat, drink and sleep.

Is a message board necessary?

Is freedom of speech necessary?

Is it necessary to ask why or what people decide to speak freely on?

 

[DallasEast]

Is a message board necessary?

For virtually all situations? No. As a coping mechanism for some individuals? That would be resounding 'yes'.

Is freedom of speech necessary?

Yes. [answer abbreviated due to forum rule #7]

Is it necessary to ask why or what people decide to speak freely on?

Yes, whenever curiosity prompts for understanding others' motivations.

Human conversation always seeks resolution between communicator and receiver and visa versa. Unfortunately, resolution is not always an end result of human conversation.

 

[blindzebra]

I don't care about case play or fan's interpretation of the rules. The ball was jarred loose by Shields which caused Dez to pin it against his shoulder pad before transferring it to his left hand. At that point he was tripped by Shields. The only step he could take was with his left foot because his right was blocked by shield's leg. His next move was lunging, but at this point he went perpendicular with the ground, and this is where he reached out and the ground caused the fumble.

Two threads, approximately 140 pages, and none of it makes a difference, because he was going to the ground and the ground moved the ball. Now write another 30,000 words that will not change that result.

Dez had control with his left foot down. The left foot was still down as his right foot came down. That is control and two feet. That is before the turn, before he stepped again with his left foot, and before he was tripped by Shields.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Why are you going to post if you just want to show you don't care about any of the facts and rules (the case plays go along with the rules), or anything and just want to go with your interpretation which isn't based on much? I don't get why you bother...or why you keep bringing up the Shields thing which doesn't really matter to the ruling at all.

I think you missed the point. You people are arguing about something that was solved years ago. None of your points make a difference. For what purpose? There is no purpose.

 

[Kevinicus]

When you have an actual black and white rule book, who gives a shift about previous rulings and comments? Is this court? Maybe those were wrong. That's why arguing over Blandino's comments amounts to style points when there's an actual rule book to go from.

So, now you want to actually focus on facts and not use "additional support," when in this case it is actually support and not garbage?

Isn't it much more likely that a player will "tuck" or "switch hands" with the ball like we've heard? The alert receivers will just make sure to secure possession, wouldn't they?

No, I don't believe that would be the case at all. And it would be much more difficult to find examples of those plays where the ball comes out.

That they can do by "taking an extra step," right? By the way, why do number of steps not matter when a player is going to the ground?

They could. Not matter when? Now, or in 2014?

Because if the case plays are not all inclusive as you all say, why would you be redundant when you have soooooooo many acts to choose from in an effort to cover as much ground with the rule as possible to leave less doubt?

It's a rule/case book, not literature demanding great prose. Are you serious with this question? I think I know the answer to that. The rule book covers the ground with the phrase "any act..."

Except the act of lunging is repeatedly called "NOT part of the process of the catch." In all 3 case plays. Why wouldn't the case play just say, he completed part (c) by performing an act common to the game? This goes back to one of my first unanswered questions on these case plays: how is an "act common to the game" NOT considered part of a catch process that includes an act common to the game?

As you have been told about 300 times, time is the part of the process. When the act occurs, it shows that the process is complete. The act is the act of a runner, not a receiver. If someone is a runner, they have completed the process. You are mistaken on the catch process. It does not include an act, it includes time. The act just indicates the time part has been met.

The case plays show how a separate act (a lunge in all 3 cases even with many more to choose from) gets you out of going to the ground and credits the receiver with "time enough" because they actually did perform the act (so of course they had "time enough" because they did it).

Exactly they had time. Once the player starts performing an act (as a runner), the time requirement of the catch process has been completed.
You see how it all goes together and makes perfect sense?

 

[MarcusRock]

I think you missed the point. You people are arguing about something that was solved years ago. None of your points make a difference. For what purpose? There is no purpose.

To say that we own Wakanda. Why else?

 

[Kevinicus]

I think you missed the point. You people are arguing about something that was solved years ago. None of your points make a difference. For what purpose? There is no purpose.

Well, why discuss anything? What is the purpose of this board? Why talk about old games, the draft, etc? It makes no difference to anything.

 

[percyhoward]

If the rules said, as you seem to think they do, that once you start to fall, there is no completing the process and control must be maintained through contact, and there was one single exception to that, why would that not be mentioned in the rules?

And why doesn't even one of the pre-2015 explanations by Blandino say that?

What Blandino would have said, if the above were true:
"Once you start to fall, there is no completing the process and control must be maintained through contact. There is one single exception to this, which we prefer not to include in the rules. You must have control, two feet down, and then brace yourself and lunge. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground. The ball comes loose. He did not brace himself and lunge, so this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass."

What Blandino actually said:
"We've worked really hard to educate people in terms of the catch process...The process of the catch is a three-part process: control, two feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all three parts in that order, you have a catch. If not, and you're going to the ground, you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground. The ball comes loose. He did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line, so this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass."

 

[BlindFaith]

For virtually all situations? No. As a coping mechanism for some individuals? That would be resounding 'yes'.
Yes. [answer abbreviated due to forum rule #7]
Yes, whenever curiosity prompts for understanding others' motivations.

Human conversation always seeks resolution between communicator and receiver and visa versa. Unfortunately, resolution is not always an end result of human conversation.

The catch vs no catch has already been resolved. By the NFL.

The debate comes up time and again whenever another catch comes up that doesn't fit their understanding of the rules.

Or this talk of conspiracy that the NFL drastically changed the rules to cover up that they blew the Dez call.

Notice it's never someone who knows the rules that starts these threads.

And the blatant lack of reading comprehension which started this thread to begin with.

The disgruntled fans just are dying to say " see, I told you so"

 

[BlindFaith]

And why doesn't even one of the pre-2015 explanations by Blandino say that?

What Blandino would have said, if the above were true:
"Once you start to fall, there is no completing the process and control must be maintained through contact. There is one single exception to this, which we prefer not to include in the rules. You must have control, two feet down, and then brace yourself and lunge. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground. The ball comes loose. He did not brace himself and lunge, so this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass."

What Blandino actually said:
"We've worked really hard to educate people in terms of the catch process...The process of the catch is a three-part process: control, two feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all three parts in that order, you have a catch. If not, and you're going to the ground, you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground. The ball comes loose. He did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line, so this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass."

Provide what he actually said. And there is at least one out there where he says they didn't gather themselves. Go look it up in the other thread.

 

[Kevinicus]

Provide what he actually said. And there is at least one out there where he says they didn't gather themselves. Go look it up in the other thread.

He did provide what he actually said.

 

[blindzebra]

What has been lost in all of this is what is key for officials to correctly interpret the rules...it is referred to as THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE RULE.
Why did going to the ground become part of the rules?
What is its intent?
What is the spirit behind that intent?
Answering those questions is what allows an official to fully understand a rule.
And to answer DallasEast's question, for me answering those questions is what motivates any rules discussion. I have spent countless hours with other officials discussing what the spirit and intent of a rule is. That is the heart of officiating. Where do you think things like incidental contact or it was away from the play and had no affect came from? Those came from understanding the spirit and intent of the rule.

So back to my questions?
Why did Item 1 get added?
Because they needed to find a way to call plays where an act common to the game can't or won't occur i.e. end zone, out of bounds, or a diving player.
What is the intent of Item 1?
To consistently call plays where an act common to the game cannot occur.
What is the spirit behind that intent?
This is the big one and the one at the heart of this discussion, as well as the league's desire to fix the catch rule.
Was Item 1 intended to replace the catch process or just be there for when the catch process cannot be completed? It is my belief, one that has rule, case play, and Blandino's own words as support, that Item 1 does not replace the catch process, nor should it.
Was it Item 1's intent to take away catches or be a way for official to call plays where the catch process cannot be completed. This is the heart of the discussion, and what can be described as the smell test. Nobody says Dez, Jonhson, or James did not catch it, they say by rule it was in incomplete.
Before anyone tries to lump that last part into a concession, I will again point out the case plays there in 2014, the language changes of 2015, that completely altered the timing of the catch process, and the differences in those plays. End zone Johnson play and the diving Johnson play neither had all three parts of the catch rule. James got dinged with the upright long enough change in 2015. Dez however completed the catch process of control, two feet, and an act common to the game. In fact Dez performed multiple acts after control and two feet.

 

[MarcusRock]

So, now you want to actually focus on facts and not use "additional support," when in this case it is actually support and not garbage?

The "additional support" was the process of coming to a conclusion regarding the rules supposedly "changing" from one year to the next. If there was a rule book for rules changing from one year to the next, then you'd consult that. There was none so people had to do their own work

No, I don't believe that would be the case at all. And it would be much more difficult to find examples of those plays where the ball comes out.

K. Guess we disagree. I think it's much easier to move the ball around than to secure footing while falling. Dez knows.

They could. Not matter when? Now, or in 2014?

Then and now. Pereira said so during (or after) the actual broadcast of the game. I only have the game footage, not all the post-game stuff. Here's a story on Pereira's coverage of the Dez play where Pereira says, "Forget the steps that's not the issue here." STORY
So why would steps not be an issue if an extra one could grant a catch?

It's a rule/case book, not literature demanding great prose. Are you serious with this question? I think I know the answer to that. The rule book covers the ground with the phrase "any act..."

Any act but in all 3 cases a lunge is used which appears to be the only type of act to prove a player isn't falling or going to the ground. Isn't that interesting?

As you have been told about 300 times, time is the part of the process. When the act occurs, it shows that the process is complete. The act is the act of a runner, not a receiver. If someone is a runner, they have completed the process. You are mistaken on the catch process. It does not include an act, it includes time. The act just indicates the time part has been met.

Exactly they had time. Once the player starts performing an act (as a runner), the time requirement of the catch process has been completed.
You see how it all goes together and makes perfect sense?

Oh, clever word slip in. "Starts" performing an act? Where does it say that in the rules? The case plays say "result of lunging" or "act of lunging." These sound like completed acts to me. You can "start" to lunge and be falling so fast that you don't ever execute completely. Sound familiar?