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

[BlindFaith]

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?

Not lost. I talked all about intent. You probably didn't read it. And I was criticized for bringing up intent. You'll probably get a pass since your interpretation of the intent matches theirs.

And I'm not answering another question from you or anyone else until you start answering ours.

 

[DallasEast]

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"

[Bold] Let me assure anyone reading this, I notice this every time and constantly wonder why every member claiming to know the rules and conflicts at length (understatement) with others having a diametrical comprehension of the same rules. Such interaction stops being a mutual debate after the first few exchanges and quickly transforms into an elongated days/weeks/months long I AM RIGHT AND I AM GOING TO STAY IN THIS THREAD SAYING I AM RIGHT FOREVER DESPITE THE FACT I KNOW YOU KNOW I TOLD YOU I AM RIGHT 20/100/200 POSTS AGO!

I have labeled such voluntarily unnecessary interactions as The Rogah Paradox, in honor of a very unique member who used this tactic extensively with any and every mention of the New England Patriots on the forums. To be honest, I was amazed by the unfettered tenacity for forum discord.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

I brought this up a long time ago, but does Item 6 of the same Article 3 rules "replace the catch process" here?

Item 6: Carried Out of Bounds. If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an
opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground inbounds, it is a completed or
intercepted pass.
​

Wouldn't the defense here be able to say, "Hey, he never got 2 feet down so it's no catch per part (b) of the catch rule" But what would the ruling be here? Would not Item 6 trump or replace the a,b,c catch process in this case with its own set of rules? If so, then why wouldn't Item 1's requirements in the very same line up of items?

 

[BlindFaith]

[Bold] Let me assure anyone reading this, I notice this every time and constantly wonder why every member claiming to know the rules and conflicts at length (understatement) with others having a diametrical comprehension of the same rules. Such interaction stops being a mutual debate after the first few exchanges and quickly transforms into an elongated days/weeks/months long I AM RIGHT AND I AM GOING TO STAY IN THIS THREAD SAYING I AM RIGHT FOREVER DESPITE THE FACT I KNOW YOU KNOW I TOLD YOU I AM RIGHT 20/100/200 POSTS AGO!

I have labeled such voluntarily unnecessary interactions as The Rogah Paradox, in honor of a very unique member who used this tactic extensively with any and every mention of the New England Patriots on the forums. To be honest, I was amazed by the unfettered tenacity for forum discord.

Does all that mean you are interested why we jump in when they start a thread?

If a child doesn't look both ways before crossing the street and other children now think that's ok, responsible adults will inherently try to correct the behavior.

Call it an emotional desire for social harmony and safety. The truth and integrity of honest and intelligent study should NEVER be discouraged simply because it doesn't align with your interpretation.

 

[DallasEast]

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.

Well, my question was:

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

Have you and other officials spent 'countless hours' discussing a single rule without coming to an eventual resolution or compromise? I ask because I do not believe any of your previous conversations with officials, who are versed in practical application of the rules, lasted as long as these particular threads--even considering intermissions and postponements. Of course, I have never been a participant in your conversations with other officials so I could be completely wrong but I doubt any of them morphed into a Neverending Story...

 

[BlindFaith]

Well, my question was:

Have you and other officials spent 'countless hours' discussing a single rule without coming to an eventual resolution or compromise? I ask because I do not believe any of your previous conversations with officials, who are versed in practical application of the rules, lasted as long as these particular threads--even considering intermissions and postponements. Of course, I have never been a participant in your conversations with other officials so I could be completely wrong but I doubt any of them morphed into a Neverending Story...

See? lol

 

[blindzebra]

Well, my question was:

Have you and other officials spent 'countless hours' discussing a single rule without coming to an eventual resolution or compromise? I ask because I do not believe any of your previous conversations with officials, who are versed in practical application of the rules, lasted as long as these particular threads--even considering intermissions and postponements. Of course, I have never been a participant in your conversations with other officials so I could be completely wrong but I doubt any of them morphed into a Neverending Story...

The difference is when you have a group of officials it is more about what if this happens. It becomes an exercise in understanding more so than a heated debate. My goal is to educate and when presented with false and misleading information I attempt to make sure that the correct info gets presented.

 

[DallasEast]

Does all that mean you are interested why we jump in when they start a thread?

Yes.

If a child doesn't look both ways before crossing the street and other children now think that's ok, responsible adults will inherently try to correct the behavior.

Call it an emotional desire for social harmony and safety. The truth and integrity of honest and intelligent study should NEVER be discouraged simply because it doesn't align with your interpretation.

Thanks. Your motivation was one of several I had already hypothesized.

The site's membership is composed of mindsets formulated from many diverse backgrounds and experiences. From your own perspective, would you concede your motivation for participating at length within threads like these as conceit-oriented?

 

[blindzebra]

I brought this up a long time ago, but does Item 6 of the same Article 3 rules "replace the catch process" here?

Item 6: Carried Out of Bounds. If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an
opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground inbounds, it is a completed or
intercepted pass.
​

Wouldn't the defense here be able to say, "Hey, he never got 2 feet down so it's no catch per part (b) of the catch rule" But what would the ruling be here? Would not Item 6 trump or replace the a,b,c catch process in this case with its own set of rules? If so, then why wouldn't Item 1's requirements in the very same line up of items?

I clearly said the intent of Item 1 was for when the a,b,c process could not occur to have a different criteria to turn to. That is exactly what applies for Item 6...thanks again for proving my point.

 

[DallasEast]

The difference is when you have a group of officials it is more about what if this happens. It becomes an exercise in understanding more so than a heated debate. My goal is to educate and when presented with false and misleading information I attempt to make sure that the correct info gets presented.

There is certainly a difference between your meetings with other officials and the participant makeup of these threads. Would you agree that your meetings with officials tend to wrap up fairly quickly due to your mutual understanding of the rules themselves?

 

[MarcusRock]

I clearly said the intent of Item 1 was for when the a,b,c process could not occur to have a different criteria to turn to. That is exactly what applies for Item 6...thanks again for proving my point.

So when you turn to different criteria, isn't that criteria now taking precedence to the originally laid out criteria that wasn't performed? In essence, trumping what should be completed but isn't completed? So again, does Item 6 trump or replace the a,b,c catch process in this case with its own set of rules? If so, then why wouldn't Item 1's requirements in the very same line up of items?

 

[blindzebra]

So when you turn to different criteria, isn't that criteria now taking precedence to the originally laid out criteria that wasn't performed? In essence, trumping what should be completed but isn't completed? So again, does Item 6 trump or replace the a,b,c catch process in this case with its own set of rules? If so, then why wouldn't Item 1's requirements in the very same line up of items?

What part of when it cannot be completed don't you understand?

 

[blindzebra]

There is certainly a difference between your meetings with other officials and the participant makeup of these threads. Would you agree that your meetings with officials tend to wrap up fairly quickly due to your mutual understanding of the rules themselves?

Depends on the topic and the experience level of the officials, but in most cases they don't become epic.

 

[BlindFaith]

Yes.
Thanks. Your motivation was one of several I had already hypothesized.

The site's membership is composed of mindsets formulated from many diverse backgrounds and experiences. From your own perspective, would you concede your motivation for participating at length within threads like these as conceit-oriented?

I have no desire for fame, glory or recognition. I do for the sake of doing.

I, above all else, value honesty and the truth.

If I'm wrong about how I see the rules, I'd be the first to start a thread to say I was wrong.

So, no, this is not an ego trip for me. It's actually a beat down to be honest. And I have tried to remove myself time and time again. But yet time and time again I read something that just makes no sense at all.

And the chest thumping that goes on if we leave these threads is obnoxious. I hate bragadocia and self righteousness. But I also will never back down from a fight.

 

[MarcusRock]

What part of when it cannot be completed don't you understand?

"Cannot" or not makes no difference. So Item 6 trumps the catch process then when it is deemed to apply, right?

 

[blindzebra]

Well, my question was:

Have you and other officials spent 'countless hours' discussing a single rule without coming to an eventual resolution or compromise? I ask because I do not believe any of your previous conversations with officials, who are versed in practical application of the rules, lasted as long as these particular threads--even considering intermissions and postponements. Of course, I have never been a participant in your conversations with other officials so I could be completely wrong but I doubt any of them morphed into a Neverending Story...

I should add that the longer you officiate the more unusual stuff you see. Stuff that is not in any case play, so discussing those whacky plays and figuring out the proper way to call them is exactly why these discussions happen.

 

[BlindFaith]

Depends on the topic and the experience level of the officials, but in most cases they don't become epic.

So what you're saying is that if we had actual NFL officials and members from the rules comittee here that things would not continue on and a rational decision could be agreed upon?

 

[blindzebra]

"Cannot" or not makes no difference. So Item 6 trumps the catch process then when it is deemed to apply, right?

It absolutely makes a difference. What is Item 6 describing? A situation where 8.1.3.a.b.c cannot be completed. It does not trump anything, it exists so that an unusual situation has a fair outcome.
Again, what is the intent? Without Item 6 any sideline throw would have defenders picking up receivers and carrying them OOB. Without this provision those plays would be incomplete.

 

[blindzebra]

So what you're saying is that if we had actual NFL officials and members from the rules comittee here that things would not continue on and a rational decision could be agreed upon?

If that meant having full access to every rule related item that officials have had since going to the ground came into existance then yes it could be. But we don't have that do we? We have years without case books and no information outside of Blandino' s ever changing and contradicting explainations.

 

[MarcusRock]

It absolutely makes a difference. What is Item 6 describing? A situation where 8.1.3.a.b.c cannot be completed. It does not trump anything, it exists so that an unusual situation has a fair outcome.
Again, what is the intent? Without Item 6 any sideline throw would have defenders picking up receivers and carrying them OOB. Without this provision those plays would be incomplete.

So that's when Item 6 would be slapped on a play and trump the catch process rule then, correct?