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

[blindzebra]

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

Again it is not trumping it is being applied. Just like Item 1 would if the catch process was not complete before hitting the ground.

And it is obvious that is is yet another feeble attempt, in a long line of feeble attempts, to twist what is being said into some make believe support for your agenda.

 

[BlindFaith]

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.

But we'd have the enormous experience from officials. We'd have the folks who actually wrote those rulebooks. When you discuss the current rule book with your peers do you compare those rules to those rules from years ago? And if so, why?

Shouldn't the current rule book be the only thing you discuss? You know, like fully understanding how that one works and how those should be enforced.

 

[MarcusRock]

Again it is not trumping it is being applied. Just like Item 1 would if the catch process was not complete before hitting the ground.

And it is obvious that is is yet another feeble attempt, in a long line of feeble attempts, to twist what is being said into some make believe support for your agenda.

But if it's being applied in place of something it is trumping that something for that particular case right? No feeble attempt here. You know where I'm going with this. It is being applied in place of the 3-part catch process rule, right?

 

[BlindFaith]

Again it is not trumping it is being applied. Just like Item 1 would if the catch process was not complete before hitting the ground.

And it is obvious that is is yet another feeble attempt, in a long line of feeble attempts, to twist what is being said into some make believe support for your agenda.

If you'd just answer our questions we wouldn't have to have page after page of trying to pull them out of you.

 

[rkell87]

That's a big exaggeration - look at the replay - the defender only got a finger on the ball and only hooked Dez's arm with 2 fingers - not to mention that a ball can't be "ripped" away when it hasn't even been caught yet. That all happened with both players in the air and both reaching for the ball. Dez hadn't yet secured the ball.

In any case, Dez gaining possession after that couldn't qualify as the "football move" or "act common to the game" anyway because that all happened before control had been established and before before Dez had 2 feet down, which is the sequence that has to happen before a "football move", or "act common to the game" comes into play under the rules.

I didn't even finish reading this the guy caught the ball then the defender gets his hand on it then he rips it away then he catches it Again, I don't care what you say I don't care what any other words you have to twist about that I watched replay THOUSANDS of times you cannot convince me any other way I know exactly what happened if you think you can convince me that it happened any other way you should put a bullet through brain because your brain obviously doesn't work ******* right.

 

[blindzebra]

If you'd just answer our questions we wouldn't have to have page after page of trying to pull them out of you.

That was an answer to the question. You just did not get the answer you guys wanted.

 

[BlindFaith]

That was an answer to the question. You just did not get the answer you guys wanted.

I have at least 9 you haven't answered.

 

[blindzebra]

But we'd have the enormous experience from officials. We'd have the folks who actually wrote those rulebooks. When you discuss the current rule book with your peers do you compare those rules to those rules from years ago? And if so, why?

Shouldn't the current rule book be the only thing you discuss? You know, like fully understanding how that one works and how those should be enforced.

No, officials save past rule and case books. It gives reference to how rules evolve over time, what worked and what didn't work when changes were made.

Again officiating a game is understanding the spirit and intent of the rule, that also requires the rule's history.

 

[blindzebra]

I have at least 9 you haven't answered.

I only have one and you avoid it like the plague.

 

[blindzebra]

But if it's being applied in place of something it is trumping that something for that particular case right? No feeble attempt here. You know where I'm going with this. It is being applied in place of the 3-part catch process rule, right?

One more time it is not being applied in place of it, it is accounting for a situation when it can't occur. That is a huge difference from where you are trying to take this.

What is the common theme of the Items under 8.1.3? They are all situations that are not a common catch, and Items 1,2,3, and 6 all are situations when 8.1.3.a.b.c cannot occur.

 

[MarcusRock]

One more time it is not being applied in place of it, it is accounting for a situation when it can't occur. That is a huge difference from where you are trying to take this.

What is the common theme of the Items under 8.1.3? They are all situations that are not a common catch, and Items 1,2,3, and 6 all are situations when 8.1.3.a.b.c cannot occur.

Not sure why you're being evasive with this. It is a yes or no question. If you can't complete a, b, and c of the catch process, then these other rules replace it for those particular situations correct? If you can't go to a,b,c then something else applies instead, correct? Otherwise, you can just do whatever you want and have it be a catch.

 

[Kevinicus]

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

Uh...There was the language in 2014, and the language in 2015. There was that language to look at. There was everything needed to consult. None of your "additional support" did any homework.

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

You think it's just as likely that someone is not only going to move the ball around (not just hold it against their body tightly) than lunge? You think it's just as likely that those who move to "secure" the ball are just as likely to have it come loose on contact as someone who is lunging/reaching/etc? Interesting.

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?

Because Pereira was wrong? Certainly wasn't the first time (and he has had to admit to being wrong before).

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?

It does not appear to be the only type of act to prove a player isn't falling. That is you reading what you want to read into it.
It is not interesting at all that there is a lunge in all three places. Rule books and case books are extremely repetitive.

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?[/QUOTE]

How do you start a lunge and not complete it? I used the word start because that is the moment the time element is satisfied. If someone's act common to the game happens to be a summer-salt into the end-zone (let's say they land on their feet to avoid confusion), they became a runner as soon as that summer-salt began, not when they completed the flip and landed. If they had an epic fail and face-planted in the end-zone it wouldn't be any less of an act.
A reach of 3 inches is an act as much as a reach of 3 feet. One is more effective than the other, but both are reaches (you can replace reach with lunge if you like). It says time enough to perform, not perform well. That's why if a receiver catches it and gets two feet down and then "starts" to turn upfield, they can be hit and fumble the ball. They don't have to make a complete 90 degree turn. Once they begin to attempt to advance the ball, they have performed an act.

 

[BlindFaith]

I only have one and you avoid it like the plague.

What's that?

 

[BlindFaith]

No, officials save past rule and case books. It gives reference to how rules evolve over time, what worked and what didn't work when changes were made.

Again officiating a game is understanding the spirit and intent of the rule, that also requires the rule's history.

So what you're saying is that if you had access to all the rulebooks and case plays from the beginning of the nfl you could convince the NFL officials that their vast knowledge on the subject is not as good as yours?

Or would you concede to them?

 

[OmerV]

I didn't even finish reading this the guy caught the ball then the defender gets his hand on it then he rips it away then he catches it Again, I don't care what you say I don't care what any other words you have to twist about that I watched replay THOUSANDS of times you cannot convince me any other way I know exactly what happened if you think you can convince me that it happened any other way you should put a bullet through brain because your brain obviously doesn't work ******* right.

lol - well, looks like you are one of those that resorts to childish insults when he doesn't get his way. Pretty funny really.

Heck, I don't think Dez's hands ever even lost at least some contact with the ball, and there was never a point the ball wasn't at least between his 2 hands even if when he didn't have a solid grasp, so how it's a bit dramatic to say the ball was "ripped away" from Dez. It never even got away - it just cost him a firm grasp for a split second.

But even aside from your argument that Dez caught the ball with full control at the peak of his jump, had the ball "ripped" away from him by the defenders fingers, while still in the midst of his jump mind you, and then regained full control, all still while in the midst of his jump ... . even if true, it still doesn't change the fact that none of that qualifies as a "move common to the game" under the catch rule. You are arguing about something at a point in the play that does not apply to whether it was a catch or not.

 

[BlindFaith]

One more time it is not being applied in place of it, it is accounting for a situation when it can't occur. That is a huge difference from where you are trying to take this.

What is the common theme of the Items under 8.1.3? They are all situations that are not a common catch, and Items 1,2,3, and 6 all are situations when 8.1.3.a.b.c cannot occur.

This is fairly current.
https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/s/ww.../4/16923408/nfl-catch-rule-explained-examples

 

[MarcusRock]

Uh...There was the language in 2014, and the language in 2015. There was that language to look at. There was everything needed to consult. None of your "additional support" did any homework.

Wasn't meant to. It shows that independent sources came to the same solution. That's more valid than consulting a single person whom no one else agrees with, wouldn't you say?

You think it's just as likely that someone is not only going to move the ball around (not just hold it against their body tightly) than lunge? You think it's just as likely that those who move to "secure" the ball are just as likely to have it come loose on contact as someone who is lunging/reaching/etc? Interesting.

Again, we disagree.

Because Pereira was wrong? Certainly wasn't the first time (and he has had to admit to being wrong before).

Why didn't he admit it here then? He's been critical of the catch rule recently but I've never heard him say he was wrong as your buddy blindzebra claims.

It does not appear to be the only type of act to prove a player isn't falling. That is you reading what you want to read into it.

"Does not appear"? "Reading what you want to read into it"?
You don't say.
I'm reading what's there. Lunge, lunge, and lunge, respectively.

How do you start a lunge and not complete it? I used the word start because that is the moment the time element is satisfied. If someone's act common to the game happens to be a summer-salt into the end-zone (let's say they land on their feet to avoid confusion), they became a runner as soon as that summer-salt began, not when they completed the flip and landed. If they had an epic fail and face-planted in the end-zone it wouldn't be any less of an act.
A reach of 3 inches is an act as much as a reach of 3 feet. One is more effective than the other, but both are reaches (you can replace reach with lunge if you like). It says time enough to perform, not perform well. That's why if a receiver catches it and gets two feet down and then "starts" to turn upfield, they can be hit and fumble the ball. They don't have to make a complete 90 degree turn. Once they begin to attempt to advance the ball, they have performed an act.

LOL. "....like a record baby. Round, round, round, round."

It's called not executing. It's a judgment call like turning up field is. If you only "start" to turn and get hammered by a defender before you complete the turn up field and lose the ball, it is an incomplete pass. The receiver here did not complete or execute the turn upfield. Am I right?

 

[blindzebra]

Not sure why you're being evasive with this. It is a yes or no question. If you can't complete a, b, and c of the catch process, then these other rules replace it for those particular situations correct? If you can't go to a,b,c then something else applies instead, correct? Otherwise, you can just do whatever you want and have it be a catch.

Ah, yes the old yes or no keep information out trick. We both know full well what you are so terribly trying to do here. I logically and accurately presented my points, the fact that you keep digging is telling.

Again, just because you don't like the answer does not mean one was not given.

 

[blindzebra]

This is fairly current.
https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/s/ww.../4/16923408/nfl-catch-rule-explained-examples

A self-professed sports writer is proof now?
Dude she is a blogger, not a rules expert.

 

[Kevinicus]

Wasn't meant to. It shows that independent sources came to the same solution. That's more valid than consulting a single person whom no one else agrees with, wouldn't you say?

It does the exact opposite. It shows they didn't come to a solution at all, but summarized what the NFL told them, and one seemed to think what the NFL said didn't make sense. It's not more valid (not that we even have the latter situation). You didn't look at those logical fallacies, did you?

Again, we disagree.

Is this a "Yes" to those questions (you usually avoid these).

Why didn't he admit it here then? He's been critical of the catch rule recently but I've never heard him say he was wrong as your buddy blindzebra claims.

He has admitted mistakes every single time. I don't know why he didn't. I can't speak to why he does or does not do things. I'd love to be able to discuss this with him. Maybe I could give you an answer then. Since I am not him, I don't know.

"Does not appear"? "Reading what you want to read into it"?
You don't say.
I'm reading what's there. Lunge, lunge, and lunge, respectively.

I saw someone only should 2-pt FGs. I guess that means that player is not allowed to attempt 3pt FG. You see a lunge used as an example. Nowhere do you see a lunge called or referred to as the only possible example. Either show that, or admit you are lying.

LOL. "....like a record baby. Round, round, round, round."

It's called not executing. It's a judgment call like turning up field is. If you only "start" to turn and get hammered by a defender before you complete the turn up field and lose the ball, it is an incomplete pass. The receiver here did not complete or execute the turn upfield. Am I right?

You're wrong here.

Basically wrong on everything you said here. Just going in circles, moving goal posts, being dishonest. I hold firm to my claim that you are a troll. I actually think the others are trying, as confused as they may be. You are not.