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

[BlindFaith]

Anybody who realizes the rule-makers' interpretations matter more than his own.

So you're agreeing with the rule makers now?

 

[BlindFaith]

Change #1: Completion of the Catch Process
2014
a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game.

2015
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner.

Change #2: Definition of "Runner"
2014
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of pitching the ball, passing it, advancing with it, or avoiding or warding off an opponent.

2015
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.

So who said this? Link? Just want to see how much you left out.

And I don't see any difference in meaning there. Do you? If so, please explain.

 

[percyhoward]

So you're agreeing with the rule makers now?

All of their interpretations of the rules matter -- not just the ones I happen to agree with. All of them.

If I value some and discount others, then I'm not really trying to understand.

 

[MarcusRock]

LOL
Same old same old. Get destroyed but profess victory anyway.

You don't "destroy" someone when it's you refusing to answer questions because it's unfavorable to your case. That would be called getting owned.

 

[MarcusRock]

All of their interpretations of the rules matter -- not just the ones I happen to agree with. All of them.

If I value some and discount others, then I'm not really trying to understand.

Did the rule makers ever say that the catch rule changed in its essence from 2014 to 2015? That would matter too if they did right?

 

[blindzebra]

So who said this? Link? Just want to see how much you left out.

And I don't see any difference in meaning there. Do you? If so, please explain.

If it is a clarification why did the language become more vague and less descript?

Seriously which is more easily understood an act common to the game with several examples or a runner with only two examples?
That did not even include the upright long enough in Item 1 that came from nowhere, there is nothing even remotely similar in the previous rules.

Clarification or an attempt to run away from the Dez play?

 

[blindzebra]

You don't "destroy" someone when it's you refusing to answer questions because it's unfavorable to your case. That would be called getting owned.

I answered your question, not once but twice, because each and every question was based on you completely misrepresenting what I wrote.

There is a reason you and your BFF BF always ask yes or no questions. It is the same reason lawyers do in court. They do it to keep information away from the jury. You don't want the explanation because it kills your nonsense where it stands. While a yes or no is easy to twist however you like.

 

[BlindFaith]

All of their interpretations of the rules matter -- not just the ones I happen to agree with. All of them.

If I value some and discount others, then I'm not really trying to understand.

So really, and I'm trying to be sincere here because you are the rational one of the bunch.

Look at it from our side. If you had just one expert that had come out and said it wasn't a catch we could at least discuss the merits of that.

But you have no one. All you do have is Blandino butchering some of his explanations. And even with that, he still says it wasn't a catch.

And then to take it the next step and to try to convince us that they all were colluding to cover up a blown call?

And THEN that they dramatically changed the rule to cover up the cover up?

Those are big pills to swallow.

Could it really just be as simple as having to hang onto the ball while going to the ground? Maybe?

 

[BlindFaith]

If it is a clarification why did the language become more vague and less descript?

Seriously which is more easily understood an act common to the game with several examples or a runner with only two examples?
That did not even include the upright long enough in Item 1 that came from nowhere, there is nothing even remotely similar in the previous rules.

Clarification or an attempt to run away from the Dez play?

You answer mine and I'll answer yours. And you didn't even give me the one you said I wouldn't touch.

 

[BlindFaith]

I answered your question, not once but twice, because each and every question was based on you completely misrepresenting what I wrote.

There is a reason you and your BFF BF always ask yes or no questions. It is the same reason lawyers do in court. They do it to keep information away from the jury. You don't want the explanation because it kills your nonsense where it stands. While a yes or no is easy to twist however you like.

I didn't ask for yes or no answers the last 9.

Sometimes we do because if we don't you ramble on, diverting, spinning and redirecting to suit your agenda.

 

[rkell87]

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.

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.

catch ball, uncatch ball, recatch ball. Not hard dum dum

 

[MarcusRock]

I answered your question, not once but twice, because each and every question was based on you completely misrepresenting what I wrote.

There is a reason you and your BFF BF always ask yes or no questions. It is the same reason lawyers do in court. They do it to keep information away from the jury. You don't want the explanation because it kills your nonsense where it stands. While a yes or no is easy to twist however you like.

Yes/no questions keep you all from dreaming up fantasy creations like the rules changing; or evading questions about A.R. 8.12 being in the 2014 and 2015 rule books; or having no one else in the sports world conclude what only you all conclude; or proving anything that says any act common to the game from rules for a receiver on his feet automatically applies to a receiver going to the ground; or Pereira "admitting" that he was wrong to call the Dez play a no-catch and on and on.

 

[aria]

So he did catch it, right?

 

[blindzebra]

Yes/no questions keep you all from dreaming up fantasy creations like the rules changing; or evading questions about A.R. 8.12 being in the 2014 and 2015 rule books; or having no one else in the sports world conclude what only you all conclude; or proving anything that says any act common to the game from rules for a receiver on his feet automatically applies to a receiver going to the ground; or Pereira "admitting" that he was wrong to call the Dez play a no-catch and on and on.

I love how you are still on that being that 8.12 does not meet the upright long enough criteria that was added in 2015. And you still have never given one single rule citation to establish your magical lunge to explain it in 2014. Nobody huh? Then explain the hundreds of tweets by players? Hell even Shields said it was a catch...oh but that is right, they don't agree with you so they don't count as someone in the sports world.

Never mind the fact that not once, not twice, but three times your boy Blandino talked about the catch process and an act common to the game while going to the ground, right up until upright long enough got dreamed up and Dez was made the poster child for going to the ground.

 

[blindzebra]

So he did catch it, right?

Yes by the 2014 rules.
No by how they were misapplied in GB.

 

[BlindFaith]

So he did catch it, right?

Nope, but if he keeps loosing them when he hits the ground, this year it might be.

 

[percyhoward]

So who said this?

The 2014 and 2015 NFL Rule Books say this.

And I don't see any difference in meaning there. Do you? If so, please explain.

The standard for completing the catch process (c) is time. In 2015, they changed the way officials determine whether that time requirement has been met, from "long enough to perform any act common to the game" to "long enough to become a runner." But since, in this context anyway, a runner is just someone who has completed the catch process, all this ended up saying was "a player becomes a runner when he becomes a runner." So they spelled it out with a third change, this one appearing right at the top of Item 1:

Change #3
2014
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout
the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before
he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

2015
Item 1. Player Going to the Ground.
A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
​

Again, the standard for completing the catch process (c) is time. So this sentence inserted into Item 1 announced that the new standard for completing the catch process -- the new way for the player to show whether the time requirement had been met -- would now be to remain "upright long enough." This meant that the time requirement (that up until then had been fractions of a second) could now be extended to 2-3 seconds or more if the player was not upright. So now, instead of having to catch the ball in order to become a runner, the player had to become a runner in order to catch the ball. The practical result is that a lot of plays that had always been catches were now ruled incomplete if the player didn't survive contact with the ground.

The new sentence that they added to Item 1 necessitated what I called "Change #2" in my earlier post, because a player can obviously pitch, pass, and most importantly advance the ball without being upright.

2014
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of pitching the ball, passing it, advancing with it, or avoiding or warding off an opponent.

2015
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.​

 

[BlindFaith]

The 2014 and 2015 NFL Rule Books say this.


The standard for completing the catch process (c) is time. In 2015, they changed the way officials determine whether that time requirement has been met, from "long enough to perform any act common to the game" to "long enough to become a runner." But since, in this context anyway, a runner is just someone who has completed the catch process, all this ended up saying was "a player becomes a runner when he becomes a runner." So they spelled it out with a third change, this one appearing right at the top of Item 1:

Change #3
2014
Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout
the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before
he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

2015
Item 1. Player Going to the Ground.
A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.
​

Again, the standard for completing the catch process (c) is time. So this sentence inserted into Item 1 announced that the new standard for completing the catch process -- the new way for the player to show whether the time requirement had been met -- would now be to remain "upright long enough." This meant that the time requirement (that up until then had been fractions of a second) could now be extended to 2-3 seconds or more if the player was not upright. So now, instead of having to catch the ball in order to become a runner, the player had to become a runner in order to catch the ball. The practical result is that a lot of plays that had always been catches were now ruled incomplete if the player didn't survive contact with the ground.

The new sentence that they added to Item 1 necessitated what I called "Change #2" in my earlier post, because a player can obviously pitch, pass, and most importantly advance the ball without being upright.

2014
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of pitching the ball, passing it, advancing with it, or avoiding or warding off an opponent.

2015
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.​

You keep bringing up time as the only act common. It is really any act common OR time enough to do so. Agreed?

Going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. You never responded to what you think that means.

Up right long enough

As I've explained before, the 2014 going to the ground means that if the player had not completed the catch process before he started to fall

Sounds a lot like an upright player

 

[percyhoward]

Did the rule makers ever say that the catch rule changed in its essence from 2014 to 2015? That would matter too if they did right?

It would be a lot harder to understand what they did if I didn't care what they said.

 

[BobSacamano]

Cowboy fans love living in the past. This thread proof positive.