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

[percyhoward]

You keep bringing up time as the only act common.

Time isn't an act. After control and two feet down, the player performs the act that shows he's met the time requirement. If he didn't perform the act, then you know the time requirement was not met.

It is really any act common OR time enough to do so. Agreed?

Not really. It's just time enough to do so, and the fact that he did it proves that there was enough time to do it. If he didn't do it, then he didn't complete the catch.
(The exception is in the end zone, where there's no reason to advance the ball. Then the official has to decide if he held on for enough time, because there's no act to look for.)

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

That's hard to believe, but anyway, it means just what it says. Prior to 2015, if you went to the ground before control + 2 feet + enough time for a football move, you had to survive the ground.

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

Your idea of going to the ground sounds a lot like an upright player because it's about an upright player.

That's got nothing to do with pre-2015 rules though.

This feels like Groundhog Day.

 

[big dog cowboy]

So he did catch it, right?

Yes.

 

[BlindFaith]

Time isn't an act. After control and two feet down, the player performs the act that shows he's met the time requirement. If he didn't perform the act, then you know the time requirement was not met.


Not really. It's just time enough to do so, and the fact that he did it proves that there was enough time to do it. If he didn't do it, then he didn't complete the catch.
(The exception is in the end zone, where there's no reason to advance the ball. Then the official has to decide if he held on for enough time, because there's no act to look for.)


That's hard to believe, but anyway, it means just what it says. Prior to 2015, if you went to the ground before control + 2 feet + enough time for a football move, you had to survive the ground.


Your idea of going to the ground sounds a lot like an upright player because it's about an upright player.

That's got nothing to do with pre-2015 rules though.

This feels like Groundhog Day.

You're simply not understanding the going to the ground rule. So I can see how you think there was some big rule change. No one is obviously going to change your view on that, so we can just stop discussing it.

And you're obviously looking to put the focus on time. I know why, but let's set the record straight.

Prior to 2007, it was football move, then it was removed all together, then act common, then become runner.

The concept isn't focused on time. It's doing something to establish a player is in a position to protect themselves and secure the ball. They added in time as a measure in case no actual act was made, but they had time to do so. But 99.99% of the time a player makes an act to become a runner.

So do you want to bring up AR 15.95 now? But again, if you don't understand the going to the ground rule, you don't understand that case play either because the situation is the same - player going to the ground in the act of catching a pass

And then once you copy and paste for that response we can talk about 8.12 and 8.13 and why those are the only acts a player can perform while going to the ground and how they both refer to interrupting the fall.

About cover it?

 

[Kevinicus]

You're simply not understanding the going to the ground rule. So I can see how you think there was some big rule change. No one is obviously going to change your view on that, so we can just stop discussing it.

And you're obviously looking to put the focus on time. I know why, but let's set the record straight.

Prior to 2007, it was football move, then it was removed all together, then act common, then become runner.

The concept isn't focused on time. It's doing something to establish a player is in a position to protect themselves and secure the ball. They added in time as a measure in case no actual act was made, but they had time to do so. But 99.99% of the time a player makes an act to become a runner.

So do you want to bring up AR 15.95 now? But again, if you don't understand the going to the ground rule, you don't understand that case play either because the situation is the same - player going to the ground in the act of catching a pass

And then once you copy and paste for that response we can talk about 8.12 and 8.13 and why those are the only acts a player can perform while going to the ground and how they both refer to interrupting the fall.

About cover it?

If we don't understand the going to the ground, then why do the rulings prior yo the Dez play agree with our understanding? Why do the explanations before (and even immediately after) agree with our understanding? Why do the case plays agree with our umderstanding? Why do you have to make extreme reaches about some super special way to go to the ground, but not go to the ground, but finally end up on the ground, not specified in the rules, in order to still have a catch?

Have you considered, even for a moment, that it is you who doesn't understand the rule?

 

[percyhoward]

You are the rational one of the bunch.

I don't know about that, but thanks just the same.

 

[blindzebra]

If we don't understand the going to the ground, then why do the rulings prior yo the Dez play agree with our understanding? Why do the explanations before (and even immediately after) agree with our understanding? Why do the case plays agree with our umderstanding? Why do you have to make extreme reaches about some super special way to go to the ground, but not go to the ground, but finally end up on the ground, not specified in the rules, in order to still have a catch?

Have you considered, even for a moment, that it is you who doesn't understand the rule?

 

[BlindFaith]

I don't know about that, but thanks just the same.

Think of it like Moe being the most rational of the three stooges.

 

[blindzebra]

You're simply not understanding the going to the ground rule. So I can see how you think there was some big rule change. No one is obviously going to change your view on that, so we can just stop discussing it.

And you're obviously looking to put the focus on time. I know why, but let's set the record straight.

Prior to 2007, it was football move, then it was removed all together, then act common, then become runner.

The concept isn't focused on time. It's doing something to establish a player is in a position to protect themselves and secure the ball. They added in time as a measure in case no actual act was made, but they had time to do so. But 99.99% of the time a player makes an act to become a runner.

So do you want to bring up AR 15.95 now? But again, if you don't understand the going to the ground rule, you don't understand that case play either because the situation is the same - player going to the ground in the act of catching a pass

And then once you copy and paste for that response we can talk about 8.12 and 8.13 and why those are the only acts a player can perform while going to the ground and how they both refer to interrupting the fall.

About cover it?

A.R. 15.95 is about acts common to the game not going to the ground.

And once again, knock it off with the only act nonsense. You have absolutely zero support for that theory, none, zip, nada. You made it up to run away from what the case plays really mean.

 

[OmerV]

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

lol - you really are a child. What next? Are you going to call me a poo poo head or tell me your dad can beat up my dad?

The rule is that a player first has to have control of the ball, then get 2 feet down, then make the "football move". You can't rearrange the order to suit you, and in any case, getting control of the is not a "football move" - it is a separate element of the 3 step catch process. Try reading the rule instead of acting like a 6 year old while talking about something you haven't bothered to read or try and understand.

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

Then why is A.R. 8.12 still there in 2015?

 

[BlindFaith]

A.R. 15.95 is about acts common to the game not going to the ground.

And once again, knock it off with the only act nonsense. You have absolutely zero support for that theory, none, zip, nada. You made it up to run away from what the case plays really mean.

The case play is a play about a player going to the ground. Right? All of the case plays we have been talking about ALL are about a player going to the ground. Right?

Since the going to the ground rule means that NO act can be performed to complete the process if a player was going to the ground when the process started. Then your argument is blown out of the water that any act can.

I was thinking about this, I know, sad.

So why do they have this one AR? And why does it seem very intentional that the other ones have very similar language.

So here's my opinion. Like it or not.

An act common to the game is something observable. Right? A step, a lunge, a reach, tucking the ball away. They are acts, so they should be easily identified.

But what about time? How do you observe that time has occurred for a player who is going to the ground? For the on field ref trying to make the call in the second or two that it happens. You, better than me, should appreciate this. So that is the only act that is not really clear as how to identify it. Right? Unless you have a magic stop watch.

So, if it were me writing the rule book, I would try and clarify what time is. If time can complete the catch process, and the going to the ground rule only applies if the player starts to go to the ground before the catch process is complete. Then what if the act that they are trying to complete is time?

How would you know that time had been completed at the same time of trying to determine if a player was going to the ground? Sounds pretty murky.

So hence, AR 15.95 We all know what it says. But what it does is clarifies what to look for to determine if the time element had been fulfilled.

In order to do that they say the player has control of the ball and performs a lunge. They clearly say that the lunge is not part of the act. But the control plus the lunge is how an official can determine if time and time only fulfilled the act.

Now, 8.12 and 8.13 go into detailed examples of what that control is. One says brace plus lunge. The other says regains balance plus lunge. Both acts interrupt the fall. Which would in essence, eliminate the going to the ground aspect somewhat, they are really in limbo. Going to the ground, but temporarily regaining control long enough to protect themselves, but still ultimately goes to the ground.

The reasons, again my opinion, for Blandino and folks to not ever talk about this (except for the one time Blandino mentions gather) is because it didn't happen. They only talk about what did happen. It would of been nice for them to say if they had somehow regained their balance and then lunged it would have been ruled a catch, but they didn't.

To me, what I have just outlined makes perfect sense. But then again, I think the going to the ground rule makes perfect sense but other folks are interpreting completely different than how it's written.

Do with this as you will. Hopefully you've at least read it.

 

[Kevinicus]

The case play is a play about a player going to the ground. Right? All of the case plays we have been talking about ALL are about a player going to the ground. Right?

Since the going to the ground rule means that NO act can be performed to complete the process if a player was going to the ground when the process started. Then your argument is blown out of the water that any act can.

I was thinking about this, I know, sad.

So why do they have this one AR? And why does it seem very intentional that the other ones have very similar language.

So here's my opinion. Like it or not.

An act common to the game is something observable. Right? A step, a lunge, a reach, tucking the ball away. They are acts, so they should be easily identified.

But what about time? How do you observe that time has occurred for a player who is going to the ground? For the on field ref trying to make the call in the second or two that it happens. You, better than me, should appreciate this. So that is the only act that is not really clear as how to identify it. Right? Unless you have a magic stop watch.

So, if it were me writing the rule book, I would try and clarify what time is. If time can complete the catch process, and the going to the ground rule only applies if the player starts to go to the ground before the catch process is complete. Then what if the act that they are trying to complete is time?

How would you know that time had been completed at the same time of trying to determine if a player was going to the ground? Sounds pretty murky.

So hence, AR 15.95 We all know what it says. But what it does is clarifies what to look for to determine if the time element had been fulfilled.

In order to do that they say the player has control of the ball and performs a lunge. They clearly say that the lunge is not part of the act. But the control plus the lunge is how an official can determine if time and time only fulfilled the act.

Now, 8.12 and 8.13 go into detailed examples of what that control is. One says brace plus lunge. The other says regains balance plus lunge. Both acts interrupt the fall. Which would in essence, eliminate the going to the ground aspect somewhat, they are really in limbo. Going to the ground, but temporarily regaining control long enough to protect themselves, but still ultimately goes to the ground.

The reasons, again my opinion, for Blandino and folks to not ever talk about this (except for the one time Blandino mentions gather) is because it didn't happen. They only talk about what did happen. It would of been nice for them to say if they had somehow regained their balance and then lunged it would have been ruled a catch, but they didn't.

To me, what I have just outlined makes perfect sense. But then again, I think the going to the ground rule makes perfect sense but other folks are interpreting completely different than how it's written.

Do with this as you will. Hopefully you've at least read it.

Just try for a second to look at things as if "going to the ground" did actually mean (in 2014) hitting the ground and marvel at how everything fits together all nice and neat and you don't have to come up with special rules and interrupting falls, and "Control plus" anything. You won't have to explain away rulings, case plays, etc.

 

[MarcusRock]

Unless you have a magic stop watch.

That's exactly what he claims to have because he's on record as saying that the players in the case plays were runners BEFORE they lunged, which of course is ludicrous and the opposite of what the case plays actually say. Even other catch theorists don't agree with that gunk. That's why I had to correct him in this post.

 

[BlindFaith]

That's exactly what he claims to have because he's on record as saying that the players in the case plays were runners BEFORE they lunged, which of course is ludicrous and the opposite of what the case plays actually say. Even other catch theorists don't agree with that gunk. That's why I had to correct him in this post.

I need to bookmark my posts. lol

 

[BlindFaith]

That's exactly what he claims to have because he's on record as saying that the players in the case plays were runners BEFORE they lunged, which of course is ludicrous and the opposite of what the case plays actually say. Even other catch theorists don't agree with that gunk. That's why I had to correct him in this post.

Yeah, you said the same thing I did. I must have missed that one earlier. It's hard trying to keep up with all of the various reasons why they think it wasn't a catch. I've ignored the clappers to try and keep focus on Percy and BZ and Mr_C. All the others are just nonsense and have no value.

 

[MarcusRock]

I need to bookmark my posts. lol

Yeah, don't knock copy and paste, lol. If a lie repeated 1,000 times becomes the truth, the truth repeated 1,000 times has to have some kind of effect too.

 

[blindzebra]

That's exactly what he claims to have because he's on record as saying that the players in the case plays were runners BEFORE they lunged, which of course is ludicrous and the opposite of what the case plays actually say. Even other catch theorists don't agree with that gunk. That's why I had to correct him in this post.

Ah yes out of hundreds of posts explaining things over and over you have one example of me making an error. That is what you want to hang your hat on? Because I know damn well I can go back and find dozens of examples for both you and Blindfaith calling case plays rules and case books rule books and plenty more. The entire magic stopwatch thing is just another lame attempt by you two to distract from the facts that you have no answer for.

 

[blindzebra]

Yeah, don't knock copy and paste, lol. If a lie repeated 1,000 times becomes the truth, the truth repeated 1,000 times has to have some kind of effect too.

The only ones repeating lies is you.

 

[blindzebra]

The case play is a play about a player going to the ground. Right? All of the case plays we have been talking about ALL are about a player going to the ground. Right?

Since the going to the ground rule means that NO act can be performed to complete the process if a player was going to the ground when the process started. Then your argument is blown out of the water that any act can.

I was thinking about this, I know, sad.

So why do they have this one AR? And why does it seem very intentional that the other ones have very similar language.

So here's my opinion. Like it or not.

An act common to the game is something observable. Right? A step, a lunge, a reach, tucking the ball away. They are acts, so they should be easily identified.

But what about time? How do you observe that time has occurred for a player who is going to the ground? For the on field ref trying to make the call in the second or two that it happens. You, better than me, should appreciate this. So that is the only act that is not really clear as how to identify it. Right? Unless you have a magic stop watch.

So, if it were me writing the rule book, I would try and clarify what time is. If time can complete the catch process, and the going to the ground rule only applies if the player starts to go to the ground before the catch process is complete. Then what if the act that they are trying to complete is time?

How would you know that time had been completed at the same time of trying to determine if a player was going to the ground? Sounds pretty murky.

So hence, AR 15.95 We all know what it says. But what it does is clarifies what to look for to determine if the time element had been fulfilled.

In order to do that they say the player has control of the ball and performs a lunge. They clearly say that the lunge is not part of the act. But the control plus the lunge is how an official can determine if time and time only fulfilled the act.

Now, 8.12 and 8.13 go into detailed examples of what that control is. One says brace plus lunge. The other says regains balance plus lunge. Both acts interrupt the fall. Which would in essence, eliminate the going to the ground aspect somewhat, they are really in limbo. Going to the ground, but temporarily regaining control long enough to protect themselves, but still ultimately goes to the ground.

The reasons, again my opinion, for Blandino and folks to not ever talk about this (except for the one time Blandino mentions gather) is because it didn't happen. They only talk about what did happen. It would of been nice for them to say if they had somehow regained their balance and then lunged it would have been ruled a catch, but they didn't.

To me, what I have just outlined makes perfect sense. But then again, I think the going to the ground rule makes perfect sense but other folks are interpreting completely different than how it's written.

Do with this as you will. Hopefully you've at least read it.

The only thing in there that was even remotely accurate was here is my opinion. That is a fact because we are still waiting for that rule reference that says gather, interrupt, pause the fall, hell even brace, that allows for this magical lunge.
And for all the readers out there a little fact...the reason it says that a lunge is not part of the catch process is because an act common to the game makes you a runner.

I only needed one stentence to ruin everything his War and Peace-sized opinion said.

 

[MarcusRock]

Ah yes out of hundreds of posts explaining things over and over you have one example of me making an error. That is what you want to hang your hat on? Because I know damn well I can go back and find dozens of examples for both you and Blindfaith calling case plays rules and case books rule books and plenty more. The entire magic stopwatch thing is just another lame attempt by you two to distract from the facts that you have no answer for.

Oh so NOW you claim it's a mistake. Now that the thread is in the Drama Zone, lol. Every other time you bristled at me saying I corrected you but now you admit I did. You sure did seem so sure that I didn't know what I was talking about then though. This is progress at least.

So since this is the first time I've ever heard you disavow those comments, when did those players in the case plays become runners?