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

[blindzebra]

Well then Item 1, especially since A.R. 8.12 and A.R. 8.13 are titled "Going to the Ground." A lunge gets one out of being subject to it. Oh look, in 15.95 too.

So will you answer why Item 6 trumping a,b,c doesn't mean the same thing for Item 1 or why number of steps don't matter when going to the ground is applied?

So why isn't A.R. 15.95 under magical lunge? It is a moronic leap to think that is what these case plays mean, it is lazy case play writing and nothing more. An act common to the game ends Item 1 Rule 8.1.3.c.

How does it trump something that can't happen? Again another moronic leap. Item 6 the catch process can't happen, so to keep DBs from carrying receivers OOB on sideline catches they rule it complete. Flip that for an INT. Item 1 is in effect when the catch process is not finished, and again it doesn't trump it it exists with 8.1.3.a.b.c.

And don't try to pass off one of Blandino's explanations as a rule, especially when it contradicts earlier explanations where he said two steps and a reach ends Item 1.

 

[BlindFaith]

It's been what, 3 years? While I was emotional about it when it happened, I've gotten over it since it's been plenty of time since then. This is all about what makes the most logical sense to me.

And what makes logical sense to you now?

 

[blindzebra]

And what makes logical sense to you now?

For someone who is only going to discuss stuff with Percy you still seem to be posting...

 

[Gator88]

And what makes logical sense to you now?

What makes the most sense to me is that the going to the ground rule is secondary to the 3 step process to become a runner. If and only if that doesn't happen, does the guy catching the ball need to control it through the ground. This makes sense to me because there will always be times like when they are already in the endzone or diving for a catch where they won't be able to complete the 3 step process, and thus there has to be some other process for making a catch.

What doesn't make sense to me, and obviously the competition committee if they are taking the going to the ground part out of the rules, is how going to the ground would overrule the regular catch process. From my point of view, it is incredibly difficult to determine when an athlete of the caliber that the WRs in the NFL are is going to the ground, and it is also quite difficult to determine how long it takes for them to stay upright enough to become a runner when the action to become a runner has become pretty vague.

Just my take on it.

 

[BlindFaith]

What makes the most sense to me is that the going to the ground rule is secondary to the 3 step process to become a runner. If and only if that doesn't happen, does the guy catching the ball need to control it through the ground. This makes sense to me because there will always be times like when they are already in the endzone or diving for a catch where they won't be able to complete the 3 step process, and thus there has to be some other process for making a catch.

What doesn't make sense to me, and obviously the competition committee if they are taking the going to the ground part out of the rules, is how going to the ground would overrule the regular catch process. From my point of view, it is incredibly difficult to determine when an athlete of the caliber that the WRs in the NFL are is going to the ground, and it is also quite difficult to determine how long it takes for them to stay upright enough to become a runner when the action to become a runner has become pretty vague.

Just my take on it.

Thanks for a thoughtful reply.

 

[MarcusRock]

So why isn't A.R. 15.95 under magical lunge? It is a moronic leap to think that is what these case plays mean, it is lazy case play writing and nothing more. An act common to the game ends Item 1 Rule 8.1.3.c.

How does it trump something that can't happen? Again another moronic leap. Item 6 the catch process can't happen, so to keep DBs from carrying receivers OOB on sideline catches they rule it complete. Flip that for an INT. Item 1 is in effect when the catch process is not finished, and again it doesn't trump it it exists with 8.1.3.a.b.c.

And don't try to pass off one of Blandino's explanations as a rule, especially when it contradicts earlier explanations where he said two steps and a reach ends Item 1.

Doesn't Item 6 also go into effect when the catch process is not finished? Trumps as in those rules take the place of what that particular situation arises. Just like when Item 1's situation arises. This is what happens. Your deflection explanation doesn't cancel that. The act common to the game that ends Item 1 in 15.95 is lunging. Just like in 8.12 and 8.13. And I didn't see an answer for why steps don't matter in going to the ground.

 

[BlindFaith]

Doesn't Item 6 also go into effect when the catch process is not finished? Trumps as in those rules take the place of what that particular situation arises. Just like when Item 1's situation arises. This is what happens. Your deflection explanation doesn't cancel that. The act common to the game that ends Item 1 in 15.95 is lunging. Just like in 8.12 and 8.13. And I didn't see an answer for why steps don't matter in going to the ground.

What I find interesting is all this talk about how everything now trumps the going to the ground rule, but the probable rule change is to remove the going to the ground rule.

I mean, you can't make this stuff up. lol

 

[blindzebra]

Doesn't Item 6 also go into effect when the catch process is not finished? Trumps as in those rules take the place of what that particular situation arises. Just like when Item 1's situation arises. This is what happens. Your deflection explanation doesn't cancel that. The act common to the game that ends Item 1 in 15.95 is lunging. Just like in 8.12 and 8.13. And I didn't see an answer for why steps don't matter in going to the ground.

How about answering where all of the BS you are spouting is in the actual rule book?
Yes or no, is the lunge written in the rules?
Yes or no, is steps don't matter in going to the ground written in the rules?
Yes or no, is it written in the rules that only a lunge ends Item 1?

 

[blindzebra]

What I find interesting is all this talk about how everything now trumps the going to the ground rule, but the probable rule change is to remove the going to the ground rule.

I mean, you can't make this stuff up. lol

Because going to the ground pre-2015 is not the same as post-2015, and all you do is make crap up.

 

[MarcusRock]

What I find interesting is all this talk about how everything now trumps the going to the ground rule, but the probable rule change is to remove the going to the ground rule.

I mean, you can't make this stuff up. lol

LOL. Excellent point. If a, b, and c took absolute precedence over going to the ground, then going to the ground would be insignificant. But since going to the ground is its own specific situation with its own set of rules then those must be followed when that situation is deemed to apply. It's just like Item 6 when it applies: the 3-part process is out the window.

 

[MarcusRock]

How about answering where all of the BS you are spouting is in the actual rule book?
Yes or no, is the lunge written in the rules?
Yes or no, is steps don't matter in going to the ground written in the rules?
Yes or no, is it written in the rules that only a lunge ends Item 1?

But I've been asking my questions for days without a reply. Several times to you personally. Why are you evading answering? I mean, isn't your argument strong enough to withstand vetting? You can't just make statements and then evade challenges to your conclusions. Makes you look like you're trying to protect your argument fro having holes punched in it.

So how is it that Item 6 renders the complete 3-part process ineffective yet Item 1 doesn't? And why don't steps matter when someone is going to the ground?

 

[MarcusRock]

Because going to the ground pre-2015 is not the same as post-2015, and all you do is make crap up.

Where is additional support for that other than in catch theorists' minds? I have additional support that what you say is "made up crap."

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...anges-and-points-of-emphasis-to-watch-in-2015
"Let's be clear. The rule that disallowed an apparent catch by Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the NFC divisional playoffs, and another by Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2009, remains unchanged in substance. The NFL did modify its wording, however, in hopes of making the rule make more sense to players, fans and media members in cases where a player is falling while in the process of making a catch."

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy
"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rule-and-it-might-actually-be-more-confusing/
"The interesting part here is that Dez Bryant's no-catch, the thing that sparked the rule change, would still be a no-catch under the new rule."​

 

[blindzebra]

But I've been asking my questions for days without a reply. Several times to you personally. Why are you evading answering? I mean, isn't your argument strong enough to withstand vetting? You can't just make statements and then evade challenges to your conclusions. Makes you look like you're trying to protect your argument fro having holes punched in it.

So how is it that Item 6 renders the complete 3-part process ineffective yet Item 1 doesn't? And why don't steps matter when someone is going to the ground?

See any hypocrisy here. I answer your questions, you don't like the answer so you lie about me not answering, while the entire time you don't answer any questions yourself.

 

[blindzebra]

Where is additional support for that other than in catch theorists' minds? I have additional support that what you say is "made up crap."

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...anges-and-points-of-emphasis-to-watch-in-2015
"Let's be clear. The rule that disallowed an apparent catch by Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the NFC divisional playoffs, and another by Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2009, remains unchanged in substance. The NFL did modify its wording, however, in hopes of making the rule make more sense to players, fans and media members in cases where a player is falling while in the process of making a catch."

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy
"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rule-and-it-might-actually-be-more-confusing/
"The interesting part here is that Dez Bryant's no-catch, the thing that sparked the rule change, would still be a no-catch under the new rule."​

Ah, yes when all else fails, post the press release articles again.

 

[blindzebra]

LOL. Excellent point. If a, b, and c took absolute precedence over going to the ground, then going to the ground would be insignificant. But since going to the ground is its own specific situation with its own set of rules then those must be followed when that situation is deemed to apply. It's just like Item 6 when it applies: the 3-part process is out the window.

Just more proof you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Item 1 exists when the completion of the catch process doesn't occur. Again, Item 6 is the same. It involves a unique situation where the catch process can't be completed so the rules needed to add another criteria to the catch process because without it players could just pick up and carry the other player out of bounds to keep it from being a completion/INT.

 

[MarcusRock]

Ah, yes when all else fails, post the press release articles again.

Do you have anything beyond your own creation that says these articles are lying?

Just more proof you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Item 1 exists when the completion of the catch process doesn't occur. Again, Item 6 is the same. It involves a unique situation where the catch process can't be completed so the rules needed to add another criteria to the catch process because without it players could just pick up and carry the other player out of bounds to keep it from being a completion/INT.

You're saying exactly what I'm saying. That Item 6 trumps the 3-part process when an Item 6 situation is deemed to apply. Same is true for Item 1 trumping the 3-part process when it is deemed to apply as you just outlined above in your quote. They're the same in application. You just said this above. So then how do you keep saying that a piece of the 3-part rule applies to Item 1, which has its own set of rules that must be adhered to as you say above? It is evident in that extra steps beyond 2 do not matter in going to the ground because Item 1 trumps the 3-part process. Neither does "tucking" or "switching hands" with the ball, which is why no one ever asked about those things with the Dez play. Pereira was asked by Howie Long about the 3 steps directly during the post game and Pereira said, "Forget the steps. That's not the issue here." Your buddy said that Pereira was "wrong" (his favorite word) and has admitted he was wrong in times past but never answered my question as to why he never said he was wrong here. YOU have said Pereira reversed himself and said he was wrong on this Dez play but never provided a quote for that claim. Here's your chance.

 

[Kevinicus]

Ah, yes when all else fails, post the press release articles again.

Is he still lying about having "Additional support?" Posting lame press release summaries and lying about the content and his comments in regards to them? And still not realizing the logical fallacies he is bathing in?

 

[BlindFaith]

LOL. Excellent point. If a, b, and c took absolute precedence over going to the ground, then going to the ground would be insignificant. But since going to the ground is its own specific situation with its own set of rules then those must be followed when that situation is deemed to apply. It's just like Item 6 when it applies: the 3-part process is out the window.

Logic is out the window along with comprehension of the written rule.

Clearly going to the ground is its own special situation. It is a deviation from the normal catch process.

Just as a player going out of bounds.

If they think the three step process should trump these rules, then why have these rules?

This is just nonsense at this point.

 

[blindzebra]

Logic is out the window along with comprehension of the written rule.

Clearly going to the ground is its own special situation. It is a deviation from the normal catch process.

Just as a player going out of bounds.

If they think the three step process should trump these rules, then why have these rules?

This is just nonsense at this point.

Once again not even remotely what was said. Makes not understanding what the rules mean pretty clear now, neither of you have any reading comprehension.

 

[blindzebra]

Do you have anything beyond your own creation that says these articles are lying?



You're saying exactly what I'm saying. That Item 6 trumps the 3-part process when an Item 6 situation is deemed to apply. Same is true for Item 1 trumping the 3-part process when it is deemed to apply as you just outlined above in your quote. They're the same in application. You just said this above. So then how do you keep saying that a piece of the 3-part rule applies to Item 1, which has its own set of rules that must be adhered to as you say above? It is evident in that extra steps beyond 2 do not matter in going to the ground because Item 1 trumps the 3-part process. Neither does "tucking" or "switching hands" with the ball, which is why no one ever asked about those things with the Dez play. Pereira was asked by Howie Long about the 3 steps directly during the post game and Pereira said, "Forget the steps. That's not the issue here." Your buddy said that Pereira was "wrong" (his favorite word) and has admitted he was wrong in times past but never answered my question as to why he never said he was wrong here. YOU have said Pereira reversed himself and said he was wrong on this Dez play but never provided a quote for that claim. Here's your chance.

LOL, once again instead of supplying rule support you resort to quotes from people with a vested interest in the play's outcome being correct. Last chance, supply a written rule book citation to support your theory. Not a reference to the case plays, not a quote from someone supporting the call, not articles simply stating what was in a damned press release, but an actual rule that supports one damn thing you are claiming.