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

[MarcusRock]

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.

You don't have anything from the rule book either. You just say here's a rule and this should apply here and here and here. Meanwhile, as I'm illustrating and you're dodging, the rule book actually says things apply differently than you say. You actually agree with what I'm saying with your post but you're never going to admit that. So again, here's the righteous indignation dodging technique you use instead of directly addressing my points. Your buddy at least cuts to the chase of saying "you're wrong" before providing absolutely nothing to explain that phrase. You did the same thing when I had to correct you before finally saying you "made a mistake" yesterday. Maybe you're "mistaken" again and will say so in a few weeks. Meanwhile the kryptonite questions list grows. Not a good look for those who claim to know what they're talking about.

 

[blindzebra]

You don't have anything from the rule book either. You just say here's a rule and this should apply here and here and here. Meanwhile, as I'm illustrating and you're dodging, the rule book actually says things apply differently than you say. You actually agree with what I'm saying with your post but you're never going to admit that. So again, here's the righteous indignation dodging technique you use instead of directly addressing my points. Your buddy at least cuts to the chase of saying "you're wrong" before providing absolutely nothing to explain that phrase. You did the same thing when I had to correct you before finally saying you "made a mistake" yesterday. Maybe you're "mistaken" again and will say so in a few weeks. Meanwhile the kryptonite questions list grows. Not a good look for those who claim to know what they're talking about.

Misusing a word when having to explain something over and over is not a mistake in interpretation. You know it and so does everyone else. So basically you are saying you caught me in an error one time in how many posts? 100? 200? 300? And that makes your interpretation correct? You have added nothing of substance to this discussion. Quotes, press release articles, copied links to a so-called correction. Wash, rinse, repeat. Sprinkle in some LOL's, bad attempts at humor, insults, back and forth posts with your BFF BF where you sneak in even more insults without having then directly at someone, all while crying to Reality that you are getting picked on by other posters. Then you have the nerve to claim we are dodging questions when you do nothing but dodge them. We answer them, you can't use the answer against us like you intended to do so you either leave the thread for a few hours while Larry and Curly take over, or you start copy and pasting nonsense until enough time passes that you can accuse us again of dodging questions.

To sum up:
Misinterpret rules and accuse the other side of it.
Dodge questions and accuse the other side of it.
Post lame quotes and articles and accuse the other side of it.
Insult posters and cry to Reality about getting picked on.

 

[MarcusRock]

Misusing a word when having to explain something over and over is not a mistake in interpretation. You know it and so does everyone else. So basically you are saying you caught me in an error one time in how many posts? 100? 200? 300? And that makes your interpretation correct? You have added nothing of substance to this discussion. Quotes, press release articles, copied links to a so-called correction. Wash, rinse, repeat. Sprinkle in some LOL's, bad attempts at humor, insults, back and forth posts with your BFF BF where you sneak in even more insults without having then directly at someone, all while crying to Reality that you are getting picked on by other posters. Then you have the nerve to claim we are dodging questions when you do nothing but dodge them. We answer them, you can't use the answer against us like you intended to do so you either leave the thread for a few hours while Larry and Curly take over, or you start copy and pasting nonsense until enough time passes that you can accuse us again of dodging questions.

To sum up:
Misinterpret rules and accuse the other side of it.
Dodge questions and accuse the other side of it.
Post lame quotes and articles and accuse the other side of it.
Insult posters and cry to Reality about getting picked on.

LOL, talk about projection. And, oh look, more righteous indignation to deflect away from being corrected again. I was asking you questions about what YOU said and now you get "offended" to go on some rant to distract. Balloon boy's father couldn't have done it better when he got busted way back when, lol. So just declare me a troll like Kevin so you can escape having to actually answer questions about the falsehoods you spread. Remember, I just need "to know" and this pretty much confirms it. You're self-proclaimed expert on the rules who's really a lightweight having been corrected several times by a lil ol' civilian. And you once said you wanted to get Blandino and Pereira in a room to explain things to them? Ha! Maybe try excelling at hacking it on a Cowboys forum first.

So back to lightest of the several questions I've asked: Where is your proof that Pereira said he was wrong for agreeing with the play call on Dez in Green Bay?

 

[percyhoward]

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

For when you don't complete the process, of course.

Complete the process before you go to the ground, or survive the ground.

Become a runner before you go to the ground, or else Item 1 kicks in.

That's how it worked until 2015.

 

[blindzebra]

LOL, talk about projection. And, oh look, more righteous indignation to deflect away from being corrected again. I was asking you questions about what YOU said and now you get "offended" to go on some rant to distract. Balloon boy's father couldn't have done it better when he got busted way back when, lol. So just declare me a troll like Kevin so you can escape having to actually answer questions about the falsehoods you spread. Remember, I just need "to know" and this pretty much confirms it. You're self-proclaimed expert on the rules who's really a lightweight having been corrected several times by a lil ol' civilian. And you once said you wanted to get Blandino and Pereira in a room to explain things to them? Ha! Maybe try excelling at hacking it on a Cowboys forum first.

So back to lightest of the several questions I've asked: Where is your proof that Pereira said he was wrong for agreeing with the play call on Dez in Green Bay?

Ah, yes Insults and deflection. I don't need to call you a troll, you do a great job of showing that on your own.

 

[blindzebra]

For when you don't complete the process, of course.

Complete the process before you go to the ground, or survive the ground.

Become a runner before you go to the ground, or else Item 1 kicks in.

That's how it worked until 2015.

But Percy they say that we don't understand the rule, after all they say nothing trumps going to the ground and then embrace the case plays that say something trumps going to the ground.

 

[BlindFaith]

For when you don't complete the process, of course.

Complete the process before you go to the ground, or survive the ground.

Become a runner before you go to the ground, or else Item 1 kicks in.

That's how it worked until 2015.

Compete the process and become a runner are the same thing. It says so in the definition of what determines a catch.

And if you are a runner, you aren't going to the ground, you are hopefully trying to run.

And yes, it is for when you go to the ground while trying to complete the process.

 

[blindzebra]

Compete the process and become a runner are the same thing. It says so in the definition of what determines a catch.

And if you are a runner, you aren't going to the ground, you are hopefully trying to run.

And yes, it is for when you go to the ground while trying to complete the process.

You do realize you just admitted that we are correct, right?

 

[MarcusRock]

Ah, yes Insults and deflection. I don't need to call you a troll, you do a great job of showing that on your own.

So you going to answer my question? Where has Pereira admitted he was wrong on the Dez call?

 

[blindzebra]

So you going to answer my question? Where has Pereira admitted he was wrong on the Dez call?

When will you supply a rule citation for your claim?

 

[MarcusRock]

When will you supply a rule citation for your claim?

Which claim?

 

[blindzebra]

Which claim?

Item 1 trumps the catch process, rule support for your magical lunge claim.

You see I can trace the case plays back to the written rules can you?
I can also point to a pre-Dez play explaination by Blandino about the catch process and Item 1, can you?

 

[percyhoward]

Compete the process and become a runner are the same thing. It says so in the definition of what determines a catch.

Sure does.

And if you are a runner, you aren't going to the ground, you are hopefully trying to run.

Runners go to the ground all the time. But I think you mean, "If you're a runner, you aren't going to the ground in the act of catching a pass," which would be correct.

And yes, it is for when you go to the ground while trying to complete the process.

Absolutely.

 

[BlindFaith]

Runners go to the ground all the time. But I think you mean, "If you're a runner, you aren't going to the ground in the act of catching a pass," which would be correct.

You aren't a runner if you are in the act of catching a pass. Its a player that goes to the ground.

So,
1. When do you think Dez went to the ground?
2. When do you think he completed the catch process, ie became a runner?

 

[Kevinicus]

Misusing a word when having to explain something over and over is not a mistake in interpretation. You know it and so does everyone else. So basically you are saying you caught me in an error one time in how many posts? 100? 200? 300? And that makes your interpretation correct? You have added nothing of substance to this discussion. Quotes, press release articles, copied links to a so-called correction. Wash, rinse, repeat. Sprinkle in some LOL's, bad attempts at humor, insults, back and forth posts with your BFF BF where you sneak in even more insults without having then directly at someone, all while crying to Reality that you are getting picked on by other posters. Then you have the nerve to claim we are dodging questions when you do nothing but dodge them. We answer them, you can't use the answer against us like you intended to do so you either leave the thread for a few hours while Larry and Curly take over, or you start copy and pasting nonsense until enough time passes that you can accuse us again of dodging questions.

To sum up:
Misinterpret rules and accuse the other side of it.
Dodge questions and accuse the other side of it.
Post lame quotes and articles and accuse the other side of it.
Insult posters and cry to Reality about getting picked on.

 

[blindzebra]

You aren't a runner if you are in the act of catching a pass. Its a player that goes to the ground.

So,
1. When do you think Dez went to the ground?
2. When do you think he completed the catch process, ie became a runner?

LOL, talk about misleading claims.

Not one person has claimed you are a runner when in the act of catching a pass, this just another leading question designed to attempt to twist the reply to fit your misinterpretation.

Okay out there here is what the rule really says and means.

Item 1 uses player because it covers both offense and defense, 8.1.3 is a rule for catches and INTs. So when someone says things like receiver to runner it is accurate when the player in the example is an offensive player.

Item 1, the going to the ground rule, is governed by rule 8.1.3.a.b.c which establishes the transition from a player in the process of catching the ball, again in the case of an offensive player a receiver, to a runner. Parts a) and b) control and two feet are the acts of a receiver or defender attempting to intercept the ball. Part c) the time to perform any act common to the game, also know as a football move, is what turns the player/receiver/defender into a runner.

So when Item ones says a player going to the ground in the process of a catch must maintain control through initial contact with the ground, it is talking about a player/receiver/defender, that has only performed none, one, or both of part a) and b) but does not perform part c) so they still land as a player/receiver/defender in the process of a catch. Note that nowhere in the rule does it say that 8.1.3.a.b.c ends when a player begins to fall. In 2014 there was no concept of upright long enough, nor did anything close to those words exist in the rules. So logic would say that a player could still become a runner during the Item 1 process as long as he did so before hitting the ground.

That logic is shown to be true by case plays A.R. 15.95 under acts common to the game which directly links it to rule 8.1.3.c which clearly stats ANY ACT COMMON TO THE GAME.
This is further shown to be true in case plays A.R. 8.12 and 8.13 under going to the ground. The similarities of the 3 case plays leads some to infer that only the acts described ends Item 1. They do so without any rule book support, because remember A.R. 15.95 links directly to acts common to the game in 8.1.3.c and the supposed magic act is not even mentioned among several acts plus etc. Logic once again would say if this singular act was so special why wouldn't the rule say so? Those same some with the magic act will lead you to believe that the catch rules changed between 2013 and 2014, and this is completely false. The catch rule in 2013 and 2014 are identical, and the rule summary makes no mention of any clarification to the catch rule in 2014. There was no change, it is a complete fabrication. You want to know why? Because in 2013 there is a video where Dean Blandino explains a couple of catches where players are going to the ground and states that control, two feet down, and a reach ends Item 1. That reach is a different act then that magical act in the case play. Again logic raises its head and sees reach in Blandino's explanation and another act in the case plays and says look at 8.1.3.c where it says any act. This completely destroys their argument so the fabricated rule change enters to explain away Blandino's explanation.

So it comes down to logic versus a magical, secret act. Apparently Dean Blandino is actually Dean Wormer and instead of a double secret probation we have a magical secret act.

 

[Kevinicus]

You aren't a runner if you are in the act of catching a pass. Its a player that goes to the ground.

So,
1. When do you think Dez went to the ground?
2. When do you think he completed the catch process, ie became a runner?

Shortly after this moment. When one of his forearms or knee hits (I'm not going to go frame by frame in a video to see which happened first).

 

[MarcusRock]

Item 1 trumps the catch process, rule support for your magical lunge claim.

You see I can trace the case plays back to the written rules can you?
I can also point to a pre-Dez play explaination by Blandino about the catch process and Item 1, can you?

I just explained that to you and you agree with what I said before you went off on a rant to distract that you did. When Item 1 is determined to be in place, those rules apply similar to Item 6's rules applying where those situations occur. They're clearly different rules that need to be followed. So when one is deemed to apply, those rules take over and trump the catch process with their own rules. I brought up Item 6 to illustrate and then you said the same thing I did but take exception to the word "trumps" for some reason. Don't know what you're looking for other than actually reading the rules.

I already told you about the case plays. 8.12 and 8.13 are Item 1 cases (being labeled Going to the Ground and all) where a lunge exempts a receiver from Item 1 in each of those cases. Same for 15.95 where it lists a lunge as an act common to the game that can exempt a receiver from Item 1.

I also already addressed the Blandino explanation as well where people are assuming things that weren't said. If the tutorial was on the going to the ground rule exclusively or how to get out of it then people might have a point. It wasn't. It was on the catch rule itself and Item 1 so there were examples of one where the going to the ground rule was applied (and therefore you most survive the ground) and one case where the 3-part process was met. So he simply described what he saw in the 2 plays. What you all wanted him to do was go into great detail with all the "if-thens" in a segment that was meant to simplify the rule for viewers by simply showing the difference between 1 player going to the ground (Item 1), and another who did not (3-part process). It's hilarious though that Blandino's a bum when he explains that Dez' lunge was deemed insufficient, but now he's the Confucius of the West when something seems to boost your case.

==============

So there you go. My turn:

1. Where's your rule support for ANY act common to the game exempting one from Item 1 since the same act is shown in 3 separate case plays?
2. If the rules changed in their essence from 2014 to 2015, where is your additional outside support from your own interpretation of the re-wording?
3. Likewise, if the rules changed saying a receiver couldn't become a runner where they're going to the ground, why does case play 8.12 still appear in the 2015 rule book if they "conflict" with Item 1's "upright long enough" language as you said?
4. Where did Pereira say he was wrong about his call on the Dez play on the day of the game, which included him saying that steps don't matter with going to the ground (further support that not ANY act common to the game will exempt one from Item 1)?

This is where I expect more incredulousness and "outrage" to my answers as a diversion for not answering my questions I've been asking for weeks without replies due to these tactics but hey, prove me wrong.

 

[blindzebra]

I just explained that to you and you agree with what I said before you went off on a rant to distract that you did. When Item 1 is determined to be in place, those rules apply similar to Item 6's rules applying where those situations occur. They're clearly different rules that need to be followed. So when one is deemed to apply, those rules take over and trump the catch process with their own rules. I brought up Item 6 to illustrate and then you said the same thing I did but take exception to the word "trumps" for some reason. Don't know what you're looking for other than actually reading the rules.

I already told you about the case plays. 8.12 and 8.13 are Item 1 cases (being labeled Going to the Ground and all) where a lunge exempts a receiver from Item 1 in each of those cases. Same for 15.95 where it lists a lunge as an act common to the game that can exempt a receiver from Item 1.

I also already addressed the Blandino explanation as well where people are assuming things that weren't said. If the tutorial was on the going to the ground rule exclusively or how to get out of it then people might have a point. It wasn't. It was on the catch rule itself and Item 1 so there were examples of one where the going to the ground rule was applied (and therefore you most survive the ground) and one case where the 3-part process was met. So he simply described what he saw in the 2 plays. What you all wanted him to do was go into great detail with all the "if-thens" in a segment that was meant to simplify the rule for viewers by simply showing the difference between 1 player going to the ground (Item 1), and another who did not (3-part process). It's hilarious though that Blandino's a bum when he explains that Dez' lunge was deemed insufficient, but now he's the Confucius of the West when something seems to boost your case.

==============

So there you go. My turn:

1. Where's your rule support for ANY act common to the game exempting one from Item 1 since the same act is shown in 3 separate case plays?
2. If the rules changed in their essence from 2014 to 2015, where is your additional outside support from your own interpretation of the re-wording?
3. Likewise, if the rules changed saying a receiver couldn't become a runner where they're going to the ground, why does case play 8.12 still appear in the 2015 rule book if they "conflict" with Item 1's "upright long enough" language as you said?
4. Where did Pereira say he was wrong about his call on the Dez play on the day of the game, which included him saying that steps don't matter with going to the ground (further support that not ANY act common to the game will exempt one from Item 1)?

This is where I expect more incredulousness and "outrage" to my answers as a diversion for not answering my questions I've been asking for weeks without replies but hey, prove me wrong.

Once again, not one rule citation to support what you said. All you did was give an opinion of what you THINK those rules infer. so where in Item 1 does it explicitly say it trumps 8.1.3? Where in the rules does it describe this magic lunge?
And you are outright lying about the Blandino video. It was introduced as explaining going to the ground and he included the 3 part process. So if what you say is true, why did he say that had Calvin Johnson gotten two feet down before he reached it would have been complete? He was going to the ground, he had control, he reached, but before he reached he did not complete part b, so incomplete. Summary, control, two feet down, and a reach trumps Item 1. There is no way to spin it, that is what he said and it destroys your entire theory.

That video answers 1.
That contradiction in his explanations before and after Dez, supports 2.
I have answered 3. before It was an editing error. It has to be, because again it does not fit with upright long enough, and once again there is no magical lunge listed in the 2015 rules. 8.12 also has not been seen since 2015, so if it fits as you claim, why did it go away?
As for 4. who cares? Pereira was Blandino's mentor, so why after 3 season did he finally say the catch rule is wrong and the Dez and James plays should be catches? Does it have anything to do with Blandino getting canned?

 

[MarcusRock]

Once again, not one rule citation to support what you said. All you did was give an opinion of what you THINK those rules infer. so where in Item 1 does it explicitly say it trumps 8.1.3? Where in the rules does it describe this magic lunge?

Already told you about how Item 1 (and 6) trumps 8.1.3. When those particular situations are deemed to have applied. You just agreed but now feign ignorance when you realized that meant those rules trumped 8.1.3 as I have always been saying. The case plays outline the act common to the game that exempts one from Item 1

And you are outright lying about the Blandino video. It was introduced as explaining going to the ground and he included the 3 part process.

The video is introduced by the woman as "When is a catch, a catch?" Blandino then talks about educating people "on the catch process." He ends the video by saying Thomas "was NOT going to the ground in the process of making the catch." Where do you get this was only about the going to the ground rule? He described Johnson's case and then Thomas' case. One was going to the ground, the other wasn't.

So if what you say is true, why did he say that had Calvin Johnson gotten two feet down before he reached it would have been complete?

Except he didn't say that, did he? Dictate the quote. He described Johnson's case and then Thomas' case. One was going to the ground, the other wasn't. This is you all assuming what you THINK it means.

He was going to the ground, he had control, he reached, but before he reached he did not complete part b, so incomplete. Summary, control, two feet down, and a reach trumps Item 1. There is no way to spin it, that is what he said and it destroys your entire theory.

Except where's his quote saying it would have been complete? The fact that you cite "summary" is proof of your adding what's not there.

That video answers 1.

Just explained how that's BS. You're assuming what wasn't even said there to try to support your OPINION that any act common to the game exempts one from Item 1. Show me that ANY act in the rule book does the trick. You're demanding a rule citation and then don't have one yourself? LOL.

That contradiction in his explanations before and after Dez, supports 2.

Except the video was from 2013. My question was specific to the 2014-2015 rule re-write. Show me coverage of the rule re-write that supports you all's made up theory. I have more than plenty that supports the opposite. Do you have any?

I have answered 3. before It was an editing error. It has to be, because again it does not fit with upright long enough,

HAHAHAHA. Now you're channeling Kevin. The rule book is "wrong." Oh, good one. Maybe it's not the rule book, ol' chap. It's you instead. That's probably why you have no additional support to back up your claim .... because it's a lie. So now the almighty rule book that you rely on for citations can't be trusted for editing. HAHAHAHA. They updated 8.7 and 8.14 in the same section but "forgot" to take out 8.12. This is the weakest of cop out answers in this entire debate. Wow.

and once again there is no magical lunge listed in the 2015 rules. 8.12 also has not been seen since 2015, so if it fits as you claim, why did it go away?

All the case plays have a lunge ending Item 1 in 2015 as well, probably because the rules didn't change and all. Since 2015? My question had to do with the rule re-write from 2014 to 2015.

As for 4. who cares? Pereira was Blandino's mentor, so why after 3 season did he finally say the catch rule is wrong and the Dez and James plays should be catches? Does it have anything to do with Blandino getting canned?

LOL. Who cares that you made a claim that's an outright lie? Gee, I don't know, something to do with credibility, perhaps? Again, my question was specific. Even so, 3 years later was the perfect time to reverse himself. He never did. You lied.