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

[MarcusRock]

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?

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

This one needs a post all to itself. HAHAHAHA.

 

[blindzebra]

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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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?



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.



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.



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.

Exactly why nobody bothers answering your questions. You twist and lie every step of the way.

A 3 year old could understand the difference of something not happening versus CANNOT HAPPEN but apparently you can't.

Again a complete lie about the video. A COMPLETE LIE.

So we are supposed to believe your rule interpretations when you don't even know the difference between a rule book, which has the rules, and a case book that has plays. Case plays are not rules...this is probably the 20th time I CORRECTED YOU ON THIS!

So you believe that a rule can exist without a rule saying so, but a mistake in editing can't occur? That is funny. I noticed how you are still not explaining why 8.12 contradicts upright long enough. It absolutely does and there is ZERO rule support for a magical lunge. Again that is RULE SUPPORT, i.e. found in the rule book, under 8.1.3.c or Item 1.

 

[MarcusRock]

Exactly why nobody bothers answering your questions. You twist and lie every step of the way.

A 3 year old could understand the difference of something not happening versus CANNOT HAPPEN but apparently you can't.

Again a complete lie about the video. A COMPLETE LIE.

So we are supposed to believe your rule interpretations when you don't even know the difference between a rule book, which has the rules, and a case book that has plays. Case plays are not rules...this is probably the 20th time I CORRECTED YOU ON THIS!

So you believe that a rule can exist without a rule saying so, but a mistake in editing can't occur? That is funny. I noticed how you are still not explaining why 8.12 contradicts upright long enough. It absolutely does and there is ZERO rule support for a magical lunge. Again that is RULE SUPPORT, i.e. found in the rule book, under 8.1.3.c or Item 1.

Case plays address rules so I told you which rule they're addressing. You apparently disagree.

Do you have a quote from the video like I asked or are you holding to your assumption?

8.12 "contradicting" upright long enough is YOUR fantasy creation. How are you wanting me to explain your error? You claimed it, you explain how it conflicts. Maybe "you're wrong" and they don't conflict.

 

[blindzebra]

Case plays address rules so I told you which rule they're addressing. You apparently disagree.

Do you have a quote from the video like I asked or are you holding to your assumption?

8.12 "contradicting" upright long enough is YOUR fantasy creation. How are you wanting me to explain your error? You claimed it, you explain how it conflicts. Maybe "you're wrong" and they don't conflict.

Once again dodge. You can't come up with a rule so you spin it back to me.
I rest my case.

 

[MarcusRock]

Once again dodge. You can't come up with a rule so you spin it back to me.
I rest my case.

Spin it back to you? You never answered my questions and are back to your "outrage" diversion. Where's your rule citation that ANY act common to the game gets one out of Item 1? Where's your quote for the assumption you made about the video? Blandino's the man when you think he supports your case, huh? Why wasn't he the man when he said the lunge was a failed attempt? He's the devil then. LOL.

 

[blindzebra]

Spin it back to you? You never answered my questions and are back to your "outrage" diversion. Where's your rule citation that ANY act common to the game gets one out of Item 1? Where's your quote for the assumption you made about the video? Blandino's the man when you think he supports your case, huh? Why wasn't he the man when he said the lunge was a failed attempt? He's the devil then. LOL.

8.1.3.c act common to the game. 8.1.3 is the dominate rule. It explains the catch process to player control and becoming a runner. The Items beneath it are subsections of situations where the normal catch process runs into other factors. Items 1,2, and 3 are plays where a football move does not or cannot happen. Item 6 is a case where only control can happen. All four have a different ending to the catch process out of necessity and not dominance.

And again you are absolutely lying about the video. I wonder why?

 

[blindzebra]

This is something we’ve worked really hard at to educate people, in terms of the catch process.”

“Let’s look at the play from week one, the Minn. Det. Game where Calvin is GOING TO THE GROUND in the PROCESS of MAKING THE CATCH.
The process of the catch is a 3 part process-control, 2 feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 parts, in that order, you HAVE a catch. If not AND you’re GOING TO THE GROUND you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH (R-E-A-C-H) for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.

For anyone interested...and Marcus too...here is the transcript of EXACTLY what Blandino said.

 

[percyhoward]

"He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH (R-E-A-C-H) for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass."

Take that explanation from 2013, and his 1/11/15 explanation that the reach needed to be with two hands, and it's clear that a reach was an act common to the game that could complete the catch process, even when the player was falling.

Add to those the NFL's description of Blandino's NFLN appearance published on 1/17/15 (see below), and now you've got three different primary sources all saying a reach was an act common to the game at that time, and that it could complete the catch process, even when the player was falling.

"The issue: whether Bryant performed an 'act common to the game.' Under the rules, that could have made the play qualify as a catch, and the key question was whether Bryant was doing so by clearly reaching for the goal line."

That's a statement by the NFL, six days after the game.

This aspect of the play is not even debatable.

 

[BlindFaith]

Take that explanation from 2013, and his 1/11/15 explanation that the reach needed to be with two hands, and it's clear that a reach was an act common to the game that could complete the catch process, even when the player was falling.

Add to those the NFL's description of Blandino's NFLN appearance published on 1/17/15 (see below), and now you've got three different primary sources all saying a reach was an act common to the game at that time, and that it could complete the catch process, even when the player was falling.

"The issue: whether Bryant performed an 'act common to the game.' Under the rules, that could have made the play qualify as a catch, and the key question was whether Bryant was doing so by clearly reaching for the goal line."

That's a statement by the NFL, six days after the game.

This aspect of the play is not even debatable.

Reach, lunge. Again, if he would have explained why it was important it would have helped.

If you lunge while going to the ground, don't you also reach? As in the reach is part of the lunge.

And the lunge/reach that Dez did was not in correlation with the brace or keeps balance.

And did you stop answering my questions too?

 

[percyhoward]

If he would have explained why it was important it would have helped.

You have to assume he didn't know.

 

[percyhoward]

From "What Constitutes a Catch" by Dean Blandino Nov 21, 2017

The 2004 Competition Committee Report stated the following: “Historically, if a player secures legal possession long enough to perform another act common to football, contact by a defender causing the ball to come loose is ruled either (1) a completed pass and fumble or (2) a completed pass and the receiver/runner is down by contact. Having possession long enough to perform another act common to football is defined as controlling the ball long enough to be able to intentionally hand it, pitch it, or pass it. This has been a good guideline over many years, which on-field officials should continue to use.”

During this time, the concept of a “second act” came into play. This was apparently derived from the concept of “long enough to perform another act common to football.” The thinking was if the receiver could perform a second act with the football, such as reaching it out for the line to gain, that he was demonstrating possession.

But Joel Bussert, the league office’s long-time head liaison to the Committee, believed this standard had not been applied correctly and had caused endless confusion about the definition of a catch.

Any act performed while airborne is irrelevant. The whole point of the “common act” concept was to establish a standard for how long a player must hold on to the ball after he hits the ground. If the requirement for “time enough to perform a common act” can be fulfilled before the player has established a firm grip, control and two feet on the ground, there will never be a standard requirement for how long the player must hold on to the ball to complete a catch.

As a result of its study, the Committee recommended (and the membership confirmed) adding to the playing rules the language it had previously expressed in its 2004 report, and a clarifying note that it was not necessary that the player commit such an act, provided he maintained control of the ball long enough to do so.

That is the key point when discussing the Bryant play, or any other play where the receiver goes to the ground to make a catch. When a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass, he must maintain control of the ball after his initial contact with the ground. If he doesn’t hold onto the ball when he hits the ground, the pass is incomplete. It doesn’t matter if he stretches the ball out on his way to the ground. He must survive the ground, and that is the bright line for the on-field officials to rule on.​

Here's the problem with the connection he makes to the Dez play: Dez wasn't airborne when he reached for the goal line. Not even close. The "common act" happened well after Dez had "established a firm grip, control and two feet on the ground."

 

[BlindFaith]

You have to assume he didn't know.

I don't know if he really knew or not, honestly. I think he figured it out or at least started explaining it better later.

As I said before, if only AR 15.95 was in there and all the other case plays were not, you'd have a better case. If your assumption that the control element means any act.

But if it did really mean that, then first, why not just say that and second, it basically eliminates they need for the going to the ground rule. Because technically you can even say that a receiver who dives for a ball and makes no move could satisfy the time element just by being in the air some amount of time. This is exactly why I first thought that AR 15 was in direct conflict. And honestly I even briefly thought my whole view of the rule was wrong.

But using the KISS method lead me down to trying to figure out what they really meant. Because surely they wouldn't put in a case play that is the complete opposite of an actual rule. And we can agree that the rule is the rule and a case play just tries to clarify the rule. So that means AR15 can not mean any act.

What it does do is to show an official how to identify time for a player going to the ground.

8.22 and 8.13 give specific examples of an act plus lunge.

 

[percyhoward]

This is from "How the NFL will (try to) rewrite the catch rule"

Fox Sports analyst Dean Blandino listened to numerous proposals during two separate efforts to rewrite the catch rule when he was the NFL's senior vice president of officiating from 2013 to 2017. Based on the clues Mara and others have provided, here's how Blandino said he would word the pending proposal:

"If a receiver has control, has two feet or another body part down and then clearly performs an act common to the game -- and you define that act, whether that's reaching the ball out for additional yardage, whether it's tucking the ball away, whatever it is -- and he clearly performs that act common to the game, then any subsequent loss of control does not make the pass incomplete.

"By performing an act common to the game, you have demonstrated possession and completed the catch. I think that's the easiest way to make those plays catches."
​

Gee what a concept. He suggests going back to the way it worked in 2014, without mentioning that this is exactly how it worked in 2014.

 

[percyhoward]

I don't know if he really knew or not, honestly. I think he figured it out or at least started explaining it better later.

As I said before, if only AR 15.95 was in there and all the other case plays were not, you'd have a better case. If your assumption that the control element means any act.

But if it did really mean that, then first, why not just say that and second, it basically eliminates they need for the going to the ground rule. Because technically you can even say that a receiver who dives for a ball and makes no move could satisfy the time element just by being in the air some amount of time.

No. The time element comes after control and two feet down. Read what I posted above, and tell me if you think the rule change Blandino describes would necessitate getting rid of Item 1.

It wouldn't. Item 1 would still be as necessary as it was in 2014, before "upright long enough" came along.

 

[BlindFaith]

From "What Constitutes a Catch" by Dean Blandino Nov 21, 2017

The 2004 Competition Committee Report stated the following: “Historically, if a player secures legal possession long enough to perform another act common to football, contact by a defender causing the ball to come loose is ruled either (1) a completed pass and fumble or (2) a completed pass and the receiver/runner is down by contact. Having possession long enough to perform another act common to football is defined as controlling the ball long enough to be able to intentionally hand it, pitch it, or pass it. This has been a good guideline over many years, which on-field officials should continue to use.”

During this time, the concept of a “second act” came into play. This was apparently derived from the concept of “long enough to perform another act common to football.” The thinking was if the receiver could perform a second act with the football, such as reaching it out for the line to gain, that he was demonstrating possession.

But Joel Bussert, the league office’s long-time head liaison to the Committee, believed this standard had not been applied correctly and had caused endless confusion about the definition of a catch.

Any act performed while airborne is irrelevant. The whole point of the “common act” concept was to establish a standard for how long a player must hold on to the ball after he hits the ground. If the requirement for “time enough to perform a common act” can be fulfilled before the player has established a firm grip, control and two feet on the ground, there will never be a standard requirement for how long the player must hold on to the ball to complete a catch.

As a result of its study, the Committee recommended (and the membership confirmed) adding to the playing rules the language it had previously expressed in its 2004 report, and a clarifying note that it was not necessary that the player commit such an act, provided he maintained control of the ball long enough to do so.

That is the key point when discussing the Bryant play, or any other play where the receiver goes to the ground to make a catch. When a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass, he must maintain control of the ball after his initial contact with the ground. If he doesn’t hold onto the ball when he hits the ground, the pass is incomplete. It doesn’t matter if he stretches the ball out on his way to the ground. He must survive the ground, and that is the bright line for the on-field officials to rule on.​

Here's the problem with the connection he makes to the Dez play: Dez wasn't airborne when he reached for the goal line. Not even close. The "common act" happened well after Dez had "established a firm grip, control and two feet on the ground."

Still, and this goes back to the two questions I asked you before that you don't ever answer.

1. When do you think Dez started going to the ground
2. When do you think he completed the catch process

And unless you read what you posted to mean that when his first foot hit the ground it completed the going to the ground aspect, then he must maintain possession when his full body hits the ground.

And if you do think when his first foot fulfilled the going to the ground, then did Dez go to the ground twice? Because after his first foot, he still ended up on the ground. And I see no way anyone can logically even try to argue that a player can go to the ground twice during the course of trying to complete a pass.

 

[percyhoward]

Blandino, March 2018

"If a receiver has control, has two feet or another body part down and then clearly performs an act common to the game, then any subsequent loss of control does not make the pass incomplete.​

Think about how ridiculous this is. If the player has already completed the catch process, why would they have to add wording that says that nothing subsequent to that can make the pass incomplete?

 

[blindzebra]

I don't know if he really knew or not, honestly. I think he figured it out or at least started explaining it better later.

As I said before, if only AR 15.95 was in there and all the other case plays were not, you'd have a better case. If your assumption that the control element means any act.

But if it did really mean that, then first, why not just say that and second, it basically eliminates they need for the going to the ground rule. Because technically you can even say that a receiver who dives for a ball and makes no move could satisfy the time element just by being in the air some amount of time. This is exactly why I first thought that AR 15 was in direct conflict. And honestly I even briefly thought my whole view of the rule was wrong.

But using the KISS method lead me down to trying to figure out what they really meant. Because surely they wouldn't put in a case play that is the complete opposite of an actual rule. And we can agree that the rule is the rule and a case play just tries to clarify the rule. So that means AR15 can not mean any act.

What it does do is to show an official how to identify time for a player going to the ground.

8.22 and 8.13 give specific examples of an act plus lunge.

No what you did was work backwards in order to confirm an assumption.

A.R. 15.95 is an act common to the game, not THE ACT common to the game. It is without a doubt linked to the rule covering acts common to the game, 8.1.3.c and the rule says any act. Everything said prior to the Dez play confirms that any act does in fact end Item 1 that really is the keep it simple stupid principle. It is what the rule said, it is what the case plays said, and it is what Blandino himself said.

I love how you say that the case plays are opposite of what the rules say, they aren't your interpretation is what is wrong. You started out thinking Item 1 trumps 8.1.3 and it doesn't. There is absolutely no language in the rules that said so, it was all things said AFTER the overturn that said this. Those comments completely contradict every explanation that occurred prior to the Dez play.

If you really want to use the KISS principle, here it is:
1. The rules as written in 2014 support it being a catch.
2. The overturn was incorrect.
3. Everything said and done since has been to make the mistake go away.

 

[BlindFaith]

No. The time element comes after control and two feet down. Read what I posted above, and tell me if you think the rule change Blandino describes would necessitate getting rid of Item 1.

It wouldn't. Item 1 would still be as necessary as it was in 2014, before "upright long enough" came along.

What he is saying is to get rid of the very rule that requires a player to maintain possession of the ball through contact with the ground if the player is trying to complete the catch process while falling.

Same thing we are hearing from Goodell. Remove the going to the ground rule. Meaning that if a player is falling and as long as they complete the catch process, they Don't have to maintain possession. You know, what you are saying could have happened in 2014. Notice they aren't saying - hey, to get this right we just need to change the rule back to what it was in 2014.

They instead are looking at removing the very rule that you think can be over ruled by a use case.

 

[blindzebra]

Still, and this goes back to the two questions I asked you before that you don't ever answer.

1. When do you think Dez started going to the ground
2. When do you think he completed the catch process

And unless you read what you posted to mean that when his first foot hit the ground it completed the going to the ground aspect, then he must maintain possession when his full body hits the ground.

And if you do think when his first foot fulfilled the going to the ground, then did Dez go to the ground twice? Because after his first foot, he still ended up on the ground. And I see no way anyone can logically even try to argue that a player can go to the ground twice during the course of trying to complete a pass.

GOING TO THE GROUND ENDS WHEN THE PLAYER BECOMES A RUNNER!!!!!!!!!!

 

[blindzebra]

What he is saying is to get rid of the very rule that requires a player to maintain possession of the ball through contact with the ground if the player is trying to complete the catch process while falling.

Same thing we are hearing from Goodell. Remove the going to the ground rule. Meaning that if a player is falling and as long as they complete the catch process, they Don't have to maintain possession. You know, what you are saying could have happened in 2014. Notice they aren't saying - hey, to get this right we just need to change the rule back to what it was in 2014.

They instead are looking at removing the very rule that you think can be over ruled by a use case.

NO HE IS SAYING GO BACK TO HOW IT WAS BEFORE I INCORRECTLY OVERTURNED IT AND CHANGED THE RULE TO MAKE IT SEEM CORRECT!!!!!