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

[percyhoward]

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.

Why did you change question #1?

1. When do you think Dez went to the ground?

I answered #2 on Feb 24. You said, "Sorry I didn't read most of your rehashed post."

 

[BlindFaith]

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?

He doesn't say anything about going to the ground there. You are trying to say over and over that everything trumps going to the ground. It doesn't. Going to the ground is its own specific rule and has its own enforcement. Just like a player going out of bounds.

 

[percyhoward]

Notice they aren't saying - hey, to get this right we just need to change the rule back to what it was in 2014.

Shocker.

 

[BlindFaith]

Why did you change question #1?


I answered #2 on Feb 24. You said, "Sorry I didn't read most of your rehashed post."

Yeah, I probably did ignore it then. Guess I was just looking for "when he reached it"

And I did ask it again in this thread a few pages back.

I don't think I changed it. I'm not going back to try and find it. Can you just answer it now since you either didn't read the post a few pages back or you just didn't want to answer.

 

[percyhoward]

Explain the point you were trying to make here.

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.

 

[blindzebra]

I posted this before but I will add it again.

Officiating is about understanding the spirit and intent of the rule.

What was the intent of Items 1, 2, and 3?

Was it to replace 8.1.3.a.b.c, or was it to have a criteria for situations where 8.1.3.a.b.c cannot be completed? In Items 2 and 3 part c of 8.1.3 cannot happen. You cannot perform an act common to the game OOB or in the end zone.

But what about Item 1? Can't a player get a one or both feet down while going to the ground? Can't a player do something that is an act common to the game while falling? It is stupid to make a rule that's purpose was to add a criteria when 8.13.a.b.c doesn't happen and then say, too bad you didn't hold onto the ball when they do complete 8.1.3.a.b.c. That makes zero sense, and is clearly not the intent that Item 1 was added to do.

 

[percyhoward]

I don't think I changed it. I'm not going back to try and find it.

You changed it. You don't have to go back and look, it's right here.
https://cowboyszone.com/threads/com...-caught-it-merged.397355/page-85#post-7956403
Since I already answered #2, here's the answer to both versions of #1: His right forearm went to the ground when the ball was at about the 6-inch line. I don't know when he started to fall. Maybe after the trip, maybe before. Not that it mattered.

 

[BlindFaith]

Explain the point you were trying to make here.

Time can complete the catch process, right?

So if you think any act that completes the catch process can over rule going to the ground, technically a player who dives for a ball, then gets a knee down, but makes no other observable act but still controls the ball some amount of time (this is where you need your magic stop watch) it should be ruled a catch, even if the player loses the ball when they ultimately hit the ground. Right?

This specific case play is exactly what AR15 and 8.12 and 8.13 address.

How to identify if the time element has happened. They look for a lunge or reach as Blandino has explained. And when he says that the lunge or reach was not clear enough, what he is trying to say is that the player had not gathered themselves (brace or keeps balance) prior to the lunge/reach. And it specifically says that the lunge is not part of the catch process. It is NOT the act that completes the process. It IS the act that is used to verify if the gathering had happened. The time element.

 

[BlindFaith]

You changed it. You don't have to go back and look, it's right here.
Since I already answered #2, here's the answer to both versions of #1: His right forearm went to the ground when the ball was at about the 6-inch line. I don't know when he started to fall. Maybe after the trip, maybe before. Not that it mattered.

Fair enough. I can see how that could be seen as two different things. When I said went to the ground it was in the context of starting to go to the ground.

I do need to make sure I use very precise language.

 

[percyhoward]

They look for a lunge or reach as Blandino has explained. And when he says that the lunge or reach was not clear enough, what he is trying to say is that the player had not gathered themselves (brace or keeps balance) prior to the lunge/reach.

So why was he signing a different tune before 1/12/15?

Also, why is he now saying Dez was still airborne when he reached for the goal line?

 

[BlindFaith]

Since I already answered #2, here's the answer to both versions of #1: His right forearm went to the ground when the ball was at about the 6-inch line.

I don't know when he started to fall. Maybe after the trip, maybe before. Not that it mattered.

So this distinction is the crux of the debate.

If a player goes to the ground IN the act of catching a pass

The way the NFL interprets this is that if at some point during the catch process a player is deemed to be going to the ground

So you said Dez completed the catch process with the lunge.

You think he started to fall or go to the ground after the trip.

He secured the ball, got two feet down, "was tripped" , started going to the ground and then lunged to complete the catch process. You agree?

See how he started to go to the ground IN the act of catching the pass?

 

[percyhoward]

These quotes are word for word. Look how Blandino has changed his story over time:

September 2013
"The process of the catch is a three-part process: control, two feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all three 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 reaching for the goal line, so this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass."

March 2018
"The rule, the current rule until it gets changed, the football move doesn't supersede the fact that he has to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. Now what they're discussing right now is saying that if you do perform a football move, even if you lose the ball when you hit the ground, if you perform that football move, it'll be a catch. That's the change they're discussing. The football move really didn't have anything to do with the rule at the time of the Dez play, the Calvin Johnson play, or any of the other plays."

 

[percyhoward]

You think he started to fall or go to the ground after the trip.

Read this again.

I don't know when he started to fall. Maybe after the trip, maybe before. Not that it mattered.

 

[blindzebra]

Time can complete the catch process, right?

So if you think any act that completes the catch process can over rule going to the ground, technically a player who dives for a ball, then gets a knee down, but makes no other observable act but still controls the ball some amount of time (this is where you need your magic stop watch) it should be ruled a catch, even if the player loses the ball when they ultimately hit the ground. Right?

This specific case play is exactly what AR15 and 8.12 and 8.13 address.

How to identify if the time element has happened. They look for a lunge or reach as Blandino has explained. And when he says that the lunge or reach was not clear enough, what he is trying to say is that the player had not gathered themselves (brace or keeps balance) prior to the lunge/reach. And it specifically says that the lunge is not part of the catch process. It is NOT the act that completes the process. It IS the act that is used to verify if the gathering had happened. The time element.

Wow, first it is Blandino did explain it right, then it was he didn't say that it now reach is included with the magical + lunge, just one major problem. In that video neither Johnson or Thomas gathered, braced, or kept balance. In both it came down to control, two feet and a reach.

But I guess if you are just making up rules, making up what was said in a video is just par for the course.

 

[blindzebra]

These quotes are word for word. Look how Blandino has changed his story over time:

September 2013
"The process of the catch is a three-part process: control, two feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all three 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 reaching for the goal line, so this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass."

March 2018
"The rule, the current rule until it gets changed, the football move doesn't supersede the fact that he has to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. Now what they're discussing right now is saying that if you do perform a football move, even if you lose the ball when you hit the ground, if you perform that football move, it'll be a catch. That's the change they're discussing. The football move really didn't have anything to do with the rule at the time of the Dez play, the Calvin Johnson play, or any of the other plays."

It is a waste of time Percy.

I completely destroyed BlindFaith and Marcus yesterday, BF says he put me on ignore and Marcus disappeared like he always does when he has been owned. I am sure he will pop back in late today or tomorrow after enough time has passed so he can claim he corrected me and I did not answer his stupid questions.

 

[blindzebra]

So this distinction is the crux of the debate.

If a player goes to the ground IN the act of catching a pass

The way the NFL interprets this is that if at some point during the catch process a player is deemed to be going to the ground

So you said Dez completed the catch process with the lunge.

You think he started to fall or go to the ground after the trip.

He secured the ball, got two feet down, "was tripped" , started going to the ground and then lunged to complete the catch process. You agree?

See how he started to go to the ground IN the act of catching the pass?

does not matter because when he lunged he was a runner and that was no longer in the process of the catch...geesh you still don't understand the damn rule.

 

[BlindFaith]

So why was he signing a different tune before 1/12/15?

Also, why is he now saying Dez was still airborne when he reached for the goal line?

I'm not hear to defend the language he used. He's an idiot and had no right being in that position. But that aside, and this is the LAST time I look at or comment on any video clip of the idiot. Let's break down what he said.

1. Calvin is going to the ground in the process of making a catch.

He has clearly acknowledged here he is going to the ground.

2. Process of the catch is a three part process. Control, two feet down, then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game.

Here he defines how a catch is completed for a player not going to the ground. This is where his lack of communication is on full display. But he still clarifies it for those who may not know.

3. If you can perform all three parts, in that order, you have a catch.

Again, clarifying the catch process for a player not going to the ground.

4. If not, and you are going to the ground, you must control the ball when you hit the ground.

What he means here is if you have not completed the catch process and are deemed to be going to the ground, you must control the ball when you hit the ground.

5. He did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goaline,

What he means here is that he did not have two feet down as part of the catch process he described above, which is the catch process for a player not going to the ground. Meaning he was not still on his feet when he attempted the reach/lunge. This goes directly to 8.12 and 8.13

6. So this is all one process

He means that everything that Calvin did was all one process of going to the ground so he has to maintain control

I would not have communicated the rules definition that way. But I'm here to explain the rules and not to explain why Blandino is a horrible communicator.

 

[BlindFaith]

Also, why is he now saying Dez was still airborne when he reached for the goal line?

I've never heard him say he was still airborne when Dez reached. But if he did, he's still an idiot.

Unless he meant he was still in the process of going to the ground. And to be fair, this wouldn't be the first time you posted a direct quote out of context or even just factually in correct.

But I'm not watching another video. Post his exact quote in its entirety and I will have a look.

 

[blindzebra]

I'm not hear to defend the language he used. He's an idiot and had no right being in that position. But that aside, and this is the LAST time I look at or comment on any video clip of the idiot. Let's break down what he said.

1. Calvin is going to the ground in the process of making a catch.

He has clearly acknowledged here he is going to the ground.

2. Process of the catch is a three part process. Control, two feet down, then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game.

Here he defines how a catch is completed for a player not going to the ground. This is where his lack of communication is on full display. But he still clarifies it for those who may not know.

3. If you can perform all three parts, in that order, you have a catch.

Again, clarifying the catch process for a player not going to the ground.

4. If not, and you are going to the ground, you must control the ball when you hit the ground.

What he means here is if you have not completed the catch process and are deemed to be going to the ground, you must control the ball when you hit the ground.

5. He did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goaline,

What he means here is that he did not have two feet down as part of the catch process he described above, which is the catch process for a player not going to the ground. Meaning he was not still on his feet when he attempted the reach/lunge. This goes directly to 8.12 and 8.13

6. So this is all one process

He means that everything that Calvin did was all one process of going to the ground so he has to maintain control

I would not have communicated the rules definition that way. But I'm here to explain the rules and not to explain why Blandino is a horrible communicator.

Insults and lies. I posted the transcript of exactly what was said.

Gotta love it when Blandino says what they want it is fine. When he doesn't it is because he is a bad communicator....guy was a stand up comic and is doing tv commentary now, so yeah he can't communicate.

 

[BlindFaith]

Read this again.

I went with one of them and it doesn't matter which one. Plug in any point. Unless you never thought Dez was going to the ground.

And the point is, is that it does matter.