Discussion in 'Overtime Zone' started by ksg811, Feb 27, 2018.
Translation...post what you want I will lie about it anyway.
Think about the absurdity of that.
Why go into the catch process at all if the catch process doesn't determine whether a player is going to the ground?
Then that's when he would say, "He wasn't upright before he lunged." But he doesn't say that.
He says, "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"
That's the same as, "This is an incomplete pass because he did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line."
Which is the same as, "If he'd had both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line, it would have been complete."
Explain which of those logical conclusions does not make sense to you.
So folks who don't know what a catch is?
Like the person who asked "Just what is a catch? Because no one seems to know"
And some of this goes to the people being paid to report and commentate on the game putting in zero effort to read and understand the rules.
If she had, she could have framed the question something like "Can you explain the differences for a player to complete a catch if one is upright and one is going to the ground."
The segment was called "Explaining the Calvin Johnson Rule." Its specific purpose was to educate fans about Item 1 and when it should be applied.
Are either of your implied equivalents not true?
If a player never gets two feet down or another body part down, it's incomplete, no?
And if he was upright when he had both feet down and reached, it would have been complete. No?
So they are both true.
Then she should have not asked what is a catch. Agreed?
Maybe just what is a catch only for a player going to the ground.
Yes, they're both true. That's my point.
Correct. This relates to the play how exactly?
And since we can spend the next three years guessing at what he meant or didn't mean. I'd suggest all further Blandino translations go to Blandino.
LOL. Oh good, so you agree with Blandino then.
Do you honestly think he had no idea what he was going to say ahead of time, and that it all depended on the host's question? This wasn't a press conference, it was a prepared presentation.
I can listen and understand that there's no logical difference between these three statements.
"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"
"This is an incomplete pass because he did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line."
"If he'd had both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line, it would have been complete."
What do you mean "agree?"
And it relates to your equivalents exercise. Which relates relates to the other one of yours. Which relates to what Blandino said.
This is your game we're playing. I guess you didn't get the answer you were looking for?
Maybe we should try more hypotheticals instead?
This is what the problem is, they are taking Blandino's claims after the Dez play and working backwards. All the time fully believing that what was a catch under 2014 rules is vastly different than rules in 2017.
The Jessie James play was nearly identical to the Thomas play in 2013, catch, two steps, went to the ground and reached. One was complete under pre-2015 rules, the other wasn't post-2015 rules. They want proof of the rule changing in 2015 there it is.
They also need a large dose of common sense, which is why I keep posting this:
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.
Where did I extrapolate?
I honestly don't know what or how he thinks. And have no idea if that was scripted and prepped for or if he was actually trying to answer her question.
Either way, for any argument you make about what you think he meant I can present an equally valid argument for what I think he meant.
The only difference is if you go by yours, he completely disregards the rules and if you go by mine, it follows exactly what the rules say.
How bout bringing up the other 10 or so videos where he does actually explain it better? But nah, that wouldn't fit your agenda too well.
He can't agree because if he does, that means they got the Dez call wrong, and then changed the rule in 2015, and their entire argument goes poof.
Or we are right and you are wrong, and the Dez overturn was incorrect. Funny how you leave out that option.
You agree with my understanding of what he meant? And really, don't bother. If you want to hinge your entire argument on one video that, using your interpretation of what he said, then knock yourself out. Ask Blandino.
Seriously, tweet him your interpretation of the rules and of what he said. See what he says. He's not too busy now, so maybe he'll reply.
Or even better, get him to come here and rule. We can summarize our arguments so he doesn't have to read through 200 pages.
@Reality could even have an event. Which he should try to do anyways, having guests come in and have open dialog for like an hour or so. But I digress.
Really? Taking one example, equating it to a second then equating that to a third. What would you like to call it?