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

[percyhoward]

Any argument you make about what you think he meant I can present an equally valid argument for what I think he meant.

Time to start doing so. If he really meant that the player had to be upright, why didn't he just say so? If he really meant that the reach couldn't complete the catch process, why did he say the opposite -- both in the video we're discussing and on the day of the overturn?

How but bringing up the other 10 or so videos where he does actually explain it better? .

Post a link to ONE of those 10 or so videos that appeared before the 2015 rule change.

 

[percyhoward]

Really? Taking one example, equating it to a second then equating that to a third. What would you like to call it?

They all say the same thing. Which one of them do you think describes something different?

 

[BlindFaith]

Time to start doing so. If he really meant that the player had to be upright, why didn't he just say so? If he really meant that the reach couldn't complete the catch process, why did he say the opposite -- both in the video we're discussing and on the day of the overturn?


Post a link to ONE of those 10 or so videos that appeared before the 2015 rule change.

I did. You just didn't like my version, much like how I don't like yours. Only Blandino knows what he really meant. Ask him.

There are plenty of videos in the other thread. Maybe even this one.

Marcus keeps bookmarks, maybe he can share a few.

 

[BlindFaith]

They all say the same thing. Which one of them do you think describes something different?

It doesn't matter. I gave my explanation and you gave yours. No one is going to win this unless Blandino tells us what he meant.

Can we agree on that?

 

[blindzebra]

They all say the same thing. Which one of them do you think describes something different?

None do, he has nothing pre-2015 to use. He is stuck and doing all he can to get out of it without admitting to being wrong.

 

[percyhoward]

Only Blandino knows what he really meant. Ask him.

Oh I have, but while I'm waiting for his answer, I have asked you these questions.

If he really meant that the player had to be upright, why didn't he just say so? If he really meant that the reach couldn't complete the catch process, why did he say the opposite -- both in the video we're discussing and on the day of the overturn?

 

[blindzebra]

It doesn't matter. I gave my explanation and you gave yours. No one is going to win this unless Blandino tells us what he meant.

Can we agree on that?

No, because one side has proof, and your side has make believe based on lies Blandino told to cover his butt.

 

[blindzebra]

Oh I have, but while I'm waiting for his answer, I have asked you these questions.

If he really meant that the player had to be upright, why didn't he just say so? If he really meant that the reach couldn't complete the catch process, why did he say the opposite -- both in the video we're discussing and on the day of the overturn?

He isn't going to answer and if he does it will be Blandino can understand a rule but not explain it...it is all part of running away from being found wrong.

 

[percyhoward]

No one is going to win this unless Blandino tells us what he meant.

That's what you say, but what do you mean?

 

[blindzebra]

Just for the sake of accuracy in the face of all the blatant lying going on here is the transcript:

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 for the goal line SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass.

To further illustrate this he also showed a play that was ruled a completion where Julius Thomas was going to the ground and did get control, two feet, and a reach making it a catch.

Here is the link to the video:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

The catch part starts at 1:18 of the video.

 

[BlindFaith]

Oh I have, but while I'm waiting for his answer, I have asked you these questions.

If he really meant that the player had to be upright, why didn't he just say so? If he really meant that the reach couldn't complete the catch process, why did he say the opposite -- both in the video we're discussing and on the day of the overturn?

I gave you what I think he meant and why he said what he said.

I can't answer why he didn't say something else. Only he knows.

But my explanation of what he meant backs up the rules. Yours does not.

So let's get back to the rules and enough trying to get into Blandinos mind on one example.

Dez gets possession, two feet down and then lunges.

Where does he start going to the ground?

Because that is the rule.

 

[BlindFaith]

That's what you say, but what do you mean?

It means what it says. Do you need me to clarify what it says?

 

[BlindFaith]

Oh I have, but while I'm waiting for his answer, I have asked you these questions.

If he really meant that the player had to be upright, why didn't he just say so? If he really meant that the reach couldn't complete the catch process, why did he say the opposite -- both in the video we're discussing and on the day of the overturn?

When did you last try to get ahold of him?

 

[blindzebra]

Oh I have, but while I'm waiting for his answer, I have asked you these questions.

If he really meant that the player had to be upright, why didn't he just say so? If he really meant that the reach couldn't complete the catch process, why did he say the opposite -- both in the video we're discussing and on the day of the overturn?

I tweeted him 8.12 several times, he won't answer it, but he will tweet #dezcaughtit after every controversial catch play happens.

 

[percyhoward]

It means what it says.

Unless Blandino says it, then it means something else.

 

[BlindFaith]

Unless Blandino says it, then it means something else.

No, it means what it says. Unless you are predisposed to interpret it in a way that fits your agenda. And with that interpretation contradicting the rule book, other experts and the committee that wrote the rules.

 

[percyhoward]

No, it means what it says.

We all mean what we say.

But one of us has to say that Blandino didn't mean what he said.

 

[BlindFaith]

We all mean what we say.

But one of us has to say that Blandino didn't mean what he said.

No, some people don't mean what they say. It's called lying.

And Blandino could mean something neither of us has said. We are assuming that one of our interpretations are correct.

 

[blindzebra]

No, some people don't mean what they say. It's called lying.

And Blandino could mean something neither of us has said. We are assuming that one of our interpretations are correct.

Or he meant exactly what he said and it ruins your theory. Nobody can claim that what he said about the Johnson play, especially by including the Thomas play, means anything other than Item 1 ends if you complete the catch process.

 

[percyhoward]

No, some people don't mean what they say. It's called lying.

Lying's no exception. When you mean to lie, you tell a lie.

And Blandino could mean something neither of us has said. We are assuming that one of our interpretations are correct.

I'm assuming he meant what he said. You're saying he meant something else.