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

[BlindFaith]

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


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

Pathological liars don't.

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

We could play this game all day...

 

[BlindFaith]

Pathological liars don't.

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

We could play this game all day...

And you're also assuming the rule book is wrong. You're assuming they changed the rules to cover up. You're assuming anyone that could be considered an expert is wrong.

You know what happens when you *** u me...

 

[blindzebra]

And you're also assuming the rule book is wrong. You're assuming they changed the rules to cover up. You're assuming anyone that could be considered an expert is wrong.

You know what happens when you *** u me...

No, you are making incorrect assumptions of what the 2014 rules said.

The fact that upright long enough was never an element of the catch rules prior to 2015, along with the blatant contradiction it has to what Blandino said in 2013 and just after the Dez play, and the case book plays where none of the players were upright long enough prior to beginning to go to the ground, proves that the rule changed.

Lastly, you are basing your entire argument on what Blandino has said, his explanations since the Dez play, his saying 2015 was just a clarification, even though nothing in the 2014 rules or case plays agrees with his explanations or clarification claim, it is golden and correct. Yet you call him an idiot at every turn, and dismiss the 2013 and post-game comments that prove our argument, as just a bad explanation. Well which is it? Is he an idiot that does not understand the rules well enough to articulate an explanation, or a rules expert above reproach? Because it can't be both.

 

[Kevinicus]

And you're also assuming the rule book is wrong. You're assuming they changed the rules to cover up. You're assuming anyone that could be considered an expert is wrong.

You know what happens when you *** u me...

Answer this question...why, prior to the Dez play did the NFL's rulings on plays use an interpretation where going to the ground meant hitting the ground?

 

[percyhoward]

I'm assuming he meant what he said too.

No, my friend. I'm the one assuming he meant what he said. You're doing exactly the opposite. You're twisting his words to fit what you believe. It's like you think your English is better than Blandino's, and you have to interpret.

Blandino 2013:
"Johnson did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line."
You 3/10:
What he means here is that he was not still on his feet when he attempted the reach/lunge.

Blandino 2014:
“The official on the field ruled that the player had the ball long enough to be a runner, and if it’s not clear and obvious that he was not a runner, then the call on the field must stand.”
You 2/11:
There's a reason why Blandino was fired. He can't explain for shyte. The reason it was complete was because he maintained possession while contacting the ground.

Blandino 1/11/15:
"In order for it to be a football move, it's got to be more obvious than that. Reaching with two hands, extending for the goal line."
You 2/24:
I do agree that Blandino butchered his original explanation and didn't clarify that the reach or lunge was only applicable after FIRST gathering themselves.

Blandino is the guy who made the call that you're defending. The things he says should enforce and support your views. You should -- as you said -- assume that he meant every word he said. You should not have to further explain (and in some cases, alter) what he said in any way. That makes it look like neither one of you knows what you're talking about.

He should have clearly known from the start why it wasn't a catch.

 

[BlindFaith]

No, my friend. I'm the one assuming he meant what he said. You're doing exactly the opposite. You're twisting his words to fit what you believe. It's like you think your English is better than Blandino's, and you have to interpret.

Blandino 2013:
"Johnson did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line."
You 3/10:
What he means here is that he was not still on his feet when he attempted the reach/lunge.

Blandino 2014:
“The official on the field ruled that the player had the ball long enough to be a runner, and if it’s not clear and obvious that he was not a runner, then the call on the field must stand.”
You 2/11:
There's a reason why Blandino was fired. He can't explain for shyte. The reason it was complete was because he maintained possession while contacting the ground.

Blandino 1/11/15:
"In order for it to be a football move, it's got to be more obvious than that. Reaching with two hands, extending for the goal line."
You 2/24:
I do agree that Blandino butchered his original explanation and didn't clarify that the reach or lunge was only applicable after FIRST gathering themselves.

Blandino is the guy who made the call that you're defending. The things he says should enforce and support your views. You should -- as you said -- assume that he meant every word he said. You should not have to further explain (and in some cases, alter) what he said in any way. That makes it look like neither one of you knows what you're talking about.

But see, it doesn't work that way. I easily provided a clear explanation of what he meant. Just as you have. Yours isn't right just because you say it is.

And I didn't twist anything. I quoted his words and gave them a meaning. You just don't like that I did. Because this one video is where all your hopes and dreams lay.

Oh, how but that question you don't ever answer.

Dez had possession, two feet down and lunged. When did Dez start going to the ground?

 

[blindzebra]

No, my friend. I'm the one assuming he meant what he said. You're doing exactly the opposite. You're twisting his words to fit what you believe. It's like you think your English is better than Blandino's, and you have to interpret.

Blandino 2013:
"Johnson did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line."
You 3/10:
What he means here is that he was not still on his feet when he attempted the reach/lunge.

Blandino 2014:
“The official on the field ruled that the player had the ball long enough to be a runner, and if it’s not clear and obvious that he was not a runner, then the call on the field must stand.”
You 2/11:
There's a reason why Blandino was fired. He can't explain for shyte. The reason it was complete was because he maintained possession while contacting the ground.

Blandino 1/11/15:
"In order for it to be a football move, it's got to be more obvious than that. Reaching with two hands, extending for the goal line."
You 2/24:
I do agree that Blandino butchered his original explanation and didn't clarify that the reach or lunge was only applicable after FIRST gathering themselves.

Blandino is the guy who made the call that you're defending. The things he says should enforce and support your views. You should -- as you said -- assume that he meant every word he said. You should not have to further explain (and in some cases, alter) what he said in any way. That makes it look like neither one of you knows what you're talking about.

BlindFaith doesn't know what he is talking about, Blandino does he just made the wrong call or chose not to make the correct call and has covered his butt ever since.

Percy, everything they accused us of and swore up and down we could not show any support for, we have. We have shown the rules and case plays. We have rule support on our side. We even have their boy Blandino'd own words of not only showing the mistake in GB, but of the obvious altering of the rule in 2015. I mean can they explain the difference between that Julius Thomas play in 2013 and the Jessie James play in 2017/18. Both had control, went to the ground, got two feet down, reached and lost it. In 2013 it was a TD by Blandino's own words, in a 2017/18 game it was incomplete, but yeah the rule never changed because upright long enough was just a clarification.

 

[percyhoward]

I easily provided a clear explanation of what he meant. Just as you have.

No. I've only quoted Blandino. I haven't changed anything he's said.

And I didn't twist anything. I quoted his words and gave them a meaning.

His words already have a meaning. All words have meaning. That's what makes them words. Words don't need you to come along and give meaning to them.

Oh, how but that question you don't ever answer.

Twice now.

 

[BlindFaith]

No. I've only quoted Blandino. I haven't changed anything he's said.


His words already have a meaning. All words have meaning. That's what makes them words. Words don't need you to come along and give meaning to them.


Twice now.

But that's what you are doing. Words matter. Is he an awful communicator? Yes. Are the rules written the best they could be? No.

But I'd bet you everything I own that my explanation is what he meant. Not yours.

Words are just words without context. I feel great can mean several things.

But the context you refuse to accept is the context of what the actual rules are.

And how's that answer coming alonh to my question?

 

[blindzebra]

But see, it doesn't work that way. I easily provided a clear explanation of what he meant. Just as you have. Yours isn't right just because you say it is.

And I didn't twist anything. I quoted his words and gave them a meaning. You just don't like that I did. Because this one video is where all your hopes and dreams lay.

Oh, how but that question you don't ever answer.

Dez had possession, two feet down and lunged. When did Dez start going to the ground?

It does not matter. Blandino's words in 2013, the case plays, the intent of Item 1, and 8.1.3.c all say so, and it should have been a catch.

 

[blindzebra]

But that's what you are doing. Words matter. Is he an awful communicator? Yes. Are the rules written the best they could be? No.

But I'd bet you everything I own that my explanation is what he meant. Not yours.

Words are just words without context. I feel great can mean several things.

But the context you refuse to accept is the context of what the actual rules are.

And how's that answer coming alonh to my question?

The rules that you are misinterpreting.

 

[percyhoward]

I'd bet you everything I own that my explanation is what he meant. Not yours.

We both know that his explanation is what he meant.

 

[BlindFaith]

No. I've only quoted Blandino. I haven't changed anything he's said.


His words already have a meaning. All words have meaning. That's what makes them words. Words don't need you to come along and give meaning to them.


Twice now.

Maybe after the trip, maybe before. Not that it really matters.

That was your answer? For someone who is so sure he knows the rules, you don't even know when he started to fall.

It doesn't matter. smh

Do you have any different questions because I'm getting bored with this.

Keep believing what you'd like. No skin off my back. But if even one person who's read all of this debate, which there may not be, at least understands the rule better, then great.

Claim victory if you'd like. I've ignored the others, they are all probably running around like school girls getting ready for the prom.

I kept this up with you because I do respect what you bring to the table. I certainly don't think you're stupid. I think you just see something that isn't there. We've all been there where we can't see the forest through the trees.

 

[blindzebra]

We both know that his explanation is what he meant.

Honestly, did you expect any different from these guys? I swear that Blandino could go on air and admit they missed the call and changed the rule to cover it up and they'd still say, there he goes again screwing up what he really meant to say.

 

[BlindFaith]

We both know that his explanation is what he meant.

Here's another question for you.

Does -
Going to the moon

Mean -
Landed on the moon

Just curious since you are so into what things mean.

Then

Does -
Going to the ground

Mean -
Landed on the ground

 

[percyhoward]

Does -
Going to the moon

Mean -
Landed on the moon

The highlight of some astronauts' lives was going to the moon, but the ones who were going to the moon on Apollo 13 never landed there. So the words can mean two different things when used in two different contexts.

There's no reason to think "goes to the ground" meant two different things within the context of the 2014 rule book.


Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout
the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before
he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Item 2: Sideline Catches
If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain
complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

 

[BlindFaith]

The highlight of some astronauts' lives was going to the moon, but the ones who were going to the moon on Apollo 13 never landed there. So the words can mean two different things when used in two different contexts.

There's no reason to think "goes to the ground" meant two different things within the context of the 2014 rule book.


Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout
the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before
he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Item 2: Sideline Catches
If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain
complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

So you think they mean the same thing. Gotcha.

And the goes to the ground for both rules means the same thing. If a player goes out of bounds in the act of catching a pass.

Meaning if they go out of bounds prior to completing the catch process.

And here is Blandino explaining your "rule change" in 2015. Care to take a stab at what he means here?
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...81578/Dean-Blandino-explains-new-rule-changes

 

[BlindFaith]

The highlight of some astronauts' lives was going to the moon, but the ones who were going to the moon on Apollo 13 never landed there. So the words can mean two different things when used in two different contexts.

There's no reason to think "goes to the ground" meant two different things within the context of the 2014 rule book.


Item 1: Player Going to the Ground.
If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout
the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before
he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Item 2: Sideline Catches
If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain
complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

And here is more explaining what he means. I posted this before. This is just from a few days ago. But the link is banned. It's sportsday.dallknews

Here's a snippet.

Blandino: 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. But if they change the rule and say OK, if you perform a football move, and you go to the ground and perform a football move, that's still going to be a catch. That would be the change that they're discussing right now.

Blandino: I'm thinking that this was going to be a controversial play because the way the rule is written, this is not a catch. But looking at it, a lot of people are going to look at it and say that should be a catch. Even me? If the rule was different, yes. But I knew it was going to be an issue. I knew it was controversial when it happened because that's the rule, and we had to apply it that way.

So,
1. He was just flat out lying in your smoking gun video
2. He didn't know the rules at the time
or
3. He meant exactly what I said he meant

 

[percyhoward]

Care to take a stab at what he means here?
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...81578/Dean-Blandino-explains-new-rule-changes

What part do you not understand?

"In order to complete a catch, a receiver must clearly become a runner. He does that by gaining control of the ball, touching both feet down and then, after the second foot is down, having the ball long enough to clearly become a runner, which is defined as the ability to ward off or protect himself from impending contact. If, before becoming a runner, a receiver falls to the ground in an attempt to make a catch, he must maintain control of the ball after contacting the ground. If he loses control of the ball after contacting the ground and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. Reaching the ball out before becoming a runner will not trump the requirement to hold onto the ball when you land. When you are attempting to complete a catch, you must put the ball away or protect the ball so it does not come loose."

 

[percyhoward]

1. He was just flat out lying in your smoking gun video
2. He didn't know the rules at the time
or
3. He meant exactly what I said he meant

4. He meant what he said.

He was telling people what the rules were in 2013.