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

[MarcusRock]

You calling me a liar is funny. That is what Pereira said. He said they took the rule too far and that Dez and James did should be a catch.

Not funny. The truth. You're on record lying and now lying about the lie. Just own it.

"He said they broke the rules and that what Dez did was a catch"

 

[Gator88]

lol. OK. So you you think going to the moon means landing on the moon and it was a conspiracy to cover it up. Yep. That's obviously the simplest answer.

As the end result? Yeah, don't you?

 

[BlindFaith]

As the end result? Yeah, don't you?

No. I think the more rational reality is that a bunch of fans, who never read the rules took what looked like something that should have been a catch and started trying to twist the rules to fit their interpretation.

No conspiracy. No rule overhaul. Just emotional over reaction.

I can't help you understand the meaning of the words anymore than what I have already. I can't post more articles from the experts saying it was ruled correctly and there was no change in the rule.

It's your choice to believe what you want. But having that right doesn't make your choice the right one.

 

[MarcusRock]

Don't you worry your little head @blindzebra, your little catch theorist buddies will look the other way concerning your lies. I mean after all, you're peddling their own lies about the rules changing in essence from 2014 to 2015 without providing any additional support whatsoever so they've got your back for that.

Maybe we'll catch up again when they actually release the new rules in the summer when the predictable Dez' no-catch was really a catch conspiracy thread gets created.
Until then, parting is such sweet ownage. LOL.

 

[Kevinicus]

lol. OK. So you you think going to the moon means landing on the moon and it was a conspiracy to cover it up. Yep. That's obviously the simplest answer.

*Sigh* Why can you not comprehend that things can have more than one meaning based on context? Is English your first language?

 

[Kevinicus]

No. I think the more rational reality is that a bunch of fans, who never read the rules took what looked like something that should have been a catch and started trying to twist the rules to fit their interpretation.

No conspiracy. No rule overhaul. Just emotional over reaction.

I can't help you understand the meaning of the words anymore than what I have already. I can't post more articles from the experts saying it was ruled correctly and there was no change in the rule.

It's your choice to believe what you want. But having that right doesn't make your choice the right one.

So. Many. Logical. Fallacies.

 

[BlindFaith]

Don't you worry your little head @blindzebra, your little catch theorist buddies will look the other way concerning your lies. I mean after all, you're peddling their own lies about the rules changing in essence from 2014 to 2015 without providing any additional support whatsoever so they've got your back for that.

Maybe we'll catch up again when they actually release the new rules in the summer when the predictable Dez' no-catch was really a catch conspiracy thread gets created.
Until then, parting is such sweet ownage. LOL.

I think they are planning to release the changes late this month. So keep your bookmarks ready!

 

[blindzebra]

Not funny. The truth. You're on record lying and now lying about the lie. Just own it.

"He said they broke the rules and that what Dez did was a catch"

Yawn, we get the act...troll elsewhere.

 

[MarcusRock]

Yawn, we get the act...troll elsewhere.

Don't be sad because you got owned.

 

[blindzebra]

Don't be sad because you got owned.

Never heard anyone that has destroyed the other side referred to as being owned before...I don't think you have any idea what the term means...pretty much like football rules.

 

[percyhoward]

Another clearly articulated explanation of what going to the ground means.
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-reception-1335451

They think it's simple enough.

Basically what that means is simple. If a player goes to the ground while in the process of making a catch, he must control the ball all the way through until his momentum from the fall ends. If at any point before his momentum stops he loses control of the ball and it touches the ground, the pass is incomplete.

Do you understand that meaning?

You've found a secondary source in which the writer did a good job (in fact, a better job than the primary sources of the rule book and official explanations) of putting Item 1 into his own words. He's not changing any meaning here, just making the rule easier to understand. It's important to note that this is an opinion piece. He's giving his opinion, just like we are now. It's also important that this article was published after the 2015 rule changes, which he discusses in the next few paragraphs after the part you quoted.

Rule Change
"However, the NFL changed the rules regarding what a reception is before the 2015 season. The new rule was intended to clarify the old rule, but instead it has just caused more confusion. The new rule states: "In order to complete a...(quotes new rule)...

More Confusion
This has not helped NFL officials much when it comes to determining whether a forward pass results in an official reception or not. There have been many instances since the new rule took effect that have caused controversy."​

He's pointing out that in 2015, the NFL changed the rules regarding what a reception is. Again, this is an opinion piece, so it's just a secondary source, and as such it's not proof that the rule actually changed. The two primary sources (the league's rule book and its own spokespeople) are in conflict with each other about the rule change. This writer chose to go by the book, which I'd agree was the right choice, because the book shows that the rule changed. And after all, it is the only rule book.


Here's another secondary source putting the rules into his own words, but this one is from before the 2015 rule change. It's from a Detroit writer reacting to Blandino's tutorial "Explaining the Calvin Johnson Rule."

"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," Blandino said. "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 before you hit the ground."

According to Blandino, Johnson began his reach for the goal line prior to getting his second foot down, meaning the receiver had to control the ball once he hit the ground.

Had Johnson's second foot touched down before he initiated his reach, the call on the field would have stood.​

 

[BlindFaith]

You've found a secondary source in which the writer did a good job (in fact, a better job than the primary sources of the rule book and official explanations) of putting Item 1 into his own words. He's not changing any meaning here, just making the rule easier to understand. It's important to note that this is an opinion piece. He's giving his opinion, just like we are now. It's also important that this article was published after the 2015 rule changes, which he discusses in the next few paragraphs after the part you quoted.

Rule Change
"However, the NFL changed the rules regarding what a reception is before the 2015 season. The new rule was intended to clarify the old rule, but instead it has just caused more confusion. The new rule states: "In order to complete a...(quotes new rule)...

More Confusion
This has not helped NFL officials much when it comes to determining whether a forward pass results in an official reception or not. There have been many instances since the new rule took effect that have caused controversy."​

He's pointing out that in 2015, the NFL changed the rules regarding what a reception is. Again, this is an opinion piece, so it's just a secondary source, and as such it's not proof that the rule actually changed. The two primary sources (the league's rule book and its own spokespeople) are in conflict with each other about the rule change. This writer chose to go by the book, which I'd agree was the right choice, because the book shows that the rule changed. And after all, it is the only rule book.


Here's another secondary source putting the rules into his own words, but this one is from before the 2015 rule change. It's from a Detroit writer reacting to Blandino's tutorial "Explaining the Calvin Johnson Rule."

"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," Blandino said. "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 before you hit the ground."

According to Blandino, Johnson began his reach for the goal line prior to getting his second foot down, meaning the receiver had to control the ball once he hit the ground.

Had Johnson's second foot touched down before he initiated his reach, the call on the field would have stood.​

So what's your point?

Does going to the moon mean landing on the moon?

 

[percyhoward]

So what's your point?

There were several. One of them was that the author of the article you quoted, in that same article, in the very next paragraph, says that in 2015 the league changed the rule regarding what a reception is. Another point was that an article from before 2015 concludes that a reach could complete the catch process, even when a player was falling. A third, overriding point was that we're both quoting secondary sources anyway. Their opinions have no more validity than yours or mine.

What did the league itself say before 2015? Since? Those are primary sources.

Does going to the moon mean landing on the moon?

Again, context matters.

A person who is terminally ill is dying. The laws pertaining to dying without a will vary according to the state where you live.

A player who is falling is going to the ground. The rule pertaining to going to the ground in the act of catching a pass is Item 1.

 

[BlindFaith]

There were several. One of them was that the author of the article you quoted, in that same article, in the very next paragraph, says that in 2015 the league changed the rule regarding what a reception is. Another point was that an article from before 2015 concludes that a reach could complete the catch process, even when a player was falling. A third, overriding point was that we're both quoting secondary sources anyway. Their opinions have no more validity than yours or mine.

What did the league itself say before 2015? Since? Those are primary sources.


Again, context matters.

A person who is terminally ill is dying. The laws pertaining to dying without a will vary according to the state where you live.

A player who is falling is going to the ground. The rule pertaining to going to the ground in the act of catching a pass is Item 1.

Any wording change is considered a "change". The person in the article even says it was supposed to clarify the rule, not substantially change its meaning.

They go on to say that it didn't.

And skirt around going and landing all you want. Your examples are getting rediculous. And you're just flat out wrong on your interpretation.

So any real questions you have left? I am so ready to move on. Let's be sure to bring this back up when/if the do ACTUALLY change the rule.

 

[blindzebra]

Any wording change is considered a "change". The person in the article even says it was supposed to clarify the rule, not substantially change its meaning.

They go on to say that it didn't.

And skirt around going and landing all you want. Your examples are getting rediculous. And you're just flat out wrong on your interpretation.

So any real questions you have left? I am so ready to move on. Let's be sure to bring this back up when/if the do ACTUALLY change the rule.

LOL. I have never seen anything quite like you and Marcus. Getting completely and totally killed page after page and you keep on claiming to be right. Post an article as proof that actually gives points to the other side and then just like the Blandino video, you claim that is not what he meant.

An intelligent person would have stopped embarrassing themselves a long time ago.

 

[percyhoward]

Any wording change is considered a "change."

In the article that you quoted, it says "rule change," then "changed the rules regarding what a reception is," then "new rule" twice.

Rule Change
However, the NFL changed the rules regarding what a reception is before the 2015 season The new rule was intended to clarify the old rule, but instead it has just caused more confusion.

The new rule states: "In order to complete a catch, a receiver must clearly become a runner.."​

You posted this article specifically to show that the writer had a good understanding of the rule about going to the ground. The only reason we're even talking about the article is that you agreed with the guy's interpretation of the rules. That's why you posted it.

Well, he says the rule changed in 2015. The rule regarding "what a reception is."

He's right.

 

[blindzebra]

In the article that you quoted, it says "rule change," then "changed the rules regarding what a reception is," then "new rule" twice.

Rule Change
However, the NFL changed the rules regarding what a reception is before the 2015 season The new rule was intended to clarify the old rule, but instead it has just caused more confusion.

The new rule states: "In order to complete a catch, a receiver must clearly become a runner.."​

You posted this article specifically to show that the writer had a good understanding of the rule about going to the ground. The only reason we're even talking about the article is that you agreed with the guy's interpretation of the rules. That's why you posted it.

Well, he says the rule changed in 2015. The rule regarding "what a reception is."

He's right.

Countdown to denial in 3...2...1...

 

[percyhoward]

If you want a laugh, look at the title of the Total Access video in which Blandino talks about the 2015 "clarification" of the catch rule:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...81578/Dean-Blandino-explains-new-rule-changes

The segment runs 3 minutes plus, and he spends the entire first half of a segment about 2015 rule changes talking about the catch rule that he insists did not change.

It's semantics. They took out the football move and replaced it with "upright long enough," which redefined what a catch is. In the official statement from NFL Operations, they even made the mistake of using future tense when referring to a reach.

"Reaching the ball out before becoming a runner will not trump the requirement to hold onto the ball when you land."​

If the rule was already that a reach doesn't trump going to the ground, and that rule didn't change, then why announce it with the 2015 rule changes? As a point of emphasis, they say. To remind everyone of the rule that was already in place.

OK, even if we buy that, why use the word "will" if you're just reminding everyone of a rule that was already in place? Shouldn't it be "reaching does not trump...?"

 

[blindzebra]

If you want a laugh, look at the title of the Total Access video in which Blandino talks about the 2015 "clarification" of the catch rule:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...81578/Dean-Blandino-explains-new-rule-changes

The segment runs 3 minutes plus, and he spends the entire first half of a segment about 2015 rule changes talking about the catch rule that he insists did not change.

It's semantics. They took out the football move and replaced it with "upright long enough," which redefined what a catch is. In the official statement from NFL Operations, they even made the mistake of using future tense when referring to a reach.

"Reaching the ball out before becoming a runner will not trump the requirement to hold onto the ball when you land."​

If the rule was already that a reach doesn't trump going to the ground, and that rule didn't change, then why announce it with the 2015 rule changes? As a point of emphasis, they say. To remind everyone of the rule that was already in place.

OK, even if we buy that, why use the word "will" if you're just reminding everyone of a rule that was already in place? Shouldn't it be "reaching does not trump...?"

Is that s nail in their coffin or have we started covering them with dirt?

 

[blindzebra]

If you want a laugh, look at the title of the Total Access video in which Blandino talks about the 2015 "clarification" of the catch rule:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...81578/Dean-Blandino-explains-new-rule-changes

The segment runs 3 minutes plus, and he spends the entire first half of a segment about 2015 rule changes talking about the catch rule that he insists did not change.

It's semantics. They took out the football move and replaced it with "upright long enough," which redefined what a catch is. In the official statement from NFL Operations, they even made the mistake of using future tense when referring to a reach.

"Reaching the ball out before becoming a runner will not trump the requirement to hold onto the ball when you land."​

If the rule was already that a reach doesn't trump going to the ground, and that rule didn't change, then why announce it with the 2015 rule changes? As a point of emphasis, they say. To remind everyone of the rule that was already in place.

OK, even if we buy that, why use the word "will" if you're just reminding everyone of a rule that was already in place? Shouldn't it be "reaching does not trump...?"

That wording is why Julius Thomas catch in 2013 was complete but Jessie James in 2017 wasn't. On 2013 the reach made you a runner and in 2017 you had to be a runner first. Oh, but yeah the rule never changed.