BlindFaith
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,121
- Reaction score
- 2,628
So now your argument is titles of articles? lolIf 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...?"
Even if in the article it says "it was intended to clarify the old rule, but instead it has just caused more confusion"
It certainly has caused more of something. It's caused you to think there is a conspiracy amuck. I'm sure everyone who didn't know how the rule worked in 2014 are still confused because it didn't change.
How bout trying to explain the countless videos and articles that we posted? What do they mean?
I've addressed the one or two you could dig up.