News: ESPN: NFL owners OK new catch rule by 32-0 vote

[Kevinicus]

Someone else says the NFL said Dez made a catch in 2014, so you claim it is a "fact" they said that, but of course can never provide evidence of where they said that.

Another flat out lie. I never said it was a fact that the NFL said Dez made a catch in 2014. I said the NFL said that he made a football move. Everyone but you acknowledges that. Everything you say is make believe in your head.

Have you ever provided a quote, cited an article, pointed out the wording in a rule?

Yes.

However, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue? Are you saying that if ALL the evidence is already on the table, people aren't allowed to take that evidence, analyze it and have an opinion on it? In order to have an opinion they must find some new source and new evidence? Is that where you're really trying to go?

Of course, when I do those things it doesn't count based on whatever excuse you come up with. My backup is always faulty, with no explanation needed for why it is faulty, and you are above needing backup for anything you say.

Well, when you post something as support that doesn't say what you claim it says, then yes, it is faulty. Furthermore, you are dishonest. I have explained over and over again why it is faulty. You quote a guy listing some examples of football movies and then you twist that into him saying that is not only changing the rule, but that that is their purpose. It's a total fabrication. It's dishonest, but par for you. You make up and lie.

But call me a liar, without any evidence of where I lied, claim things to be a fact, without any supporting evidence, and make general comments without any verifiable information. It's your MO. It's what you do. You are above needing verification for anything. Facts are what you say they are.

Keep making things up, saying people say things they didn't say, twisting and distorting, and I will continue to call you out on your lying. The evidence is everywhere and been presented, by me, others, and most of all by you.

 

[Kevinicus]

What Blandino is saying - that the football move couldn't occur while going to the ground prior to now, so are you now saying you agree with that, and Dez did not make a catch under the rules?

That is PART of what Blandino was talking about. And again, you get what was said wrong. He said the CURRENT rule, as it exists now. So that is the 2015-2017 rule. It is not everything prior to now. Speaking about the 2015-2017 rule, then yes, I do agree with him.

The other part was him saying what the change in the rule was trying to accomplish...that is altering the going to the ground aspect so that a football move completes the process regardless. It was NOT suggesting that what constitutes a football move was changing. Just like what you quoted was not suggesting that. What you quoted was saying that the football move was important (essentially necessary) and gave some examples (Including Dez's action in 2014). Ergo, they said Dez performed a football move in 2014. Now they are saying that it trumps the going to the ground process (it did in 2014, but they don't want to admit that).

 

[Kevinicus]

The funny thing is in one of his arguments with me over whether the new rule changes the definition of "football move" Kevinicus is citing Blandino saying the previous rule is being changed from a player going to the ground cannot complete the 3 step process to where a player will be able to complete the 3 step process while going to the ground. I don't think he even realizes that agreeing with Blandino on this is also agreeing that Dez could not have completed the 3 step process and made the catch because he was going to the ground.

Like I said in the last post. This is a completely misreading of Blandino's statement. The current rule (before this new rule change) is not the rule the Dez play was made under.

 

[OmerV]

A

Well, when you post something as support that doesn't say what you claim it says, then yes, it is faulty. Furthermore, you are dishonest. I have explained over and over again why it is faulty. You quote a guy listing some examples of football movies and then you twist that into him saying that is not only changing the rule, but that that is their purpose. It's a total fabrication. It's dishonest, but par for you. You make up and lie.



Keep making things up, saying people say things they didn't say, twisting and distorting, and I will continue to call you out on your lying. The evidence is everywhere and been presented, by me, others, and most of all by you.

You saying something I posted doesn't say what I indicated it does means nothing. When you can actually explain why it doesn't say what I said, then we will talk.

That's how your arguments are. You claim, as you do now, that "evidence is everywhere", but you can't point to where any of it is. It's all empty words.

I've asked you over and over and over again, where did the NFL say Dez made a football move in 2014. You've claimed it is a "fact" that they said that, yet you have never been able to show that. Again, an empty claim. Your arguments are no different than a small child saying "because I said so".

 

[Kevinicus]

You saying something I posted doesn't say what I indicated it does means nothing. When you can actually explain why it doesn't say what I said, then we will talk.

That's how your arguments are. You claim, as you do now, that "evidence is everywhere", but you can't point to where any of it is. It's all empty words.

I've asked you over and over and over again, where did the NFL say Dez made a football move in 2014. You've claimed it is a "fact" that they said that, yet you have never been able to show that. Again, an empty claim. Your arguments are no different than a small child saying "because I said so".

I have explained it OVER AND OVER.

It is a list of examples. THAT IS IT.

Please explain how it says:

A. The definition is changing
B. That was the purpose of the rule change - to change what a football move is.

You dismiss all the evidence and try to present evidence that isn't evidence.

Note: Deleted this line since I see you used it first. It's funny how you keep describing your actions.

 

[OmerV]

Like I said in the last post. This is a completely misreading of Blandino's statement. The current rule (before this new rule change) is not the rule the Dez play was made under.

lol - so what's your point then? This whole discussion between us is about the Dez play, and the affect of the upcoming new rule change, and now you are telling me you are making an argument about a rule that had nothing to do with the Dez play? It gets funnier all the time.

 

[OmerV]

I have explained it OVER AND OVER.

It is a list of examples. THAT IS IT.

Please explain how it says:

A. The definition is changing
B. That was the purpose of the rule change - to change what a football move is.

You dismiss all the evidence and try to present evidence that isn't evidence.

I'm talking to a child here.

Yep, a list of examples, but there is nothing that says every other possible thing a receiver can do can also be considered a football move. The list of examples under the new rule will make what Dez did a completion. The list of examples in 2014 didn't automatically do that - it left anything beyond the examples up to how officials felt the rule was supposed to be called.

As for the purpose of the rule change, I suppose I should have said the change in definition was A purpose, rather than THE purpose. The NFL VP of Officiating clearly stated it was a purpose though - he pointed out that they specifically addressed what a "football move" will be going forward.

The other part of the rule that appears to be changing is the requirement to maintain possession all the way through. I assume this means a change in Item 1, or an elimination of it altogether.

 

[blindzebra]

What I believe Item 1 was intended to do is say either a receiver has to be in solid control of his body or if he isn't he has to at least control the football all the way through the play. I believe it was a caveat to the 3 step process to say that a player going to the ground falls into a different category than one who is upright and in control. A video Blandino discussed the rule in somewhat altered my thoughts, but as we are now throwing out everything Blandino has said, then I'm back to where I began.

The NFL didn't "answer" anything about Item 1 as it existed in 2014, it is merely changing the rule to what they want going forward. Rules change all the time, and every time there is a rule change it doesn't mean the NFL is condemning the way the rule was officiated in it's previous form

Nope,
The intent of Item's 1, 2, 3 were to give officials a way of judging the completion of the catch process when part C) does not or can not occur.

Item 1 is field of play, Items 2 and 3 are OOB and endzone.

The very use of having it as an Item under 8.1.3.a.b.c makes it secondary to the catch process. It is there for situations when a player cannot complete the process, it is not there to replace that process. At least it wasn't until they changed the rule to upright long enough in 2015.

 

[blindzebra]

Yep, a list of examples, but there is nothing that says every other possible thing a receiver can do can also be considered a football move. The list of examples under the new rule will make what Dez did a completion. The list of examples in 2014 didn't automatically do that - it left anything beyond the examples up to how officials felt the rule was supposed to be called.

As for the purpose of the rule change, I suppose I should have said the change in definition was A purpose, rather than THE purpose. The NFL VP of Officiating clearly stated it was a purpose though - he pointed out that they specifically addressed what a "football move" will be going forward.

The other part of the rule that appears to be changing is the requirement to maintain possession all the way through. I assume this means a change in Item 1, or an elimination of it altogether.

A receiver does two things by rule, gets control and two feet down. Anything else they do falls under something else. So you think that only the listed things now are the only football moves?

Item 1 exists within the a,b, and c anyway, just think about it. If a player goes to the ground and has completed only a and b, what do you think happens when they land? They can't rule it a fumble if the ball comes out because they never became a runner, they can't call it complete because they never made a football move, so what is left?

 

[Kevinicus]

Yep, a list of examples, but there is nothing that says every other possible thing a receiver can do can also be considered a football move. The list of examples under the new rule will make what Dez did a completion. The list of examples in 2014 didn't automatically do that - it left anything beyond the examples up to how officials felt the rule was supposed to be called.

As for the purpose of the rule change, I suppose I should have said the change in definition was A purpose, rather than THE purpose. The NFL VP of Officiating clearly stated it was a purpose though - he pointed out that they specifically addressed what a "football move" will be going forward.

The other part of the rule that appears to be changing is the requirement to maintain possession all the way through. I assume this means a change in Item 1, or an elimination of it altogether.

You still don't know what etc? means do you?

First, we don't even have the language of the rule yet, so what examples will be included aren't even known (though I can quote you an article still saying a football move is "any act common to the game." if you'd like. Secondly, the examples are just examples. They are not an all encompassing list. The guy was giving a list of examples from the plays people know, examples people would recognize. He was not saying those were explicitly what was covered. Third, the 2014 definition would cover those examples listed.

I can quote quite a few articles saying the change is the going to the ground, including the article you posted.

The problem here is you seem to think those examples he gave weren't already considered football moves. They were. All of them qualify under the 2014 rules. That's kind of what has been argued from the get go. They were football moves then, and football moves now. You've seen the Blandino explanation video that includes some of those things (including things Dez did) saying they were football moves back then.

You also seem to think the guy saying what a football move is being in the proposal means it's some big change. Just like you think him providing examples to a guy who seems a lot like you in that he doesn't have an understanding of what a football moves means they're making changes. They're not. They're clarifying things because people are dumb and need everything spelled out for them in crayon.

The only part of the rule that appears to be changing is the going to the ground requirement. That is the change that is making those other plays catches.

 

[Kevinicus]

lol - so what's your point then? This whole discussion between us is about the Dez play, and the affect of the upcoming new rule change, and now you are telling me you are making an argument about a rule that had nothing to do with the Dez play? It gets funnier all the time.

Really? I said what the point was when I posted it. Come on, man - read.

Blandino pointed out that they were changing the going to the ground aspect of the rule. That was the change being made, not the definition of a football move.

 

[percyhoward]

As for "everything Blandino says matters", if you think it's important for me to acknowledge that, how is it that the fact Blandino said Dez didn't do anything that would be a football move doesn't matter? Do Blandino's words that make a case for you matter, but words that don't not matter?

What on earth makes you think the fact that Blandino said Dez didn't do anything that would be a football move doesn't matter? For that matter, how could anything that Blandino said not matter? It makes no sense.

Nevertheless, you didn't respond to my main point, which was that even if a football move could be completed while going to the ground, that still doesn't mean the officials couldn't rule that a football move didn't occur.

How many times should I say that, generally speaking, you're right? It's way, way past that now.

Again, has any replay official or field official ever come out and said he disagreed with his boss's ruling of a play? Answer: no. So that leaves us with Blandino's interpretation. Which is inconsistent. What else can be said?

 

[CPanther95]

Didn't see it posted, but I'll add it here just in case there's already a thread.

Owners also eliminated the PAT requirement after a walk-off TD. No more awkward end of game situations like in MN when they had to drag a handful of Saints back on to the field, just so the winning team can kneel down for a 2 pt. try.

 

[percyhoward]

In the end, it was supposed to have taken indisputable visual evidence to overturn the call of a completed catch on the field. That shouldn't happen with an interpretive call. If it's 'interpretive,' it's disputable by definition.

It can't come down to the football move mattering. That's death. If you want to defend the overturn, you have to contend that the football move didn't matter. Blandino knows that, which is why he's insisting on the football move not mattering.

 

[Idgit]

It can't come down to the football move mattering. That's death. If you want to defend the overturn, you have to contend that the football move didn't matter. Blandino knows that, which is why he's insisting on it,

I think that's exactly right.

On a slightly related topic, does anybody remember which GB player got credited for a catch in that same game where the ball obviously bounced off the turf and it went to replay and was upheld? Was it Devonte Adams? I remember him killing us in that game. I looked for a pic of that play recently, but couldn't find anything, and it's bugging me.

 

[blindzebra]

I think that's exactly right.

On a slightly related topic, does anybody remember which GB player got credited for a catch in that same game where the ball obviously bounced off the turf and it went to replay and was upheld? Was it Devonte Adams? I remember him killing us in that game. I looked for a pic of that play recently, but couldn't find anything, and it's bugging me.

Cobb.

 

[Idgit]

Cobb.

******! Thank you. That was driving me nuts.



So messed up. That game was so frustrating.

How is that ever ruled a catch on the field? Even in real time? And how the *hell* did it stand up to a booth review?

 

[blindzebra]

http://i6.***BLOCKED***/albums/y245/blindzebra/cobb.jpg?1522444676544&1522444676837&1522444678663&1522444678840

 

[blindzebra]

******! Thank you. That was driving me nuts.



So messed up. That game was so frustrating.

How is that ever ruled a catch on the field? Even in real time? And how the *hell* did it stand up to a booth review?

What is even better is the same people in this thread and the others supporting the Dez play say that is inconclusive.

 

[percyhoward]

The only part of the rule that appears to be changing is the going to the ground requirement. That is the change that is making those other plays catches.

Absolutely.

What does that tell us about the "going to the ground" requirement from 2015-17?