I do not see any difference between that play and the Dez play in 2014 *merged*

[Kevinicus]

The point he is trying to make doesn't exist.

Dez at no point became a runner. End of story.

If he had, it would have became a catch.

This is nothing more than a spin on what you guys have failed at arguing before.

And if I need to explain the three part process of a catch for a player not going to the ground, then you are a lost cause.

So you are incapable of analyzing hypotheticals?

 

[Kevinicus]

lol - I quoted what you wrote directly from the actual post where you wrote it, and then I quoted where you had to admit that what I said was in AR 8.12 actually is in AR 8.12.

You really aren't as clever as you think. It's not a new thing for posters to make empty claims with no supporting content, either in logic or fact, and assume people will accept it as truth simply because it's in print. It's actually almost the standard on the internet these days.

How can you be so wrong. Never did I say what you have twice now said I did. Your comprehension level is mind boggling.

 

[BlindFaith]

So you are incapable of analyzing hypotheticals?

What didn't I address? And I'm not even sure why I'm talking with you. You didn't even ask the original questions.

 

[Kevinicus]

What didn't I address? And I'm not even sure why I'm talking with you. You didn't even ask the original questions.

I take that as a no.

 

[G2]

I corrected him. What do you want me to add specifically? He said it was scientifically flawed. That is simply incorrect. Until he addresses the actual situation presented, I can't address that argument.

Have you looked at your "contributions?"

Obviously since I posted them. I just see a pattern with you.

 

[BlindFaith]

I take that as a no.

Answer the question. What didn't I address? That's not a yes or no answer.

Maybe you failed to understand my answer to Percy.

If Dez hypothetically didn't fall then there us an equally hypothetical point where he became a runner. A hypothetical point where he regained his balance, since he hypothetically didn't fall.

This should hypothetically make sense to you.

 

[Kevinicus]

Answer the question. What didn't I address? That's not a yes or no answer.

Maybe you failed to understand my answer to Percy.

If Dez hypothetically didn't fall then there us an equally hypothetical point where he became a runner. A hypothetical point where he regained his balance, since he hypothetically didn't fall.

This should hypothetically make sense to you.

Now that you have corrected your question...


And the hypothetical was 3 yards in the end zone when he regained his balance. You changed the hypothetical in your answer saying he would have regained his balance sooner. That is avoiding the given situation for one more convenient for you.

 

[Kevinicus]

Obviously since I posted them. I just see a pattern with you.

And I with you.

 

[OmerV]

How can you be so wrong. Never did I say what you have twice now said I did. Your comprehension level is mind boggling.

Do you even know what I'm talking about or are you just denying saying whatever I said you said? lol.

You know your posts are preserved here, right? You know anyone, including you, can look at my post at 5:17 pm Monday, that shows what you are denying, right? Maybe someone broke into your house and hit you over the head with a blunt object and typed words into this site that you weren't aware of? Maybe? A head injury would explain a lot.

In any case, when (if) you have an actual thought of your own, and actually put some content into a post, I'll be happy to discuss, but if all you can do is say uh uh - you're wrong, and type in capitals, don't bother. Even as much as I disagree with Percy, at least he has his own mind. You are just trying to piggy back on other people's minds.

 

[Kevinicus]

Lol - it's on the site. Check your post at 10:13 am (Texas time - not sure where you are). You even called me a troll for talking about 1 foot down and then getting hit to the ground being a catch, and now that you apparently have actually read the case play you are telling me I'm right about that. It's in print - but as usual, your response is "uh, uh - you're wrong".

As for there being no arguments to lay out, I never expected that of you anyway. You've yet to lay one out. You just say "you're wrong, I'm right" in your best 11 year old boy imitation. But don't despair - I'm sure you would make a great 11 year old boy.

Is this what you're talking about? Where you still don't comprehend a single thing you read.

What I said you were right about is not something I ever indicated disagreeing with. You just have a comprehension problem.

I said the case play does mention the player being contacted after getting one foot down (never said otherwise).

What I also said was that one foot down and contact does not equal a catch. It never has. It's sad you think it does.

What I never said was that the case play doesn't refer to one foot down and contact. You made that up in your head.

 

[JW82]

This thread is still alive..wow.. The plays were not that similar really, but I had to see why this thread was still going and be part of it.

 

[OmerV]

Is this what you're talking about? Where you still don't comprehend a single thing you read.

What I said you were right about is not something I ever indicated disagreeing with. You just have a comprehension problem.

I said the case play does mention the player being contacted after getting one foot down (never said otherwise).

What I said was that one foot down and contact does not equal a catch. It never has. It's sad you think it does.

In the post you just quoted I actually pointed out the post where you disagreed with it (10:13 am - see that?). You called me a troll for saying the case play said anything about 1 foot being down and then the receiver goes down as a result of contact, and you denied the case play said anything like that. Then you came back and admitted the case play did say that, but acted as if you had been intimately familiar with the case play all along.

But hey, keep denying. I doubt anyone else here cares enough to actually go back and read this stuff, so maybe someone will believe you.

 

[BlindFaith]

Now that you have corrected your question...


And the hypothetical was 3 yards in the end zone when he regained his balance. You changed the hypothetical in your answer saying he would have regained his balance sooner. That is avoiding the given situation for one more convenient for you.

This is such bs that its on even a new scale of ridiculousness.

How about we add that hypothetically Dez could fly.

The premise of this whole exercise from Percy was to try and get me to say that he was a runner while falling. And unless he could levitate or fly, there is nothing he could do.

He could, however, regain his balance and NOT be falling anymore. And that hypothetical act of becoming a runner would be the only way he could hypothetically still be on his feet 7 yards down field.

Obviously this discussion is far too advanced for you to understand. I'd advise you to sticking with "yeah, that's what he said"

 

[MarcusRock]

What are you bringing to the debate minus others' statements that have been repeated ad nauseam? All you ever post is "What he said."

Can't tell who you're talking about specifically. Don't all the catch theorist satellites do that? Lol.

 

[G2]

Can't tell who you're talking about specifically. Don't all the catch theorist satellites do that? Lol.

"That's a Squatch."

 

[Kevinicus]

In the post you just quoted I actually pointed out the post where you disagreed with it (10:13 am - see that?). You called me a troll for saying the case play said anything about 1 foot being down and then the receiver goes down as a result of contact, and you denied the case play said anything like that. Then you came back and admitted the case play did say that, but acted as if you had been intimately familiar with the case play all along.

But hey, keep denying. I doubt anyone else here cares enough to actually go back and read this stuff, so maybe someone will believe you.

You need to reread what I said initially. Your facts are wrong. You read what you wanted to read, not what I said.

 

[Kevinicus]

This is such bs that its on even a new scale of ridiculousness.

How about we add that hypothetically Dez could fly.

The premise of this whole exercise from Percy was to try and get me to say that he was a runner while falling. And unless he could levitate or fly, there is nothing he could do.

He could, however, regain his balance and NOT be falling anymore. And that hypothetical act of becoming a runner would be the only way he could hypothetically still be on his feet 7 yards down field.

Obviously this discussion is far too advanced for you to understand. I'd advise you to sticking with "yeah, that's what he said"

Wrong. On all accounts.

 

[Kevinicus]

This is such bs that its on even a new scale of ridiculousness.

How about we add that hypothetically Dez could fly.

The premise of this whole exercise from Percy was to try and get me to say that he was a runner while falling. And unless he could levitate or fly, there is nothing he could do.

He could, however, regain his balance and NOT be falling anymore. And that hypothetical act of becoming a runner would be the only way he could hypothetically still be on his feet 7 yards down field.

Obviously this discussion is far too advanced for you to understand. I'd advise you to sticking with "yeah, that's what he said"

You think it is impossible for Dez to not regain his balance 7 yards later. It would take about 3 stumbling steps and less than a second. It is absolutely possible.

 

[G2]

You think it is impossible for Dez to not regain his balance 7 yards later. It would take about 3 stumbling steps and less than a second. It is absolutely possible.

Did he regain his balance? No, he fell to the ground and did not maintain possession.

 

[OmerV]

Wrong. On all accounts.

Another of your well thought out posts full of logic and citing specifically what led you to your conclusions. Very well done!