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

[nathanlt]

The broadest definition of "going to the ground" would be anytime any receiver goes to the ground while making a catch, so this argument doesn't help your case.

Besides, the league doesn't just write rules and tell refs to wing it. Refs receive instruction on the intent and application of rules, and Blandino was the director of officiating, so it's a pretty ridiculous to act as if he wouldn't be in a position to know and understand the application of the rule.

Every receiver goes to the ground when their foot touches it. That's the broadest, most inclusive definition.

 

[MarcusRock]

Part (c) defines a runner as "capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent." So, no, the answer to why they eliminated the football move wouldn't be there.

When you change the standard from "long enough to perform an act common to the game" to "long enough to become a runner," and then you define a runner as a player who is "upright long enough," then you've effectively changed the standard to "upright long enough."

Make sense?

Only in your mind it does, particularly the slant I highlighted in bold. Blandino mentioned Dez was "not a runner," you're in the middle of discussing how you believe Dez was a runner, and the 2015 rule part (c) states "clearly become a runner" all of which can be done with acts or time, unless you're going to the ground. But yet, somehow the rule changed, lol. Riiiiiight. The rule was updated to explain things in greater detail because regular people "couldn't understand." I'd have just left it as is and encouraged people to read.

The "upright long enough" phrase only defines how one is to know that a player is considered going to the ground, which is why you never quote the whole phrase, of course, to make up a CONSPIRACY! Before that, no definition of when a player was going to the ground existed. It only stated "If a player goes to the ground ..." which the rule still does but with this added clarification before it:

"A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner."​

And then of course there's this:

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy
"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

Wonder how many people in the sports world press saw what you saw about the rule changing. My guess? Emotional Cowboys fan bloggers, lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

If that was a "trip" how could Dez EVER stay on his feet?

He doesn't. And wouldn't. Here's the same high point catch, the DB whiffs so he can't "trip" Dez here (still laughing about that one) and Dez still goes to the ground all by himself. Good thing he actually wraps up here.

 

[MarcusRock]

I seriously can't debate this any longer if you can't see how dramatically different those two catches are.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I know how the rule will be enforced by the NFL and its the same as it was before.

Dude, they're just trolling at this point. Once your argument settles on a CONSPIRACY! it's no argument at all. Nothing's changed from a week ago and all they're doing now is just trying to overwhelm with the same recycled, slanted, and outright made up information that was refuted and debunked pages ago. It's like I said before, the goal for them is just to be the last one talking so they can claim some sort of pseudo-victory while continuing to lie. Such is the way for any honest debater who attempts to debate with dishonest ones. At least the ones that truly wanted to understand this rule are a little clearer on things.

 

[CCBoy]

No. Why? Do you guys break boards together?

We started out together in Kingsville...but Jeff was a 7 times National Black Belt Winner. He received the first Bruce Lee Award, and was the undercard for the Alli//Foreman fight against his opponent chosen by Don King. Jeff won that match as well as his first two matches against Chuck Norris.

 

[DogFace]

I don't know what case play you're talking about, but the 2014 play that most resembles Dez's play is A.R. 15.95, and it doesn't have one word about regaining balance. Here it is in its entirety:

2014
A.R. 15.95
Act common to game
Third-&-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his 2nd foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.
In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.​

It does not say the act of lunging didn't complete the process of the catch. It says the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch, which it isn't. It's the act that shows that the player has satisfied the time requirement after control and two feet. Clearly the "act of lunging" is the "act common to the game" to which the heading refers. There is nothing about the act of "regaining balance." Those words are 100% yours, my friend.


Acts common to the game weren't ALL spelled out in the rules in 2014, and still aren't. Reaching for the goal line and lunging were both acts common to the game in 2014, and you can follow those links to videos in which Blandino says so. "Taking additional steps" was added in 2016, although there's no reason to assume that wasn't a football move in 2014. An act common to the game completed the catch process in 2014. A player who had completed the catch process didn't have to control the ball when he hit the ground in 2014. That's why Blandino had to say he looked for an act common to the game here, and here, and here.


It's for players who go to the ground in the process of catching a pass, as opposed to players who complete the catch process before they go to the ground, as Dez did, and as Thomas did.


The best tutorial on "going to the ground" and how it was treated prior to 2015 can be found here.

Blandino: "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. 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 when you hit the ground.
Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground. The ball comes loose. He did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line, so this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass."

Note that he did not say, "He wasn't upright." He didn't say, "A reach doesn't trump going to the ground." If those things were true, then that's all he had to say. Just like in the interview the day of the overturn. Did he butcher it? Was he nervous?

How do you explain this?

^^^This post should end this thread. I see no one is attempting to address it.
@MarcusRock @OmerV

 

[percyhoward]

Only in your mind it does, particularly the slant I highlighted in bold. Blandino mentioned Dez was "not a runner," you're in the middle of discussing how you believe Dez was a runner, and the 2015 rule part (c) states "clearly become a runner" all of which can be done with acts or time...

Well, yeah, "act common to the game" and "upright long enough" do indeed have in common the fact that they both deal with either "acts" or "time." In much the same way that phones and beer have in common the fact that they both deal with either communication or beverages.

A play like Dez's would be ruled differently depending on which of the two standards (old or new) you use, in other words.

...unless you're going to the ground.

Going to the ground did not trump the catch process. Prior to 2015, you could complete the catch process (which means you become a runner) while falling. So there would have been no reason for Blandino to discuss the catch process on a play like this one, or this one, if "going to the ground" trumped the catch process. All he would've had to say was, "Going to the ground trumps the catch process."

The NFL put this on its own website six days after the overturn.

"The issue: whether Bryant performed an “act common to the game.” Under the rules, that could have made the play qualify as a catch, and the key question was whether Bryant was doing so by clearly reaching for the goal line."

 

[BlindFaith]

Dude, they're just trolling at this point. Once your argument settles on a CONSPIRACY! it's no argument at all. Nothing's changed from a week ago and all they're doing now is just trying to overwhelm with the same recycled, slanted, and outright made up information that was refuted and debunked pages ago. It's like I said before, the goal for them is just to be the last one talking so they can claim some sort of pseudo-victory while continuing to lie. Such is the way for any honest debater who attempts to debate with dishonest ones. At least the ones that truly wanted to understand this rule are a little clearer on things.

Funny thing is, the only ones who can rule who is wrong or right already have. Anyone still defending it as a catch either don't understand the rule or, as you say, conspiracy!

And I really don't care anymore. We presented clear explanations. Refuted their "evidence". Provided names of those who agree with the ruling. In a court of law, this would have been a slam dunk to debunk them. Yet they continue on. The world is filled with all types of people.

 

[BlindFaith]

We started out together in Kingsville...but Jeff was a 7 times National Black Belt Winner. He received the first Bruce Lee Award, and was the undercard for the Alli//Foreman fight against his opponent chosen by Don King. Jeff won that match as well as his first two matches against Chuck Norris.

Awesome. Does he think Dez caught it too?

 

[BlindFaith]

Well, yeah, "act common to the game" and "upright long enough" do indeed have in common the fact that they both deal with either "acts" or "time." In much the same way that phones and beer have in common the fact that they both deal with either communication or beverages.

A play like Dez's would be ruled differently depending on which of the two standards (old or new) you use, in other words.


Going to the ground did not trump the catch process. Prior to 2015, you could complete the catch process (which means you become a runner) while falling. So there would have been no reason for Blandino to discuss the catch process on a play like this one, or this one, if "going to the ground" trumped the catch process. All he would've had to say was, "Going to the ground trumps the catch process."

The NFL put this on its own website six days after the overturn.

"The issue: whether Bryant performed an “act common to the game.” Under the rules, that could have made the play qualify as a catch, and the key question was whether Bryant was doing so by clearly reaching for the goal line."

You keep pulling me back in with these incompetent posts.

Did you watch and listen to the videos You linked?

Your major assumption that is categorically incorrect is that ANY act can be performed while falling. That is just factually incorrect.

1 case play says time
The 2nd says regain balance
The 3rd says brace

The time element in the first is time enough to gather themselves or to protect themselves. The other two are CLEARLY indicating interrupting the fall.

You incorrectly are trying to wage that ANY act can fit into the first case play. That is wrong. You are wrong. You don't understand the rule. It's really that simple.

And your incoherent analysis of "act common to the game" vs "upright long enough" clearly shows you don't understand the rule.

The first case play under "Act common to the game" only mentions TIME. The NFL rules committee clearly see commonality, even if you can't.

The two subsequent case plays, both under "going to the ground" are to further define what can be considered to fulfill the TIME act. Regain balance or brace. Both refer to gathering themselves or interrupting the fall. Exactly as Blandino says in the video.

Your incorrect assumption that ANY act can be performed is not called out in any case play. If what you think is true, don't you think there would be at least one case play that says that a player going to the ground who reaches out the ball, or who takes an extra step or who switches the ball from one hand to another, or who does whatever else you think he should be able to do can complete the catch process?

The only other act mentioned in all three case plays are a lunge. A lunge that is specifically stated as NOT COMPLETING THE CATCH PROCESS. A lunge is a very specific act that a person who has gathered themselves can perform.

They didn't use reach or switch hands or turn shoulders or twist or pitch the ball or any other example. Why? Because any of those acts can be done by a player who has NOT gathered themselves. Any of those acts can be performed in mid air or while falling.

Clarifying the rule to include upright long enough ties the time element and the gather element. You should be able to see that correlation, unless your only objective here is to propagate a conspiracy.

 

[MarcusRock]

Well, yeah, "act common to the game" and "upright long enough" do indeed have in common the fact that they both deal with either "acts" or "time." In much the same way that phones and beer have in common the fact that they both deal with either communication or beverages.

A play like Dez's would be ruled differently depending on which of the two standards (old or new) you use, in other words.


Going to the ground did not trump the catch process. Prior to 2015, you could complete the catch process (which means you become a runner) while falling. So there would have been no reason for Blandino to discuss the catch process on a play like this one, or this one, if "going to the ground" trumped the catch process. All he would've had to say was, "Going to the ground trumps the catch process."

The NFL put this on its own website six days after the overturn.

"The issue: whether Bryant performed an “act common to the game.” Under the rules, that could have made the play qualify as a catch, and the key question was whether Bryant was doing so by clearly reaching for the goal line."

I would ignore the rest of my post too if I were you because it shows where you're wrong and creating things that aren't there.

Well, yeah, "act common to the game" and "upright long enough" do indeed have in common the fact that they both deal with either "acts" or "time."

Except I referred to "act common to the game" and "clearly become a runner" which are each part c of the 2014 and 2015 rules, respectively, and deal with acts or time. Pulling in the GTTG rule doesn't make sense unless you're desperate to find something to shoehorn into a CONSPIRACY!

 

[MileyDancer]

This thread is a great example why so many Cowboys fans almost annoy me more than fans of other teams.

 

[MarcusRock]

Well, yeah, "act common to the game" and "upright long enough" do indeed have in common the fact that they both deal with either "acts" or "time." In much the same way that phones and beer have in common the fact that they both deal with either communication or beverages.

A play like Dez's would be ruled differently depending on which of the two standards (old or new) you use, in other words.


Going to the ground did not trump the catch process. Prior to 2015, you could complete the catch process (which means you become a runner) while falling. So there would have been no reason for Blandino to discuss the catch process on a play like this one, or this one, if "going to the ground" trumped the catch process. All he would've had to say was, "Going to the ground trumps the catch process."

The NFL put this on its own website six days after the overturn.

"The issue: whether Bryant performed an “act common to the game.” Under the rules, that could have made the play qualify as a catch, and the key question was whether Bryant was doing so by clearly reaching for the goal line."

By the way, where is your support for the rule "changing" as you say from major media outlets? I keep posting mine. When I asked before, you showed me another CowboysZone thread of Cowboys fans who don't understand the rules just whining. Where's your support?

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy
"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rule-and-it-might-actually-be-more-confusing/
"The interesting part here is that Dez Bryant's no-catch, the thing that sparked the rule change, would still be a no-catch under the new rule."

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...anges-and-points-of-emphasis-to-watch-in-2015
"Let's be clear. The rule that disallowed an apparent catch by Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the NFC divisional playoffs, and another by Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2009, remains unchanged in substance. The NFL did modify its wording, however, in hopes of making the rule make more sense to players, fans and media members in cases where a player is falling while in the process of making a catch."

 

[MarcusRock]

^^^This post should end this thread. I see no one is attempting to address it.
@MarcusRock @OmerV

Already did. And emphatically so. See below. The opposition just tries to ignore it and comes up with suppositions and shoddy "investigating" to shoehorn the result they wanted. Just not the case. If Pereira can be trusted for a tweet about a phantom "rule change," he should be trusted here, right? Would love to see you actually take a stab at this though instead of just parroting "What percy said." If you don't even know the rules yourself, how can you even solidly support one side or the other? You just want a particular result instead of a correct ruling and will follow the lead of whomever you think proves something should have happened ..... that didn't.

 

[DogFace]

By the way, where is your support for the rule "changing" as you say from major media outlets? I keep posting mine. When I asked before, you showed me another CowboysZone thread of Cowboys fans who don't understand the rules just whining. Where's your support?

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...hange-catch-rule-after-dez-bryant-controversy
"To put it bluntly, the rule itself has not changed."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...rule-and-it-might-actually-be-more-confusing/
"The interesting part here is that Dez Bryant's no-catch, the thing that sparked the rule change, would still be a no-catch under the new rule."

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/...anges-and-points-of-emphasis-to-watch-in-2015
"Let's be clear. The rule that disallowed an apparent catch by Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the NFC divisional playoffs, and another by Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2009, remains unchanged in substance. The NFL did modify its wording, however, in hopes of making the rule make more sense to players, fans and media members in cases where a player is falling while in the process of making a catch."

Already did. And emphatically so. See below. The opposition just tries to ignore it and comes up with suppositions and shoddy "investigating" to shoehorn the result they wanted. Just not the case. If Pereira can be trusted for a tweet about a phantom "rule change," he should be trusted here, right? Would love to see you actually take a stab at this though instead of just parroting "What percy said." If you don't even know the rules yourself, how can you even solidly support one side or the other? You just want a particular result instead of a correct ruling and will follow the lead of whomever you think proves something should have happened ..... that didn't.

Take a stab at what?

Pointing out the rule changed in 2015 to upright long enough instead of time for a football move?

Show me where a 2014 rule says you can’t complete the catch process while going to the ground.

Explain to me why Blandino was looking for a football move after Dez was falling. Why look for a football move on his way to the ground if it doesn’t matter?

Can you please answer that and it would be lovely if you exhibited your usual sunny disposition while doing it.

Oh yeah, do you remember when you called Blindfaith your squadron leader after continually attempting to put others down for following Percy’s lead?

That was really dumb of you. Do you understand why?

 

[percyhoward]

Your incorrect assumption that ANY act can be performed is not called out in any case play. If what you think is true, don't you think there would be at least one case play that says that a player going to the ground who reaches out the ball, or who takes an extra step or who switches the ball from one hand to another, or who does whatever else you think he should be able to do can complete the catch process?

All possible acts common to the game aren't listed in the rules, or the case books for that matter. But there's a great tutorial on going to the ground from Blandino in a 2013 segment on NFLN called "Explaining the Calvin Johnson Rule." I strongly encourage you to watch it and listen carefully to his description of how they ruled such plays at the time. The explanation of the play (ironically, also involving Johnson) that was ruled incomplete is especially helpful.

"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. 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 when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground. The ball comes loose. He did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line, so this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass."

It stands to reason that an act common to the game is a separate act, or "second process" that shows the catch process has been completed, and so it would make sense that when they say "this was all one process," they're telling us that no second process ever happened to show that the catch process was completed.

The only other act mentioned in all three case plays are a lunge. A lunge that is specifically stated as NOT COMPLETING THE CATCH PROCESS. A lunge is a very specific act that a person who has gathered themselves can perform.

This is the second time you've misquoted A.R. 15.95. It does not say the act of lunging didn't complete the process of the catch. It says the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch, which it isn't. Please read that a couple of times and try to see the difference.

One has to conclude that the lunge is the second process that happened that showed that the catch process was completed, because the ruling itself states that an "act common to the game" showed that the player had satisfied the time requirement after control and two feet, and there is no other act mentioned.

2014
A.R. 15.95
Act common to game
Third-&-10 on A20. Pass over the middle is ruled incomplete at the A30. The receiver controlled the pass with one foot down and was then contacted by a defender. As he went to the ground, he got his 2nd foot down and then still in control of the ball he lunged for the line to gain, losing the ball when he landed.
Ruling: Reviewable. Completed pass. A’s ball first-and-10 on A30.
In this situation, the act of lunging is not part of the process of the catch. He has completed the time element required for the pass to be complete and does not have to hold onto the ball when he hits the ground. When he hit the ground, he was down by contact.​

The only act mentioned under "act common to the game" in the 2014 case book is a lunge, that's true. But then again, not even the rule book has a comprehensive list of acts common to the game, much less the case book. "Advancing with the ball" was listed as an act common to the game in 2014, then removed in 2015. But while we can only speculate about things that were added later (like additional steps, tucking the ball, or turning upfield) qualifying as such acts in 2014, we know without a doubt that a reach for the line of gain and a lunge were both considered acts common to the game. The reach is discussed in "Explaining the Calvin Johnson Rule," and the lunge is the subject of A.R. 15.95 above. And both acts fit with the rule book's "advancing with the ball," because unless you're lunging or reaching backwards or sideways, you're undeniably advancing with the ball.

They didn't use reach or switch hands or turn shoulders or twist or pitch the ball or any other example. Why? Because any of those acts can be done by a player who has NOT gathered themselves. Any of those acts can be performed in mid air or while falling.

The "mid air" comment makes me think you don't even realize that we're only talking about acts that happen after control and two feet down. The act common to the game is what shows the catch process (control + 2 feet + time) has been completed. Dez's reach and Thomas' reach would not have been separate acts from the catch process if they didn't have control of the ball and at least two feet down before that. The second process of the reach is what showed that the time requirement of "control + 2 feet + time" had been met. Johnson's reach that happened before he got the second foot down is what made it all one process, so it was incomplete. You really need to watch that tutorial video.

 

[percyhoward]

By the way, where is your support for the rule "changing" as you say from major media outlets?

I think you're like a lot of people who took it for granted that any player who was going to the ground had to hold onto the ball after hitting the ground, and that the catch process didn't apply in this case. Now that you know that's not true, you either need to admit that the overturn wasn't justified, find some other way to say the overturn was the correct call, or do as you're doing now, which is to find something else to talk about that's still related to the discussion in some way, in hopes of being right about it.

So let's talk about the rule change. We've already been over "long enough to perform an act common to the game" vs. "upright long enough." Now before we go on, let's ask ourselves, do we really need some media outlet to confirm that the football move has been removed? Can't we just read the rule book itself and see that it's gone? No? Fine, here's a media outlet telling us the football move was removed. This is directly from the article you posted.

The committee’s tweaking of the language has done away with the confusing phrase about “an act common to the game.”

Now, to me, doing away with "the phrase" means that they decided to start calling it something else. That they'd still be using it, just with a different name. But that's not what happened. They got rid of the whole concept of an act that showed a player had met the time requirement after control and two feet down to complete the catch process -- no matter what you call it. As Pereira tweeted in reaction, "Football move gone."

2014
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

2015
(c) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner
from Item 1:
A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner
A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.

Why should anyone wait for the media to tell them something rather than find out for themselves?

 

[MarcusRock]

Take a stab at what?

Pointing out the rule changed in 2015 to upright long enough instead of time for a football move?

Show me where a 2014 rule says you can’t complete the catch process while going to the ground.

Explain to me why Blandino was looking for a football move after Dez was falling. Why look for a football move on his way to the ground if it doesn’t matter?

Can you please answer that and it would be lovely if you exhibited your usual sunny disposition while doing it.

Oh yeah, do you remember when you called Blindfaith your squadron leader after continually attempting to put others down for following Percy’s lead?

That was really dumb of you. Do you understand why?

I already answered these questions waaaaaaay back on Page 77 when I obliterated the other emotional wingman by explaining the case plays to him. In fact, it helped those who were genuinely seeking to understand the rule to understand it better. After this is when percy kicked the "rule change" lie into full gear after he'd ignored my question on it and probably will too on my challenging him to link major media coverage that says it happened the way he says and that you now parrot.

During the actual game, Pereira says he'd reverse it, even before Steratore announced the reversal. Then note below after the game how you hear Pereira say almost exactly what I explain in that post I linked. "If you're going to the ground, you have to prove that you have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game and do so."



I won't even ask a question concerning all this. It's pretty open and shut unless you want to turn to lying too.

And I've never claimed anyone else is my "leader" on this topic. I do just fine all on my own. I know the rules, and no self-proclaimed rule expert with ref experience (lol) or anyone else has proved I don't. And I've done it all by debating honestly, with no TMZ-esque suppositions, conveniently leaving things out, or straight up lying which is what your side does and is telling about the strength of your argument in the first place. So as I said, when you settle on CONSPIRACY! you've been beat. Saying "nuh uh," or even worse, parroting that, does not undo this.

 

[BlindFaith]

The "mid air" comment makes me think you don't even realize that we're only talking about acts that happen after control and two feet down.

There, that sums it up. And the point you don't get. Those "acts" you keep referring to apply to an upright player. Acts that apply to going to the ground are limited to gathering themselves, regaining balance, bracing.

Those acts ARE in the rules applicable to a player going to the ground. Your fantasy acts are NOT. If they were applicable, it wouldn't be that much to simply say - A player going to the ground can perform any act common to the game to complete the catch process. See, I just did it and it wasn't that hard. But they specifically don't say that.

They do say TIME, REGAIN BALANCE and BRACE.

You can continue re-pasting the same tired ole things you do, but you look foolish doing so. You are trying to shoehorn in made up rules. At least all the NFL did was to clarify them.

 

[MarcusRock]

I think you're like a lot of people who took it for granted that any player who was going to the ground had to hold onto the ball after hitting the ground, and that the catch process didn't apply in this case. Now that you know that's not true, you either need to admit that the overturn wasn't justified, find some other way to say the overturn was the correct call, or do as you're doing now, which is to find something else to talk about that's still related to the discussion in some way, in hopes of being right about it.

So let's talk about the rule change. We've already been over "long enough to perform an act common to the game" vs. "upright long enough." Now before we go on, let's ask ourselves, do we really need some media outlet to confirm that the football move has been removed? Can't we just read the rule book itself and see that it's gone? No? Fine, here's a media outlet telling us the football move was removed. This is directly from the article you posted.

The committee’s tweaking of the language has done away with the confusing phrase about “an act common to the game.”

Now, to me, doing away with "the phrase" means that they decided to start calling it something else. That they'd still be using it, just with a different name. But that's not what happened. They got rid of the whole concept of an act that showed a player had met the time requirement after control and two feet down to complete the catch process -- no matter what you call it. As Pereira tweeted in reaction, "Football move gone."

2014
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

2015
(c) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has clearly become a runner
from Item 1:
A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner

Why should anyone wait for the media to tell them something rather than find out for themselves?

Long-windedess to avoid that you have no support for your theory anywhere in the football world besides from Cowboys fans, right?

It's miraculous that no one else sees what you see and only you (and your parrots by way of them not knowing the rules) have determined that the rule changed significantly with the whole sports world watching the language tweaking of a rule that just caused mass controversy (to the uninformed). No one else detected this change, huh? Lol. And the articles I showed support what I already knew to be true, not informed it.

So again I ask, where is your support for the rule "changing" as you say from major media outlets who covered this?