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

[percyhoward]

And I thought you were getting close.

Right, this is me disappointing you.

Anyway, they took it out to justify the overturn and make it easier for the replay official's explanations. They put it back because the commissioner appointed a catch committee to fix the catch rule after the disaster of 2015 without the football move.

The problem was, Item 1 still says a player has to be upright to be a runner, so we still don't know when a catch is made. Real talk.

 

[MarcusRock]

So they had less ink that year?

Why did they take out the football move? Why on earth would a player's ability to advance with the football not be an indication that the catch process was completed? Or better yet, why would they no longer want it to be an indication of that?

Didn't answer my question like you didn't the other one. If they were making the rule "easier to understand" maybe it didn't make sense to have pitching or passing for a receiver rule when receivers hardly ever do that.

So is the list exhaustive in either case or not?

And where is support for your supposition other than your own made up reasoning? You keep avoiding the question and have added another to avoid. Why WOULD someone do that?

 

[percyhoward]

Didn't answer my question like you didn't the other one. If they were making the rule "easier to understand" maybe it didn't make sense to have pitching or passing for a receiver rule when receivers hardly ever do that.

So is the list exhaustive in either case or not?

And where is support for your supposition other than your own made up reasoning? You keep avoiding the question and have added another to avoid. Why WOULD someone do that?

Well, a "runner" is simply a player in possession of a live ball. A quarterback is a runner when he has the ball long enough to pitch it or pass it. Even though it's complelely true that a runner has the ability to pitch or pass the ball, it makes sense that they would remove that from completion of the catch process.

It does not make sense that they would remove "advance with it" from the catch process though.

And it was put back in the next year.

 

[MarcusRock]

Well, a "runner" is simply a player in possession of a live ball. A quarterback is a runner when he has the ball long enough to pitch it or pass it. Even though it's complelely true that a runner has the ability to pitch or pass the ball, it makes sense that they would remove that from completion of the catch process.

It does not make sense that they would remove "advance with it" from the catch process though.

And it was put back in the next year.

So is either list exhaustive of things a runner does or not?

 

[BlindFaith]

Right, this is me disappointing you.

Anyway, they took it out to justify the overturn and make it easier for the replay official's explanations. They put it back because the commissioner appointed a catch committee to fix the catch rule after the disaster of 2015 without the football move.

The problem was, Item 1 still says a player has to be upright to be a runner, so we still don't know when a catch is made. Real talk.

So now they took it out and put it back in? That's some real...something.

 

[percyhoward]

So is either list exhaustive of things a runner does or not?

Your point please?

 

[percyhoward]

So now they took it out and put it back in? That's some real...something.

Yep. The league is not 100% lockstep on the rules. There is (or was) a faction that wanted to get rid of the football move, and a sizable faction that said, "what?"

 

[BlindFaith]

Yep. The league is not 100% lockstep on the rules. There is (or was) a faction that wanted to get rid of the football move, and a sizable faction that said, "what?"

And you know this how? The intra league schism and covert operations to add, remove and add catch rules. Or is it remove and add?

 

[MarcusRock]

Your point please?

You know my point. You claim words were taken out and replaced as some sort of CONSPIRACY! but if the list isn't exhaustive then those words could still very well be included in subsequent lists.

So was either list of things a runner does in 2014 or 2015 an exhaustive list of acts runners could perform to be considered runners? Yes or no.

 

[percyhoward]

You know my point. You claim words were taken out and replaced as some sort of CONSPIRACY! but if the list isn't exhaustive then those words could still very well be included in subsequent lists.

I know you're not saying they took out the football move with plans to put it back in the next year, so what do you mean?

So was either list of things a runner does in 2014 or 2015 an exhaustive list of acts runners could perform to be considered runners? Yes or no.

Please. Do you take it out if you want it to be understood that it's still in? Yes or no?

 

[percyhoward]

And you know this how?

Because the only other explanation is that they all collectively changed their minds?

 

[MarcusRock]

I know you're not saying they took out the football move with plans to put it back in the next year, so what do you mean?

Please. Do you take it out if you want it to be understood that it's still in? Yes or no?

Yeah, already explained that this is a rule for a receiver so rare acts for a receiver probably don't make sense to include front and center, especially if your goal is to make the rule easier to understand.

So are they each exhaustive lists or not? Why are you avoiding these questions?

 

[BlindFaith]

Because the only other explanation is that they all collectively changed their minds?

So you dont have tangible proof. Just an extra layer of conspiracy!

 

[percyhoward]

Yeah, already explained that this is a rule for a receiver so rare acts for a receiver probably don't make sense to include front and center, especially if your goal is to make the rule easier to understand.

So are they each exhaustive lists or not? Why are you avoiding these questions?

The question has been addressed. Please read this carefully: A list not being comprehensive doesn't explain deleting an item from the list.

I'll make it easier for you. If the rule didn't change, how come Blandino didn't just say, "The act common to the game doesn't matter when the player is going to the ground?"

 

[percyhoward]

So you dont have tangible proof. Just an extra layer of conspiracy!

Why would anyone need proof that everybody in a group doesn't think as one mind?

 

[MarcusRock]

The question has been addressed. Please read this carefully: A list not being comprehensive doesn't explain deleting an item from the list.

I'll make it easier for you. If the rule didn't change, how come Blandino didn't just say, "The act common to the game doesn't matter when the player is going to the ground?"

So neither list is exhaustive then? That is all I asked.

 

[percyhoward]

So neither list is exhaustive then? That is all I asked.

And it still doesn't explain why they deleted an item from the list.

 

[BlindFaith]

Why would anyone need proof that everybody in a group doesn't think as one mind?

You made it sound like you had some innate knowledge. More real talk I guess.

 

[percyhoward]

You made it sound like you had some innate knowledge.

Is that a fancy term for common sense?

 

[BlindFaith]

The question has been addressed. Please read this carefully: A list not being comprehensive doesn't explain deleting an item from the list.

I'll make it easier for you. If the rule didn't change, how come Blandino didn't just say, "The act common to the game doesn't matter when the player is going to the ground?"

He's an idiot. I said that from day one. He didn't carefully explain the nuances.

There is an act that can interrupt the fall. Regaining balance. Throwing in "looking for a lunge or a reach" was him trying to explain the case play. The act that follows the gathering act.

You see now why they reworded the language? It was confusing and people didnt understand. Especially the vast majority who never even heard of the case plays.