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

[percyhoward]

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.

What I want you to realize is that it wasn't just this one instance. If you watch the tutorial on "going to the ground" you'll see that he's just echoing what he always said about these types of plays.

 

[BlindFaith]

Is that a fancy term for common sense?

You have no idea what the league or the officials think. They understand the rule. They know all you have to do is hang onto the ball.

You really think they want to change the rule to add in even more judgement calls to support a more open catch policy? I'd guess not. The fans are the ones in an uproar.

Common sense? smh I think I gave you to much credit as a poster. Some of this coming from you is just ludicrous.

 

[MarcusRock]

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

I already provided an explanation. So are those 2 lists exhaustive or not? Why avoid this?

 

[percyhoward]

I already provided an explanation.

I'd really like to see that explanation.

So are those 2 lists exhaustive or not? Why avoid this?

I can put it in all caps, if you like. A LIST NOT BEING COMPREHENSIVE DOESN'T EXPLAIN THE DELETION OF ANY ITEM FROM THAT LIST.

 

[percyhoward]

You have no idea what the league or the officials think...smh I think I gave you to much credit as a poster.

I keep letting you down, don't I?

Have you watched the tutorial yet?

 

[MarcusRock]

I'd really like to see that explanation.

Scroll back.

I can put it in all caps, if you like. A LIST NOT BEING COMPREHENSIVE DOESN'T EXPLAIN THE DELETION OF ANY ITEM FROM THAT LIST.

So yes, not exhaustive for both lists? You keep adding stuff to obscure a simple yes/no answer.

 

[percyhoward]

Scroll back.

So yes, not exhaustive for both lists? You keep adding stuff to obscure a simple yes/no answer.

Read the "stuff," it makes the answer and the question irrelevant.

If you can't answer, fine. But if you want to refer me to some other place in the thread, you'll have to provide a link, because you're the one who supposedly knows where the answer is.

 

[MarcusRock]

Read the "stuff," it makes the answer and the question irrelevant.

If you can't answer, fine. But if you want to refer me to some other place in the thread, you'll have to provide a link, because you're the one who supposedly knows where the answer is.

I already explained why a receiver rule might have its wording changed to not feature things a receiver rarely does to make it easier to understand, which was the point of all the re-wording. I have already said this before I then added support for such.

This brings us back to the other question you've avoided today, which is where is the support for your made up conclusion that a re-wording changed the essence of the rule? I have provided support. Do you have any beyond just your personal creativity?

 

[percyhoward]

I already explained...

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?"

When you answer that, we'll continue.

 

[MarcusRock]

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?"

When you answer that, we'll continue.

You get to sneak in a question after avoiding 2 ? How about you address the much older avoided question on the day about support for your supposition of the rule being "changed" instead of re-worded. I played along with your little diversion but this was my original question. Do you have other support for your supposition seeing as I have support directly against it?

 

[BlindFaith]

I keep letting you down, don't I?

Have you watched the tutorial yet?

Getting the last word still doesn't make you right. But I'll let you have it, so you have at least something.

So proceed with the copy paste...

 

[MarcusRock]

Getting the last word still doesn't make you right. But I'll let you have it, so you have at least something.

So proceed with the copy paste...

Hey man, don't knock copy and paste. It comes in really handy when someone is avoiding your questions.

 

[DogFace]

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.

Why did Blandino say he was looking for a football move? According to you looking for a football move wouldn’t matter because, as we know, Dez was going to the ground. Why wouldn’t he just say Dez was going to the ground so a football move didn’t matter because that would not complete the 3 step process?

 

[DogFace]

You get to sneak in a question after avoiding 2 ? How about you address the much older avoided question on the day about support for your supposition of the rule being "changed" instead of re-worded. I played along with your little diversion but this was my original question. Do you have other support for your supposition seeing as I have support directly against it?

Look man, just be a man and admit you can’t answer the very simple question posed to you because it ruins your entire argument. It’s ok to be wrong. It must upset you after all the effort you’ve put into trying to be right.
Denial is the first stage. I believe you’ve passsed that.
Your refusal to answer the question confirms that you know the answer makes your argument wrong. So you know you’re wrong.

Get past the anger and accept it.

 

[DogFace]

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.

You’ve said the caseplay was wrong or worded poorly. Now you’re saying Blandino chose poor wording.

Maybe just admit that no matter what or how he said it that wouldn’t change the contradiction of his overturn with the rule.

The caseplay confirmed you could complete the process on the way to the ground.

Blandino looked for a football move while Dez was falling because it did matter. It would’ve completed the process. As Blandino said “a reach with two hands”

He’s clearly saying the process would’ve been completed on the way to the ground with, in his eyes, “more of a football move”.

Again. He was going to the ground. Blandino was looking for a football move to complete the process.

 

[MarcusRock]

Why did Blandino say he was looking for a football move? According to you looking for a football move wouldn’t matter because, as we know, Dez was going to the ground. Why wouldn’t he just say Dez was going to the ground so a football move didn’t matter because that would not complete the 3 step process?

Did you even read the post of mine I linked? It answers all the questions you parroted and posed to me. That single post turned the tide of this argument because it lays out the rule clearly via explaining the case plays. Heck, I didn't even remember that Pereira said what he said on game day until recently but what I stated in that post is almost exactly the same as what he said. Again, I know this rule. How about trying to explain how that post is wrong via the rules instead of just repeating someone else's questions? You claimed at one time to be a new ringleader. With my boot on the neck of your current ringleader, here's your chance to establish yourself.

 

[OmerV]

What's the point here? Either way, they were looking for an act common to the game.

The point is, and we've been over this an ungodly number of times and will never agree, is that once they decided he was going to the ground there was no "act common to the game" to look for, and Item 1 applied. I know your instinct will be to tell me that it wrong, but, again, we've been through that over and over, and we are going to have to accept that we don't agree.

 

[OmerV]

I have said some, but others have said so much more. Everything has been told to you repeatedly and you just don't understand it. It's clear why with your inability to get what I said right. What good would repeating what Percy, Zebra, or many others have said? Would it somehow click because I said it? You don't get what they say, you don't get what I say, you don't get what Blandino says, you don't get what the rule says, you don't get what the case play says. What is the point? You have proven yourself incapable of umderstanding.

You have said next to nothing. You like to yell (uppercase type), and claim you have said things you haven't, but you haven't actually set out an argument on your own, or that helps the case of those you agree with, or changes anything that I have said. You're argument doesn't amount to anything more than "because I said so". If others are the ones doing the talking for your side, and you have nothing different to add, then let them do the talking.

 

[OmerV]

You should be.

That was summed up as well as it possibly good be.

I was waiting for a response. It would be interesting.

Maybe @OmerV will attempt it.

I don’t see how any of that can be reasonably argued against. He gave several examples which contradicted the ruling.

He also pointed out that your “regain balance” was something you added to try to defend the case play being a contradiction to Dez’s catch being ruled incomplete.

I haven't kept up with the regaining balance discussion the two of you are having, and I don't plan to go back and learn about it, so don't look to me.

 

[BlindFaith]

You’ve said the caseplay was wrong or worded poorly. Now you’re saying Blandino chose poor wording.

Maybe just admit that no matter what or how he said it that wouldn’t change the contradiction of his overturn with the rule.

The caseplay confirmed you could complete the process on the way to the ground.

Blandino looked for a football move while Dez was falling because it did matter. It would’ve completed the process. As Blandino said “a reach with two hands”

He’s clearly saying the process would’ve been completed on the way to the ground with, in his eyes, “more of a football move”.

Again. He was going to the ground. Blandino was looking for a football move to complete the process.

Time + lunge
Balance + lunge
Brace + lunge

Thats directly from the case play. The "Act Common" is (time, balance, brace) or as Blandino says "gather" or as I've been saying "interrupting the fall". The football move (lunge/reach) is used to confirm the process and is used in conjunction with gathering/regaining balance but the lunge/reach is not the main requirement or certainly the sole requirement. It is a companion requirement to gathering/regaining balance.

Here are the case plays, once again.

A.R. 15.95 Act common to game Third-and-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 second 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.

GOING TO GROUND
A.R. 15.112 Going to ground before process complete
Second-and-9 on A18. QBA1 throws a pass to A2 at the A31. A2 controls the ball and just as his second foot touches the ground, he is contacted by a defender and driven to the ground. Before the receiver hits the ground, the defender pulls the ball loose. The loose ball is recovered by B3 and returned to the A5. The officials rule catch and fumble.
Ruling: Reviewable. Incomplete pass. Because the receiver did not complete the catch before being contacted, he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. A’s ball third-and-9 on A18. Adjust clock and start on the snap. Only the Replay Official can initiate a review of this play.

A.R. 8.9 GOING TO THE GROUND—INCOMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on A30. A1 throws a pass to A2 who dives and controls the ball while airborne at the A38, but the ball comes out as he hits the ground.
Ruling: Second-and-10 on A30. The pass is incomplete, as the receiver went to the ground in the process of making the catch and did not maintain possession of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground.

A.R. 8.10 GOING TO THE GROUND—INCOMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. The contact by B1 sends him across the goal line and to the ground in the end zone. The ball comes out as he hits the ground.
Ruling: Second-and-10 on B25. The pass is incomplete, as the receiver went to the ground in the process of making the catch and did not maintain possession of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground.

A.R. 8.11 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on A30. A1 throws a pass to A2 at the A45 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. The contact by B1 causes A2 to go to the ground where he maintains control of the ball.
Ruling: First-and-10 on A45. The pass is complete, as the receiver went to the ground in the process of making the catch and maintained possession of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground. A.R.

8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out.
Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The pass is complete. When the receiver hits the ground in the end zone, it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of the catch. Since the ball crossed the goal line, it is a touchdown. If the ball is short of the goal line, it is a catch, and A2 is down by contact.

A.R. 8.13 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS
First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who is contacted by a defender before he completes the catch at the three-yard line. Despite B2’s contact, A2 keeps his balance, gets both feet down, and lunges over the goal line. The ball comes out as he hits the ground.
Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The receiver went to the ground as the result of lunging for the goal line, not in the process of making the catch