Jump to content

"The Process" (time to change the rule)


Cugalabanza

Recommended Posts

I understand that the refs have to interpret the rule as it's written. But it's a bogus rule. I'm no Cowboys fan, but Dez deserved that one.

 

This bull **** rule has plagued the NFL too long. The Rules Committee needs to change it this offseason.

 

It's ridiculous that "completing the process" should include judgement on what happens to the ball AFTER the play would have been ruled dead because the player is down. Also, the term "football move" is problematic because it's utterly !@#$ing meaningless.

Edited by Cugalabanza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I fail to comprehend any of the reasoning behind that call. I hate Dallas so I won't lose sleep, I just don't get it.

Unfortunately, the reasoning is valid, given the language of the BS rule. But I agree with you in spirit, that every common sense understanding of the game says it was a catch. You look at the play and say YES he caught it. The play is over when his body hits the ground. The ball comes out AFTER that. Why does the NFL continue to weigh what happens after the play is over?

 

Change the rule! Please. End this part of the game that is broken.

Calvin johnson rule

Yes. And every fan That I've ever talked to about it agrees that it's a bull **** rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate Dallas and Im thrilled that theyve been eliminated.

However, it passed the eye test and that was a catch. It does not make sense that you can maintain control like Dez did....then slam into the ground and have that jar the ball lose a little bit and now it becomes an incomplete pass.

Anyone remember this play?


Calvin Johnsons 1 handed TD vs the Bears a few years back that got overturned.

 

This call made me remember that


IMO If you maintain control of the ball and your body lands on the ground it should be a catch and anything the ground causes after that should be considered a fumble.

Edited by TallskiWallski83
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ball hit the ground and came loose, in other words: incomplete pass.


Watching live I thought it was incomplete. After the replays I was convinced it was an incredible catch.

Same here. In real time you can see the ball hit the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ball never really came lose. He hit the ground an the ball shifted but never left his hand. Then dezrolled over and re-grasped the ball batter. He never lost the ball.

 

Common sense says that's an obvious catch and the rule needs to be fixed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way Mike P. Explained it makes it worse, that it was never a question of control of the ball. He had control, and that is a given. The completing the action is the issue, and more specifically performing a football move. Apparently 3 steps, switch hands, and extending are not football moves. The ground can cause an incompletion for a ball not in control or possession of the receiver. That makes sense to me. But the ground cannot cause an incompletion for somebody with control of the football, because that would be a fumble, hence control. (Note: ground can't cause a fumble)

 

Gaining/maintaining control aren't the issues, it was he did not extend far enough to perform a football move. The move is up for debate not the control, which makes little to no sense to me.

The ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incomplete pass. NFL rules are goofy.

It makes sense to me, think of it this way, the ground can only end a play, not extend it. Ground is a dead zone, so by fumbling due to the ground, would keep the play alive, while bouncing off te turf on a reception would also end the play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stevie Johnson vs. Miami, December of 2012. I tried to find the video but couldn't. Pretty much the same so I figured it would be incomplete and would have been angry if it weren't. Yes, I hold grudges that long. If attempting to make a catch while off balance and falling to the ground, the ball must still be secured after player contacts the ground. Only difference is the ball actually touched the ground during the process so it negated the "recatch."

 

What I have a problem with is when they invoke this rule in such instances and an action by a defender caused the ball to be dislodged after an element to end the play has occurred (knee down, out-of-bounds, etc.) I think that was what was wrong with the similar call involving Goodwin last year (Bengals game?) He went to the ground, rolled over and the defender dislodged it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LyM--o1R98

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whether or not you like this call --

 

id be curious what people think the rule SHOULD be, and if they think itll avoid any hazy areas or judgement calls if switched?

 

i totally agree with this. people bitching about the rule fail to offer how it SHOULD be codified.

 

and for every spectacular near-catch like yesterday, the rule susses out a dozen bogus catches along the way.

there's really no other way to write the rule without leaving A LOT to subjectivity.

 

and quite frankly, if it was my team, and fractions of an inch and hundredths of a second separated me from a conference championship game, i'd want any and all subjectivity summarily eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

i totally agree with this. people bitching about the rule fail to offer how it SHOULD be codified.

 

and for every spectacular near-catch like yesterday, the rule susses out a dozen bogus catches along the way.

 

there's really no other way to write the rule without leaving A LOT to subjectivity.

 

and quite frankly, if it was my team, and fractions of an inch and hundredths of a second separated me from a conference championship game, i'd want any and all subjectivity summarily eliminated.

 

its a tough spot, because you want to get everything right, but then you have to govern for infinite possibilities, and then we get a rulebook that is too big to comprehend. and then we complain that the refs are either inconsistent or cant possibly process all we are asking of them.

 

this rule i think was meant to simplify and create a bright line standard - did the ball move or not. it wont always pass the "you know it when you see it" test for everybody, but do we want to switch it to the refs making that judgement? or whats the alternative?

 

i think its an interesting conversation (more interesting than debating this single play, honestly -- dez shouldve held on instead of reaching out. he took a risk and he lost on it this time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

i totally agree with this. people bitching about the rule fail to offer how it SHOULD be codified.

 

and for every spectacular near-catch like yesterday, the rule susses out a dozen bogus catches along the way.

there's really no other way to write the rule without leaving A LOT to subjectivity.

 

and quite frankly, if it was my team, and fractions of an inch and hundredths of a second separated me from a conference championship game, i'd want any and all subjectivity summarily eliminated.

 

 

This is the exact issue IMO. A different officiating crews possibly sees that differently and that is called a catch. Hell the same crew can call that a catch on a different day.

 

It is, like you mentioned too subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...