Jump to content

"The Process" (time to change the rule)


Cugalabanza

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

I actually didn't mention it but you're right. It's already too subjective but it's damn near impossible to change the rule without making it WAY too subjective.

 

In this case, true to the OP, what's subjective is what referees consider "the process."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They changed the "shove WR out of bounds rule" to make it 100% objective. Why not do that with this ground rule? If you have possession and get two feet (or elbow or butt...) down in bounds, it's a catch. The end. If the ball comes out after that, it's a fumble.

 

Probably a rule change coming this off season.

Edited by Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't maintain possession falling to the ground... I don't see the confusion. when he hit the ground, the ball popped free. incomplete. Dez whining and crying. Homey very happy.

 

?

 

He had clear possession, 3 feet down, and an elbow...THEN the ball hit the ground and came out.

 

The rule makes no sense.

 

They can remove all the garbage in the interpretation and just say possession plus feet (elbow, butt) = catch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The easy answer is its to simplify the call for refs and gain consistency. If you catch the ball, hold the ball. If it comes out, it's not a catch.

Its also the smart answer. The NFL rules have passed the point of being even ridiculous, and are about 90% of the reason for the inconsistency and complaints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calvin johnson rule

 

Hehehe ....

 

AKA Poetic Justice

What needs to be changed is that stupid rule about ineligible receivers.

 

NE clearly used that rule to make it appear that an ineligible skill-position player was actually eligible thereby tying up coverage resources. Otherwise he wouldn't have been split.

 

Typical NE, bending rules outside the scope of their intent to favor them. I'm confident that they won't win the Super Bowl and right now Indy's playing better, so we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hehehe ....

 

AKA Poetic Justice

What needs to be changed is that stupid rule about ineligible receivers.

 

NE clearly used that rule to make it appear that an ineligible skill-position player was actually eligible thereby tying up coverage resources. Otherwise he wouldn't have been split.

 

Typical NE, bending rules outside the scope of their intent to favor them. I'm confident that they won't win the Super Bowl and right now Indy's playing better, so we'll see.

 

I would hope Buffalo would do the same thing. I consider that smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete."

 

I believe the announcers brought up the "Calvin Johnson Rule" .

 

Also Dez didn't have complete control of the ball while taking steps .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its also the smart answer. The NFL rules have passed the point of being even ridiculous, and are about 90% of the reason for the inconsistency and complaints.

 

I'm sorry, but simplifying the rule leaves much more to interpretation.

 

For clarity, see how soccer has written the rules of the game. They're intentionally vague and concise, and the open-interpretation is what has lead to different styles of plays from league to league since the rules are enforced completely different in Italy compared to Germany compared to the U.S. compared to England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

?

 

He had clear possession, 3 feet down, and an elbow...THEN the ball hit the ground and came out.

 

The rule makes no sense.

 

They can remove all the garbage in the interpretation and just say possession plus feet (elbow, butt) = catch.

he was stumbling to the ground and when he hit it popped loose.

the rule says if going to the ground the ball cant pop loose.

it seems simple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he was stumbling to the ground and when he hit it popped loose.

the rule says if going to the ground the ball cant pop loose.

it seems simple?

In theory knees and elbow was down. I never got why that doesn't end the play right there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's why the rule doens't make sense.

 

If you run into the end zone with the ball, and are not tackled, therefore never hit the ground it is a touchdown. In fact it's a touchdown the moment the ball breaks the plane.

 

So if you have the ball at a point that it has crossed the plane regardless of if you have completed the process of hitting the ground the touchdown should have already been ruled at the point tha the ball crossed the plane in Dez's posession or the moment Cal Johnson had two feet down.

 

Having posession of the ball in the endzone should be a touchdown regardless of what happens next or else they need to say that anyone that scores a touchdown still needs to be tackled!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory knees and elbow was down. I never got why that doesn't end the play right there

because they are saying that possession isnt established until the fall is complete. that simply having it for an instant isnt enough, that you demonstrate you actually fully controlled it.

 

saw a ref discussing it that said they used to always tell player that when they score, before they spike/spin/celebrate however to hold the ball out to show the official. that it was an easy way to eliminate ANY possible grey area as a similar example despite the play ending immediately on possession in the end zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's why the rule doens't make sense.

 

If you run into the end zone with the ball, and are not tackled, therefore never hit the ground it is a touchdown. In fact it's a touchdown the moment the ball breaks the plane.

 

So if you have the ball at a point that it has crossed the plane regardless of if you have completed the process of hitting the ground the touchdown should have already been ruled at the point tha the ball crossed the plane in Dez's posession or the moment Cal Johnson had two feet down.

 

Having posession of the ball in the endzone should be a touchdown regardless of what happens next or else they need to say that anyone that scores a touchdown still needs to be tackled!

 

 

If you catch the ball in the air and then come down and the ball hits the ground like it did yesterday then it would not be a TD.

Edited by Pondslider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

because they are saying that possession isnt established until the fall is complete. that simply having it for an instant isnt enough, that you demonstrate you actually fully controlled it.

 

saw a ref discussing it that said they used to always tell player that when they score, before they spike/spin/celebrate however to hold the ball out to show the official. that it was an easy way to eliminate ANY possible grey area as a similar example despite the play ending immediately on possession in the end zone.

 

This is PRECISELY what happened to Megatron. It appears from replays that the release of the ball was entirely voluntary.

 

And again, for every play like that, for every play like yesterday's, there are a dozen other would-be catches that are rightfully overturned with A LOT less grey area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...