The Wiz Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, row_33 said: it's made up on the spot by officials and then the replay people you can't carve in stone every situation, they can often mess up what is pointedly obvious. Gotcha. I'm more curious about how they are going to use it in situations where a receiver is coming back to make a catch. Similar as to when you see a receiver jump in the air and go back a few feet but they rule the catch where it was actually made. Would the line to gain be where it was caught or where the receiver came down with it? Not expecting you to know the answer just one of those weird situations that I can see them mucking up.
Boatdrinks Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 28 minutes ago, The Wiz said: So can someone explain/define what the "line-to-gain" is? Seems vague which to me can mean, open for interpretation by the refs. The first down line, wherever that is at the time. Players often extend the ball to get a first down, and that is now covered. 41 minutes ago, MAJBobby said: And they thought the old catch rule was a good idea too. So? so tell me what it an ability to make a football move Clearly it wasn't . They created a problem by trying to do away with cheap fumbles. However you didn't answer my question. Why do you think it WAS included ?
MAJBobby Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 Because the NFL just likes to over complicate the catch rule. 2 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: The first down line, wherever that is at the time. Players often extend the ball to get a first down, and that is now covered. Clearly it wasn't . They created a problem by trying to do away with cheap fumbles. However you didn't answer my question. Why do you think it WAS included ? See above
Boatdrinks Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 Just now, MAJBobby said: Because the NFL just likes to over complicate the catch rule. See above A mentally lazy answer. Ok
MAJBobby Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 Just now, Boatdrinks said: A mentally lazy answer. Ok Tell me then first you have to define what it even is saying and not some vague interpretative statement before i can tell you why or why it wasnt included
Boatdrinks Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 10 minutes ago, MAJBobby said: Tell me then first you have to define what it even is saying and not some vague interpretative statement before i can tell you why or why it wasnt included I already did, it comes back to the fumbling issue. The league wanted to simplify the catch definition, and get rid of the silly stuff about surviving the ground, slight movement of the ball, and replay overturning catches based on questionable evidence. The "ability to perform such an act " subheading after the third step/ extension gives the officials the ability to look at a play/ replay and decide if a ball was caught then fumbled, or incomplete when these actions don't occur. There was concern amongst coaches /GMs etc about changing elements of the catch rule leading to cheap turnovers. This was put in to establish that "moment of posession" when the ball is caught and could subsequently be lost. Not all plays fit in a narrow set of criteria, there has to be something to cover all situations.
MAJBobby Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 Just now, Boatdrinks said: I already did, it comes back to the fumbling issue. The league wanted to simplify the catch definition, and get rid of the silly stuff about surviving the ground, slight movement of the ball, and replay overturning catches based on questionable evidence. The "ability to perform such an act " subheading after the third step/ extension gives the officials the ability to look at a play/ replay and decide if a ball was caught then fumbled, or incomplete when these actions don't occur. There was concern amongst coaches /GMs etc about changing elements of the catch rule leading to cheap turnovers. This was put in to establish that "moment of posession" when the ball is caught and could subsequently be lost. Not all plays fit in a narrow set of criteria, there has to be something to cover all situations. So thanks again like i said That is when they messed up the re-write. Adding some nebulous bullet. Can I ask what was wrong with the catch rule pre Calvin Johnson when all this changing the catch rule started? NADA
Boatdrinks Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 1 minute ago, MAJBobby said: So thanks again like i said That is when they messed up the re-write. Adding some nebulous bullet. Can I ask what was wrong with the catch rule pre Calvin Johnson when all this changing the catch rule started? NADA It's not nebulous, and you had / still have no idea why you oppose it. The game features more passing today than in the past. The competition committee / coaches et al don't want cheap fumbles changing games. To eliminate the parts of the rule that needed to be changed for obvious reasons that we all saw is a good thing. It wasn't going to come without some interpretation to define just when a ball can be fumbled or not. Otherwise they will just be wasting a lot of time on fumble calls instead of " is that a catch because " calls. As for the second part, I think all this what is a catch stuff started with Bert Emanuel in a playoff game about 20 years ago
MAJBobby Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 The Calvin Johnson play is what started this horrible trend of consistently tweaking what is a catch. The Calvin Johnson rule. But yeah it is better than it was. Still way nebulous and allows the Refs to control the outcomes of the football games.
Recommended Posts