RememberTheRockpile Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 Look like they are trying to fix stupid. Quote The NFL's rule making competition's committee is set to finalize and announce a new definition for the league's controversial catch rule, according to the Washington Post. The new rule will get rid of provisions pertaining to the slight movement of the football once it hits the receiver's hands and the going-to-the-ground requirement.
Elite Poster Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 Good thing these rules don't pertain to us, as we don't do the throwing and catching all that much! 1
GrizzReaper Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 It is a dumb rule... If the guy has the ball it's a frickin catch. Why do they have to make it so complicated? 1
MrEpsYtown Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 The will find a way to screw it up anyway. Especially with that idiot in charge again.
Houston's #1 Bills Fan Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 Do we get our touchdown against the Pats back?
Saxum Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 It obviously made the league look very, very bad so they changed it without blaming new head of officiating (and defecating) who was making the calls without an explicit rule change. Oh and of course media article is as honest as linked article "Related slideshow: NFL cheerleaders". Yes NFL cheerleaders are related to poor calls by zebras. 1 minute ago, Houston's #1 Bills Fan said: Do we get our touchdown against the Pats back? No new rule says they can get a TD on us whenever they want saved in a bank. Of course that rule was not written down like changes in possession the league head honcho did via instant replay.
Jay_Fixit Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, GrizzReaper said: It is a dumb rule... If the guy has the ball it's a frickin catch. Why do they have to make it so complicated? Yup. Possession. Two feet/knee. Catch. Ground should have no part of this equation. Edited March 21, 2018 by Jay_Fixit 4
Houston's #1 Bills Fan Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 10 minutes ago, Limeaid said: It obviously made the league look very, very bad so they changed it without blaming new head of officiating (and defecating) who was making the calls without an explicit rule change. Oh and of course media article is as honest as linked article "Related slideshow: NFL cheerleaders". Yes NFL cheerleaders are related to poor calls by zebras. No new rule says they can get a TD on us whenever they want saved in a bank. Of course that rule was not written down like changes in possession the league head honcho did via instant replay. hahaha - that was funny! (sadly, true though...)
NoSaint Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 34 minutes ago, GrizzReaper said: It is a dumb rule... If the guy has the ball it's a frickin catch. Why do they have to make it so complicated? Lets remember this when some guy going to the ground loses a ball and it’s called a catch still and upsets everyone. In reality it’s a really tough sequence to govern using a couple bullet points. Either you end up making it complex or you give refs a ton of leeway— neither loved by fans 2
Misterbluesky Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 19 minutes ago, Houston's #1 Bills Fan said: Do we get our touchdown against the Pats back? That's because the video judge,former ref,is buddies with Kraft.
Doc Brown Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 I thought this was the rule. "And we’ll go back to the old replay standard of reverse the call on the field only when it’s indisputable.” 1
NoSaint Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 18 minutes ago, Jay_Fixit said: Yup. Possession. Two feet/knee. Catch. Ground should have no part of this equation. Picture a guy standing. Ball hits his hands and he gets drilled. Ball comes out. How do you define possession?
Jay_Fixit Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 1 minute ago, NoSaint said: Picture a guy standing. Ball hits his hands and he gets drilled. Ball comes out. How do you define possession? Did he have possession? Because that’s how you define possession. Not difficult. 1
GrizzReaper Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, NoSaint said: Lets remember this when some guy going to the ground loses a ball and it’s called a catch still and upsets everyone. In reality it’s a really tough sequence to govern using a couple bullet points. Either you end up making it complex or you give refs a ton of leeway— neither loved by fans Yeah I know it'll cause issues re: fumbles you're totally right. They really over do it though. There has to be a simpler way... That makes some sort of fricken sense. Maybe they just deal with it.. let it cut both ways. Just don't fricken fumble. Put the onus on the players. That's football. Edited March 21, 2018 by GrizzReaper
NoSaint Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 9 minutes ago, Jay_Fixit said: Did he have possession? Because that’s how you define possession. Not difficult. Do you define it the same as me? What about as ed hochuli? Are refs using the porn vs art standard of “you know it when you see it”?
Jay_Fixit Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 Just now, NoSaint said: Do you define it the same as me? What about as ed hochuli? Are refs using the porn vs art standard of “you know it when you see it”? Yes. 2 feet. Ball is possessed. Catch. If it’s not possessed, it’s not a catch. Until it’s possessed of course. Then it’s a catch. Unless it’s not. Because then it’s not. I mean, I know of easier things to recognize but not many. In fact, I should probably just show up to the NFL offices tomorrow and say “Hi guys, I’m the new rules guy, somebody get me a coffee.” 1
GrizzReaper Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 Saints mentioned a guy going to the ground then loses the ball. If the guy isn't "down" and he loses the ball I say its a fumble not a completion. IF he clearly is holding the ball in his possession in any way shape or form then yeah fumble. Because if he didn't lose it he would have a completion. Right? Idk it just seems overly complicated to me. Get back to old school football.
What a Tuel Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 A lot of people don't like that WRs catching a ball very briefly and letting go would qualify as a catch, and it would be annoying when it happens. But the alternative is much worse in my opinion. I also like the idea of opening up the receiving game to more fumbles now. Make it a risk to let the ball go after catching it even briefly. Otherwise it just seems sterile with "oh he catches it, and turns, and oh the ball comes out, no catch. Lets stand around and review for 10 minutes" rather than opening it up to the players on the field to recover and make a play.
DallasMac Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 Guess I'm one of the few ppl that didn't have a problem with the rule the way it was. Just needed to be enforced correctly.
Dan Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 3 hours ago, NoSaint said: Picture a guy standing. Ball hits his hands and he gets drilled. Ball comes out. How do you define possession? Trick question! You can't hit a defenseless receiver. Penalty on the defense, automatic first down. I agree with many here... If you catch it, with 2 feet/knee down, its a catch. If you drop the ball on the way to to the ground... Its a catch and fumble. If the ball moves in your hands, AFTER you have possession, on the ground, out of bounds, whatever.. Still a catch.
Recommended Posts