raiderrocker18 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, lancerman said: They are not a runner. It’s a moot point. They are not in control of their body. yeah and i've been pretty adamant that the distinction of being a runner or not should no longer factor in. do away with the "going to the ground" rule. 2 feet. possession. football move (change definition to include the intentional act of extending the football). catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super4 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Quote "I think where we are unanimous," Mara told ESPN on Tuesday, "[are] plays like the Dez Bryant play in Green Bay, going to the ground, [and] the Calvin Johnson play from a couple of years ago. I think all of us agree that those should be completions. So let's write the language to make them completions." NFL says it was a catch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raiderrocker18 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 7 minutes ago, Super4 said: NFL says it was a catch well, they say the rules should be such so that those plays would be catches. doesn't mean the call, given the rules at the time, was incorrect. the NFL rescinded the tuck rule in 2013, essentially an admission that the brady play should have been a fumble. but given the rules at the time, it wasn't* *it was still a fumble, even with that rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super4 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 9 minutes ago, raiderrocker18 said: well, they say the rules should be such so that those plays would be catches. doesn't mean the call, given the rules at the time, was incorrect. It was still a catch, the verbiage was wrong. Don't play symantics. There's no reason to change the verbiage of the rule so it's no longer misinterpreted, if it wasn't a catch. They got it wrong. They know it. Quote the NFL rescinded the tuck rule in 2013, essentially an admission that the brady play should have been a fumble. but given the rules at the time, it wasn't* *it was still a fumble, even with that rule. Totally different. There wasn't conflicting verbiage that was cause misinterpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXsteeler Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 13 hours ago, Super4 said: It was still a catch, the verbiage was wrong. Don't play symantics. There's no reason to change the verbiage of the rule so it's no longer misinterpreted, if it wasn't a catch. They got it wrong. They know it. I read the article, Mara is saying they agree that the Dez and CJ catches were catches by the eye test, not that they should have been ruled catches according to the rules at the time, but that the rules should have been different at the time so that they could be ruled catches according to those rules. Saying, "they got it wrong", implies they interpreted the rules incorrectly at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXsteeler Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 15 hours ago, raiderrocker18 said: yeah and i've been pretty adamant that the distinction of being a runner or not should no longer factor in. do away with the "going to the ground" rule. 2 feet. possession. football move (change definition to include the intentional act of extending the football). catch. But this would make these plays turn into fumbles because the 2 feet and possession with an extension would make them runners all of a sudden, so if they don't get touched on their way down or if their knees don't touch before the ball falls out, then it's a fumble if it wasn't a TD already. They need to essentially do what your saying while lawyering the writing of the rule so that these guys don't become runners but also so that the TD can happen the instant the ball crosses the plane with possession, and so that it still counts as a catch while not being a fumble if it was for a first down or something. I guarantee you that very few NFL fans want anything other than for the rules to just 100% support the receivers so that's probably the best outcome the NFL can come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KManX89 Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 On 2/27/2018 at 8:12 PM, lancerman said: Also congrats Cowboys fans you won that game and choked against Seattle. Congrats Green Bay fans, that terrible loss never happened, you went one and done. If we wanna go that route, then Dallas doesn't even make it to the Divisional Round game and we're not even having this discussion 3 years later. But barring that, let's say for sake of argument it was a clean catch according to the then-rules (bobbling and stumbling be damned), best case scenario Dallas is up by 3 points with 3 minutes left with Rodgers driving the ball on a Dallas D that couldn't stop him all game, in primed position to score. I'll take those odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KManX89 Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 Having said all of that, though, I agree it's a stupid rule and wouldn't mind if it's changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 On 3/1/2018 at 7:17 AM, TXsteeler said: But this would make these plays turn into fumbles because the 2 feet and possession with an extension would make them runners all of a sudden, so if they don't get touched on their way down or if their knees don't touch before the ball falls out, then it's a fumble if it wasn't a TD already. They need to essentially do what your saying while lawyering the writing of the rule so that these guys don't become runners but also so that the TD can happen the instant the ball crosses the plane with possession, and so that it still counts as a catch while not being a fumble if it was for a first down or something. I guarantee you that very few NFL fans want anything other than for the rules to just 100% support the receivers so that's probably the best outcome the NFL can come up with. You say that like it's a band thing?? Players worried about fumbling the ball will just not extend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXsteeler Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 On 3/3/2018 at 8:14 AM, Malik said: You say that like it's a band thing?? Players worried about fumbling the ball will just not extend it. Honestly you're probably right. I fell like 95% of these plays happen on the goal line anyways where it's a TD so no fumble, and the small percent that happen in the field of play will probably just be quickly recovered by the receiver because the balls tend to barely fall out of their hands at all, so this is probably a non issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted March 4, 2018 Share Posted March 4, 2018 On 3/3/2018 at 6:14 AM, Malik said: You say that like it's a band thing?? Players worried about fumbling the ball will just not extend it. I think what he's saying is that when you change the rule that way, people will be happy that they got their touchdowns, but the minute their receivers start fumbling because they kind of extended while going down and their team loses possession, or a quick catch and a bump out that would have been an incompletion becomes a fumble, fans will lose their mind again and that will be the new topic of discussion. Fans don't want a logical rule change. They just want the results they want without having to think about the consequences elsewhere. There's only ever been two ways to fix this. Do a consistent rule change across the board which will lead to more fumbles in the field of play and more iffy completions out of bounds OR just look for whatever gets you the result you want and have rules that don't make any logical sense or have consistency with each other. In the former case, fans will complain that they traded TD's for more fumbles. In the latter, fans will complain that the rules are all over the place. This has always been about the result, not the actual process and logic of the matter. Logically the rule makes as much sense as it can possibly make within the context of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jebrick Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Quote NFL Executive Vice President of Football Operations Troy Vincent said Tuesday that the league is closing in on clarifying its controversial catch rule. According to Mark Maske of the Washington Post, Vincent said the NFL plans to eliminate two factors that can cause incompletions. "Slight movement of the ball, it looks like we'll reverse that," he said. "Going to the ground, it looks like that's going to be eliminated. And we'll go back to the old replay standard of reverse the call on the field only when it's indisputable." Vincent added that the competition committee is looking to finalize its proposal Tuesday before presenting it at next week's annual league meeting in Orlando, Florida. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2765567-nfl-competition-committee-plans-to-alter-catch-rule-language-replay-process?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial My major complaint was the reversals without indisputable evidence. Quote Vincent explained the process of determining what should be ruled a catch: "We worked backward. We looked at plays and said: Do you want that to be a catch? And then we applied that to the rule." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigD88 Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 "Going to the ground" is not the issue. The issue is the fact that the NFL refuses to acknowledge that a player can possess the ball and make a "football move" while going to the ground (like Dez did, and Calvin did, etc). If they did that, all of the controversial calls related to this wouldn't be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.