NFL to review catch rule (again)

[cddolphin]

2 hours ago, eagles101 said:

O whooray. Because everytime the change it definitely has gotten better and not more murky and terrible. 

The rule is in it's worse state ever, fans / coaches / commentators alike have been blasting it for two seasons, opening it up for discussion again is a great thing.

Here's hoping they simplify the verbage and leave room for common sense.

[eagles101]

1 minute ago, cddolphin said:

The rule is in it's worse state ever, fans / coaches / commentators alike have been blasting it for two seasons, opening it up for discussion again is a great thing.

Here's hoping they simplify the verbage and leave room for common sense.

Ya its in the worse state because they keep monkeying with it. Just like people are saying “keep it simple” but then a play happens that isnt so simple and we get a poop storm of whining brats complaining. Then nfl tries to curb the whining instead of logically making the rule. So yes the its horrible now and it should eb discussed but excuses me if i think this is just going to lead to more nonsensical rules and sub rules that make it just more confusing and worse.

[EaglesPeteC]

100% chance it gets more complicated.

[DingoLadd]

The NFL is gonna screw it up, just how much more we'll have to see.

[JLambert58]

2 hours ago, Broncofan said:

Under the current rule neither is considered a football move.  Yet it’s clearly viewed as that when they are a runner (ball dead if you cross end zone by extending ball - remember that Dez didn’t cross the EZ lone).  

FWIW I agree with you on the conclusion but the issue is how the rules define a football move.  

That's why the rule needs to be fixed.  I've been watching football a LONG time and what they've done with the catch rule goes against the nature of the game. 

[raiderrocker18]

dez didnt catch it

but seriously, unless the ball ends up ******* rolling on the floor, give them the catch

[Pugger]

Yes, they need to clarify what is considered a "football move".  Also, if the ground cannot cause a fumble for a runner why do they say it can during a catch?  

[cddolphin]

1 hour ago, eagles101 said:

Ya its in the worse state because they keep monkeying with it.

Probably but now that's broken this badly you can't just ignore it out of fear you'll make it even worse.

[youngosu]

14 minutes ago, Pugger said:

Yes, they need to clarify what is considered a "football move".  Also, if the ground cannot cause a fumble for a runner why do they say it can during a catch?  

The ground absolutely can and does cause fumbles.

That said, maintaining possession is a logical part of making a catch so if you lose the ball when hitting the ground it makes sense to rule it incomplete. The problem is that right now you can be "falling" for 5 yards and still have it ruled incomplete. That is stupid. 

The rule shouldn't be over defined. It should be essentially, you know it when you see it. Everyone knows what a catch looks like. The biggest problem with the rule is that they have tried to define something that can't be truly defined. 

[JLambert58]

 

[DontTazeMeBro]

I don’t want to make things easier for offense. But this really doesn’t need to be that complicated. 2 feet on ground+ possession of ball = catch

And if you lose possession of the ball after you get 2 feet on the ground. Fumble. So stupid you get a few steps after the catch before it’s a fumble 

[Eagles23]

Writing a catch rule that makes sense 100% of time with slow motion replay is a tough task

[youngosu]

49 minutes ago, DontTazeMeBro said:

I don’t want to make things easier for offense. But this really doesn’t need to be that complicated. 2 feet on ground+ possession of ball = catch

And if you lose possession of the ball after you get 2 feet on the ground. Fumble. So stupid you get a few steps after the catch before it’s a fumble 

I know people want to say this but that would be so much worse. 

A player has to be able to maintain possession when hit or immediately falling to the ground. 

The issue is that sometimes a guy can literally catch it, take 5 steps while falling and its still ruled incomplete. If the rule gets changed they way you describe it would be a massive overreaction in the wrong direction. 

[youngosu]

46 minutes ago, Eagles23 said:

Writing a catch rule that makes sense 100% of time with slow motion replay is a tough task

Which is of course why the NFL should just get rid of replay but that is a bigger discussion. 

 

That said, the NFL had replay in the 80's and early 90's but did not have an issue determining what a catch was then. The problem is that they aren't letting common sense be used. 

[lancerman]

4 hours ago, JLambert58 said:

A catch is possession and a football move.  Period.  

Dez Bryant:  Catch

Jesse James:  Catch

 

You can't make a football move while falling so even under your idea both of those won't be catches.