mse326 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 minute ago, TXsteeler said: Did the NFL have this problem with the catch rule 20 years ago? Did the NFL have 4 to 5 fumbles a game? No because it was just ruled incomplete and there was no replay. With replay they had to better define when it's a catch, when it's a fumble, and when it's incomplete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXsteeler Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, mse326 said: No because it was just ruled incomplete and there was no replay. With replay they had to better define when it's a catch, when it's a fumble, and when it's incomplete. Did they have this rule 10 years ago when they had replay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, TXsteeler said: Well he sure screwed it up then. You can’t make a better rule without making it more complicating it or having it effect other aspects of the game in a negative way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Just now, TXsteeler said: Did they have this rule 10 years ago when they had replay? The rules 10 years ago weren't working that is why they've kept trying to change it. They didn't just wake up one day and say "Hey, I got an idea to F up the game" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, TXsteeler said: Did the NFL have this problem with the catch rule 20 years ago? Did the NFL have 4 to 5 fumbles a game? 20 years ago the NFL was broadcast in standard definition from a couple of camera views. Today's NFL is broadcast in HD with a dozen camera views, including over head and on the end zone pylons. The game is played at hyper-speed in real time by elite athletes, but adjudicated in super slo motion via replay. That's why the rules have to evolve, to keep up with the game. And the game is so fast, its approaching the limits of what a human eye can resolve in real time. (That's why card tricks work - the hand is quicker than the eye ) And now days, the eye in the sky is shooting faster and in greater resolution than ever before. No human ref can replicate that technology....well maybe Steve Austin. So the real time rules that worked in 1990's NFL aren't good enough for the fans in 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 10 minutes ago, ninjapirate said: Make a live application for all people watching the game to be in on their phones and have people vote on questionable catches. Majority stands. I mean that's not really worse than the current system. Sorry but God no. The Pro Bowl already proves this to be a terrible idea. Have you read the game day threads just on this forum alone? Every CLEAR call is already "controversial" because most people can't be objective when it comes to their own team. 3 minutes ago, mse326 said: No because it was just ruled incomplete and there was no replay. With replay they had to better define when it's a catch, when it's a fumble, and when it's incomplete. Not too mention they didn't have the luxury of the same technology used in today's game as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 9 hours ago, dtait93 said: Possession and 2 feet. Pretty simple iyam Edit: By possession I mean having a clear grasp of the ball What defines a "clear grasp"? The question was rhetorical but those are the same questions that players and fans would still be arguing about. Truth is, there is no real end-all solution to the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, lancerman said: By the league's definition..... People get confused and think any deliberate move is a football move. It's not. A football move has one purpose and one purpose only in the game of football. The entire concept of it is to establish someone as a runner with possession of the ball. It's a transition move from a receiver to a runner. If you a receiver who is falling before you establish yourself as a runner you by definition cannot be a runner unless you maintain control of the ball and get up untouched and then make a football move. Think of it this way, there are TWO ways to make a catch. 1. To catch the ball, maintain possession, and then make a football move and establish yourself as a runner. Transitioning from receiver to ball carrier. 2. To catch the ball and maintain possession throughout out a fall without losing it at any point while going to the ground. When people say "common sense says turning and reaching is a football move" it completely misses the point of the point of a football move. If people understood the concepts better this rule wouldn't be an issue. It's just people generally don't and get confused. Then it's made even more complicated on grey area plays. But then general rule of thumb should be, if the receiver is falling, the ball should never touch the ground BS, its a dumb rule. Catching the ball followed having enough possession to take the ball and reach for the goal line is a football move. Any definition that does not include that as a football move is a bad definition that lacks common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 minute ago, youngosu said: BS, its a dumb rule. Catching the ball followed having enough possession to take the ball and reach for the goal line is a football move. Any definition that does not include that as a football move is a bad definition that lacks common sense. A football move is solely about transitioning someone to a runner. If you can’t understand that I can’t help you. You don’t understand the concept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 39 minutes ago, TXsteeler said: Did the NFL have this problem with the catch rule 20 years ago? Did the NFL have 4 to 5 fumbles a game? No but the NFL also wasn't using your "2 feet and possession" definition of a catch. Plenty of guys who got 2 feet down with possession and dropped the ball had the pass ruled incomplete 20 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buno67 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 K.I.S.S.- Keep It Simple, Stupid. A catch should be, two feet are on the ground, ball is in the hands, and either take a 3rd step or bring the ball into the body, should be considered a catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, lancerman said: A football move is solely about transitioning someone to a runner. If you can’t understand that I can’t help you. You don’t understand the concept Get over yourself. Just because I disagree with your opinion and think the NFL definition is absurd doesn't mean I don't "understand the concept" I understand just fine, it simply lacks common sense. Reaching a football out is a football move. If you can't recognize that you just might lack common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtait93 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 52 minutes ago, mse326 said: If you think it is that easy to hold onto a ball falling at the force they do then you have never really tried reaching/diving for a catch. I never said it was easy. I said survive the ground so you don't fumble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Just now, dtait93 said: I never said it was easy. I said survive the ground so you don't fumble In other words passes that are clearly incomplete to 99% of fans will now be ruled fumbles? Awesome idea if you don't actually want to fix the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Just now, youngosu said: Get over yourself. Just because I disagree with your opinion and think the NFL definition is absurd doesn't mean I don't "understand the concept" I understand just fine, it simply lacks common sense. Reaching a football out is a football move. If you can't recognize that you just might lack common sense. I don’t need to because I’m not the person whose wrong. It’s not an opinion. A football move was established for one reason. Only one reason. To make a receiver making a catch a runner who had possession and could advance and fumble the ball. There is literally zero other reason for it. You can’t make a football move while falling because you can’t become a runner while falling.... .... a little thing called common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.