dtait93 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 26 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said: 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. Once again it's not complicated. Clear - leaving no doubt; obvious or ambiguous Grasp - a firm hold or grip Clear grasp - a firm hold or grip that is obvious What's the issue with that? Just use logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Just now, dtait93 said: Once again it's not complicated. Clear - leaving no doubt; obvious or ambiguous Grasp - a firm hold or grip Clear grasp - a firm hold or grip that is obvious What's the issue with that? Just use logic. They’ll be a grey area and people will cry about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 20 minutes ago, lancerman said: 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. Again, disagree. You absolutely can prove you have caught a ball and even become a runner while falling down. You do so by having enough control of both the ball and yourself to turn and reach out while falling to the ground. Just because you (and the NFL) lack common sense doesn't mean the average fan does. As I said earlier, I watched a play this year where the guy advanced the ball 5 yards with multiple steps and the ball in his possession and when he fell to the ground 7 yards after establishing control to anyone with any common sense he dropped the ball and it was ruled incomplete. I don't even remember what game it was (I know it was against the Seahawks) because such absurd lack of common sense rulings get made a half dozen times every Sunday. Sorry, any rule that does that lacks even a tiny bit of common sense. And that lack of common sense in the rule is making their game nearly unwatchable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 7 minutes ago, dtait93 said: Once again it's not complicated. Clear - leaving no doubt; obvious or ambiguous Grasp - a firm hold or grip Clear grasp - a firm hold or grip that is obvious What's the issue with that? Just use logic. "He didn't have a firm grip though, he clearly lost control of the ball when....." One would think that some of the rules that are currently set in place are pretty simple too and only takes a simple bit of logic to see and understand too. But yet, we still have controversy over those calls as well. Again, there is no easy fix for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 I think the simpler way is to go back to the old way. If it touches the ground at all, not a catch. If you bobble it at all while going out of bounds, not a catch. Eliminate "football move," and eliminate two steps. Once a player catches it and takes what would constitute traveling in the NBA in the direction they want to go (towards the endzone), it's a catch. Anything short of that with the ball touching the ground and it's not a catch. You're not going to simplify the rule by allowing close calls to be called catches. The only way to simplify the rule is to make it easier to say what's NOT a catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtait93 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 14 minutes ago, youngosu said: 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. What passes are, "clearly incomplete"? Give me some examples. If a reciever goes up for a catch, possesses the ball, and the ball dislodges when he hits the ground then it should be a fumble because he lost possession of it. The same way if a RB takes a handoff, possesses the ball, trips over himself, and loses possession of it when he hits the ground. If we want black and white and no grey then this is the best solution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 minute ago, HorizontoZenith said: I think the simpler way is to go back to the old way. If it touches the ground at all, not a catch. If you bobble it at all while going out of bounds, not a catch. Eliminate "football move," and eliminate two steps. Once a player catches it and takes what would constitute traveling in the NBA in the direction they want to go (towards the endzone), it's a catch. Anything short of that with the ball touching the ground and it's not a catch. You're not going to simplify the rule by allowing close calls to be called catches. The only way to simplify the rule is to make it easier to say what's NOT a catch. Agree the "football move" as defined by the NFL is ridiculous. I like the "held the ball long enough to make a move common to the game" standard. I like this because you don't even have to actually make "a move" just have held the ball long enough to do so. Bang bang plays while the guy goes to the ground immediately or has the ball jarred loose by a defender would be ruled incomplete as they should be. And plays where the player is making clear (to 99% of fans) "football moves" like reaching the endzone would be ruled complete. Its really not that hard, hell watch games on Saturday and you see far less debate about what is/isn't a catch (NCAA using "held ball long enough to make a move common to the game' standard for the most part). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtait93 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said: "He didn't have a firm grip though, he clearly lost control of the ball when....." One would think that some of the rules that are currently set in place are pretty simple too and only takes a simple bit of logic to see and understand too. But yet, we still have controversy over those calls as well. Again, there is no easy fix for this. That quote doesn't hold water. If you " lost control of the ball" then at some point you would have had control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, dtait93 said: What passes are, "clearly incomplete"? Give me some examples. If a reciever goes up for a catch, possesses the ball, and the ball dislodges when he hits the ground then it should be a fumble because he lost possession of it. The same way if a RB takes a handoff, possesses the ball, trips over himself, and loses possession of it when he hits the ground. If we want black and white and no grey then this is the best solution You never lack grey nor should that be the goal. The NFL is trying to make it "black and white" which is why we have this mess. In your example if its bang/bang that should be incomplete, if he has it long enough to make a move common to the game (including turning and/or reaching the ball out) than its a catch. Forward passes are not handoffs so that comparison doesn't work. Its not that hard. And yes, sometimes it would be a judgement call. Maybe as fans we need to learn that nothing is "black and white" and sometimes we need to rely on a professional's judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Just now, dtait93 said: That quote doesn't hold water. If you " lost control of the ball" then at some point you would have had control. It was an example. The point is, there is still going to be controversy over whether the player had "a firm grip" or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAF-N72EX Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 10 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said: I think the simpler way is to go back to the old way. If it touches the ground at all, not a catch. If you bobble it at all while going out of bounds, not a catch. Eliminate "football move," and eliminate two steps. Once a player catches it and takes what would constitute traveling in the NBA in the direction they want to go (towards the endzone), it's a catch. Anything short of that with the ball touching the ground and it's not a catch. You're not going to simplify the rule by allowing close calls to be called catches. The only way to simplify the rule is to make it easier to say what's NOT a catch. Other than eliminating the two step rule(that HAS to stay for many reasons) I agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtait93 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 25 minutes ago, youngosu said: You never lack grey nor should that be the goal. The NFL is trying to make it "black and white" which is why we have this mess. In your example if its bang/bang that should be incomplete, if he has it long enough to make a move common to the game (including turning and/or reaching the ball out) than its a catch. Forward passes are not handoffs so that comparison doesn't work. Its not that hard. And yes, sometimes it would be a judgement call. Maybe as fans we need to learn that nothing is "black and white" and sometimes we need to rely on a professional's judgement. Why should it be incomplete? Would tucking the ball in mid air constitute as a move common to the game? What about obtaining possession of the ball before bringing it towards your body? Why or why not? Both of those seem pretty common in the game of football no? I wasn't comparing forward passes and handoffs, I was comparing 2 different situations in which both situations the player loses control of the ball when they hit the ground. If you have possession, then lose possession, it's a fumble. It doesn't need to be anymore complicated than that. Hasn't relying, "on a professionals judgement" gotten us to this cluster-**** definition of a catch we're at now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles23 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Why can't NFL players just maintain possession through out the process of the catch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugger Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 3 hours ago, Eagles23 said: Why can't NFL players just maintain possession through out the process of the catch? But what about when a player stretches the ball over the goal line like in the Steelers/Patriots game and it pops out when his hands and ball hits the ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriminalMind Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 The problem with the current rule, is non-hardcore fans just can't understand the rule as is right now. Hardcore fans might understand how the current rule is applied, but this review is really to not confused the average person. I think "football move" is eliminated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.