eagles101 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 16 minutes ago, CriminalMind said: 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 Disagree completely. The problem with the rule now is that it doesnt make sense. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to explain the rule and how its applied. most fans just disagree with it. The rule on a logical perspective doesnt make sense. then add in that it gives no room for the refs to make logical decision on catches you have an extreme variety of plays that are called catches and not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriminalMind Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, eagles101 said: Disagree completely. The problem with the rule now is that it doesnt make sense. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to explain the rule and how its applied. most fans just disagree with it. The rule on a logical perspective doesnt make sense. then add in that it gives no room for the refs to make logical decision on catches you have an extreme variety of plays that are called catches and not. You disagree that the rule now doesn't make sense ..... but I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to the casual fan. If you know the letter of rule (I and many do here), one can predict the outcome of the review by +90%. The rule right now is "cut & dry" ... however people are arguing over the rule itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagles101 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, CriminalMind said: You disagree that the rule now doesn't make sense ..... but I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to the casual fan. If you know the letter of rule (I and many do here), one can predict the outcome of the review by +90%. The rule right now is "cut & dry" ... however people are arguing over the rule itself. ....ok well let me slow it down for you. if i wrote elephants are aliens from mars, you would understand what im saying while at the same time it doesnt make sense. Predicting the outcome of the review is rather easy BUT it still doesnt make any sense why the rule is the way it is. Its easy to follow the rule and go “yup by rule calvin johnson didnt catch the ball” then follwing it up with “but the rule is stupid and doesnt make any sense since that should definitely be a catch.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles23 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Only thing I think they can do imo is give refs discretion for extenuating circumstances. The rule makes sense 95% of the time. A small handful of plays people get angry over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gnat Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 minute ago, Eagles23 said: Only thing I think they can do imo is give refs discretion for extenuating circumstances. I kind of disagree with this. I think that the rule needs some tweaking, but probably more so on enforcement from the reviews of it versus for some extenuating circumstance. The biggest issue that a lot of fans have with it (and that I have with it) is that the rule isn't consistently enforced upon reviewing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 How's about this? They get rid of this "control" issue as it pertains to "Did the WR allow the football to shift a minute amount in his hands" - and just go by the old tried and true: "if the ball didnt hit the ground, its a catch" As far as the sidelines are concerned - if the WR gets both feet down inside the field of play - and the above concept is applied that he didnt drop it - its a catch. Right now, we've got replays breaking down second by second human movement: "Okay - he's got the ball with both hands - BUT - only one foots down - now THERE - he's got both feet down - BUT - the ball shifted a tiny amount and he didnt regain FULL AND COMPLETE CONTROL before going out of bounds. Mind you, he never dropped the ball and he did have "possession" with both feet down - but its not a catch cause the ball "moved" a fraction of an inch. Thats not how the games played. Its not how it should be officiated. The ground cant assist a catch and if it causes a football to "move" upon contact with the ground - its still a catch if the WR doesnt lose control and fumble it. Practiced and enjoyed thousands of times on playgrounds and make shift football fields across the land. They've turned football games into Zapruder films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 14 hours ago, dtait93 said: 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? Because it should be incomplete. You don't have possession if you get hit (or hit the ground) and immediately lose the ball on a forward pass, you just don't. I am not going to argue about it. Its been incomplete for the entire history of football and is incomplete at every level of football now. It should remain incomplete. Disagree that we are relying on professional judgement right now. We used to rely on professional judgement until they started to over define what a catch is, now we rely on some weird interpretation of a rule that has no common sense. For most of the sports history we relied on common sense and it worked just fine (still works at every level below the NFL). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 2 hours ago, CriminalMind said: 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 Nope, its not about being confused by the rule. Its about the rule lacking common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtait93 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 15 hours ago, youngosu said: 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. 18 minutes ago, youngosu said: You don't have possession if you get hit (or hit the ground) and immediately lose the ball on a forward pass, you just don't. So if you have enough control of the ball and yourself to turn around and reach while falling to the ground, and then "immediately lose the ball" when you "hit the ground" is it a catch? How can you "prove you caught the ball" while "falling down" yet, "you don't have possession if you...hit the ground and immediately lose control? You literally contradict the hell out of yourself. You talk about having common sense yet your rebuttals have none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, dtait93 said: So if you have enough control of the ball and yourself to turn around and reach while falling to the ground, and then "immediately lose the ball" when you "hit the ground" is it a catch? How can you "prove you caught the ball" while "falling down" yet, "you don't have possession if you...hit the ground and immediately lose control? You literally contradict the hell out of yourself. You talk about having common sense yet your rebuttals have none. No, "time to make a move common to the game" That means you essentially have a count to determine possession. A receiver having the ball jarred lose immediately upon getting hit by another player or hitting the ground would not have time to turn and reach the ball forward so no contradiction at all. If its a bang/bang play its not a catch. Its pretty simple. Your system would turn all kinds of clearly (to 99% of fans) incomplete passes into fumbles and make things worse than they are now. If you immediately lose the ball, its not a catch. In every example people have argued over the receiver did not immediately lose the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtait93 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 30 minutes ago, youngosu said: No, "time to make a move common to the game" That means you essentially have a count to determine possession. A receiver having the ball jarred lose immediately upon getting hit by another player or hitting the ground would not have time to turn and reach the ball forward. If you immediately lose the ball, its not a catch. In every example people have argued over the receiver did not immediately lose the ball. Then at this point you would be arguing at what point did the receiver make a move common to the game. Does he have to reach? Turn? Reach and turn? Tuck the ball? Grasp the ball? How do you define a move that is common to the game? All of those are common moves to the game. That's a poor definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jebrick Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 A Football move could be a receiver is on the ground ( both feet or equivalent) and then makes a move that is not a natural fall. Like turning or lunging. The normal rule would still work for those toe-tapping catches when a player is falling out of bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 32 minutes ago, dtait93 said: Then at this point you would be arguing at what point did the receiver make a move common to the game. Does he have to reach? Turn? Reach and turn? Tuck the ball? Grasp the ball? How do you define a move that is common to the game? All of those are common moves to the game. That's a poor definition. While we will just have to agree to disagree because I don't care enough to go find videos showing what I am talking about. But its the definition used in the college game and I'd argue it works quite well for them. Way less controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 19 minutes ago, jebrick said: A Football move could be a receiver is on the ground ( both feet or equivalent) and then makes a move that is not a natural fall. Like turning or lunging. The normal rule would still work for those toe-tapping catches when a player is falling out of bounds. Exactly, that is a great explanation. Any move that is not part of a "natural" fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Anyone think that this is a direct response to the XFL announcement? Maybe NFL owners are looking over their shoulder a little bit more, and perhaps they are starting to take fan feedback more seriously since they are anticipating more competition. The current rule is obviously terrible, and has been for 5+ years. Why the sudden change of heart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.