Carmen Cygni Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 The catch rule is fine . . . The catch rule is simple . . . It's not hard to understand . . . Meanwhile, in reality. Roger Goodell: Time to 'start over again' on catch rule http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000912857/article/roger-goodell-time-to-start-over-again-on-catch-rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 35 minutes ago, Carmen Cygni said: The catch rule is fine . . . The catch rule is simple . . . It's not hard to understand . . . Meanwhile, in reality. Roger Goodell: Time to 'start over again' on catch rule http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000912857/article/roger-goodell-time-to-start-over-again-on-catch-rule Things you did: -Complain about the catch rule. Things you didn't do: -explain what's complicated about it -suggest a suitable solution hmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolts223 Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 I think it's sort of ridiculous to blame a loss on any one thing, football is a team sport after all. But obviously Belichick as the head coach of the football team deserves a large portion of the blame, especially when he made a decision that was clearly a huge part of why the Patriots defense couldn't stop the Eagles offense. But also at the same time, Belichick and Patricia being able to take such a terrible defensive unit and have it only allow around 18 points per game in the regular season is a testament to Bill Belichick's coaching abilities. So it's a double-edged sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmen Cygni Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 38 minutes ago, lancerman said: Things you didn't do: -explain what's complicated about it -suggest a suitable solution Jesus, kid. It wasn't even 6-7 posts back that I said they over complicated the rule by adding too much , and they should revert back to simplifying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 2 hours ago, Carmen Cygni said: Jesus, kid. It wasn't even 6-7 posts back that I said they over complicated the rule by adding too much , and they should revert back to simplifying it. 1. What about the rule made it simpler than before? specifics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 10 hours ago, Carmen Cygni said: Give it up. He snatched the ball, started to bring it down, saw the goaline , and then proceeded to reach - in a secondary move- over the goal line. It's a TD. that's what I'm saying and that's why the catch rule is too complicated because your negating people's effort. During the entire process he did not lose any control the ball did not ever move until after he crossed the goal line and the ball hit the ground which at that point shouldn't have mattered because at that point it was already a touchdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buc Ball Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 22 minutes ago, wwhickok said: that's what I'm saying and that's why the catch rule is too complicated because your negating people's effort. During the entire process he did not lose any control the ball did not ever move until after he crossed the goal line and the ball hit the ground which at that point shouldn't have mattered because at that point it was already a touchdown. He lost control of the ball when he hit the ground. He was going to ground when he caught the ball, therefore he has to retain possession when he hits the ground or it isn’t a reception. This rule isn’t that hard. What makes it hard is the standard “but he broke the plane”, “he had a knee down” or other whataboutery that has absolutely no relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles23 Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 Based on the argument, are we suggesting it should be okay to lose possession of the ball while falling and reaching? What if the same play occurs at the 50? Is that now a fumble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmen Cygni Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 7 hours ago, lancerman said: 1. What about the rule made it simpler than before? specifics I'll turn in my dissertation by the end of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 27 minutes ago, Eagles23 said: Based on the argument, are we suggesting it should be okay to lose possession of the ball while falling and reaching? What if the same play occurs at the 50? Is that now a fumble? To me it depends on the situation. In Jesse James' case, he maintained possession the entire time including his knee hitting the ground which did not happen simultaneously with the ball hitting the ground, then reached across the goal line and, to me, at that point it should be a TD. He maintained possession for more than ample time. If you so never touch the ground until your body and the ball simultaneously hit and the ball comes out, imo, I could understand an incomplete call. There's too many technicalities to a "catch". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Buc Ball said: He lost control of the ball when he hit the ground. He was going to ground when he caught the ball, therefore he has to retain possession when he hits the ground or it isn’t a reception. This rule isn’t that hard. What makes it hard is the standard “but he broke the plane”, “he had a knee down” or other whataboutery that has absolutely no relevance. His knee hit first. Then he crossed the goal line. TD. The lack of relevance you talk about is due to overvlcomplication of the rule which needs to be dissolved. It's absolutely relevant because it's what's wrong with the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 It's really this simple. By rule the ground cannot cause a fumble for a runner. For a runner the moment the ball crossed the goal line, it's a dead ball TD. Therefore the same standards should apply to a receiver. The ground shouldn't be able to cause an incompletion and the crossing of the goal line should be the end of the play, td. It's not that complicated to understand. If a receiver has clear possession before going to the ground (both feet in bounds of course) then the ground shouldn't be able to take that away. In that regard, it takes away the complication of all the TDs I discussed because all of them would have been legit TDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buc Ball Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 23 minutes ago, wwhickok said: His knee hit first. Then he crossed the goal line. TD. The lack of relevance you talk about is due to overvlcomplication of the rule which needs to be dissolved. It's absolutely relevant because it's what's wrong with the rule. The rule is not complicated. It really, really isn’t. I’m assuming you’re trolling at this point, but I’ll play along. He didn’t catch the ball. His knee hitting the ground while he was trying to make the catch or him breaking the plane when trying to make the catch are completely irrelevant. If this rule is changed to accommodate the ignorance of casual fans, then I don’t know where it stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buc Ball Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 30 minutes ago, wwhickok said: It's really this simple. By rule the ground cannot cause a fumble for a runner. For a runner the moment the ball crossed the goal line, it's a dead ball TD. Therefore the same standards should apply to a receiver. The ground shouldn't be able to cause an incompletion and the crossing of the goal line should be the end of the play, td. It's not that complicated to understand. If a receiver has clear possession before going to the ground (both feet in bounds of course) then the ground shouldn't be able to take that away. In that regard, it takes away the complication of all the TDs I discussed because all of them would have been legit TDs. Define “going to the ground”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 44 minutes ago, wwhickok said: It's really this simple. By rule the ground cannot cause a fumble for a runner. For a runner the moment the ball crossed the goal line, it's a dead ball TD. Therefore the same standards should apply to a receiver. The ground shouldn't be able to cause an incompletion and the crossing of the goal line should be the end of the play, td. It's not that complicated to understand. If a receiver has clear possession before going to the ground (both feet in bounds of course) then the ground shouldn't be able to take that away. In that regard, it takes away the complication of all the TDs I discussed because all of them would have been legit TDs. No the same standard shouldn't apply. A receiver is not a ball carrier. The entire purpose of the rule is to transition a receiver to a ball carrier. That's a bad rule because everyone knows if that same play happened in the middle of the field it would be an incompletion. They just confuse themselves by thinking that a receiver crossing the plane is different. It's not. Only a ball carrier can score a TD. A ball carrier can only be a receiver who caught the ball and made a football move or a receiver who was falling and didn't drop the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.