Superman(DH23) Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 25 minutes ago, youngosu said: I am aware of this. That would have been ruled incomplete 25 years ago, hopefully its still ruled incomplete in 2018. If not, the rule is worse than its been the last few years. That just is not a catch, it just isn't. I know a catch when I see a catch. OBJ did not catch that ball. Yeah sorry didnt mean to quote you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikeManDan Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 I have to agree with @youngosu that GIF does not look like a catch to me. DB (Butler?) appears to knock the ball loose as OBJ's 2nd foot is coming down, hard to tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles23 Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 The Odell play seems to lack an element of time of possessing the football. Way too bang, bang to be ruled a catch. I don't think the new rule should change that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 The OBJ catch is an obvious catch and is so both in common sense and per the new rule because he not only: (a) is clearly able to make a 3rd move (And therefore a catch) (b) he does make a 3rd move (by definition) of both turning his body and begins to extend the ball. That's a good defensive play everywhere but the end zone. It's a bad offensive play everywhere but the end zone. However, a player will only only extend the ball like that when he's got an obvious TD... This is why that is a perfect example of how the rule should and now does work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woz Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 You have to think someone's going to take a bunch of the "it is/is not a catch" questions and create a compendium for the the committee to explain how or why the ruling would be the same or different. ... at least, I would hope they would ... otherwise, you've just stirred the pot without really changing the underlying problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 21 minutes ago, incognito_man said: The OBJ catch is an obvious catch and is so both in common sense and per the new rule because he not only: (a) is clearly able to make a 3rd move (And therefore a catch) (b) he does make a 3rd move (by definition) of both turning his body and begins to extend the ball. That's a good defensive play everywhere but the end zone. It's a bad offensive play everywhere but the end zone. However, a player will only only extend the ball like that when he's got an obvious TD... This is why that is a perfect example of how the rule should and now does work. I couldn't disagree more. How anyone can call that a catch is beyond my ability to comprehend. If that is now a catch I am done watching NFL football. But apparently many think it is so I guess football is going down the "we no longer have any common sense" rabbit hole. I bet ruling that a TD will cost the NFL more fans than the current rule ever will. If they rule that a TD the league is officially a total and complete joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtait93 Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 19 minutes ago, youngosu said: I couldn't disagree more. How anyone can call that a catch is beyond my ability to comprehend. If that is now a catch I am done watching NFL football. But apparently many think it is so I guess football is going down the "we no longer have any common sense" rabbit hole. I bet ruling that a TD will cost the NFL more fans than the current rule ever will. If they rule that a TD the league is officially a total and complete joke. He is calling it common sense that it is a catch (many of which, such as myself, agree with) and you are calling it common sense that it is not a catch (many of which also agree with you), so really this, "football is doing down the 'we no longer have any common sense' rabbit hole" stance that you are taking has more to do with your close mindedness than anyone's stance on what they deem is and is not a catch. Instead of screaming, "omg wow thats not a catch no way that is a catch i cant understand how you people think that" why don't you state why you believe it isn't a catch, or pick points of our argument that you disagree with and dispute it instead of just typing stuff and we can get a good debate going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 6 minutes ago, dtait93 said: He is calling it common sense that it is a catch (many of which, such as myself, agree with) and you are calling it common sense that it is not a catch (many of which also agree with you), so really this, "football is doing down the 'we no longer have any common sense' rabbit hole" stance that you are taking has more to do with your close mindedness than anyone's stance on what they deem is and is not a catch. Instead of screaming, "omg wow thats not a catch no way that is a catch i cant understand how you people think that" why don't you state why you believe it isn't a catch, or pick points of our argument that you disagree with and dispute it instead of just typing stuff and we can get a good debate going. Because no one is changing their mind on the topic. If you think its a catch no argument I make will change your mind and you aren't gonna change my mind either. I even somewhat agree that given the current rule its probably a catch. So it appears the NFL has sided with you. So with that I don't really have a counter to the argument that its now a catch, it probably is. It wouldn't have been a catch at anytime in NFL history prior to now IMO so to me making it a catch now lacks common sense. I've never seen a play like that ruled a catch at any level of football I've ever watched/been involve in. If that changes, cool...You guys win I guess. If that is now a catch the NFL has destroyed all credibility IMO. That is the only argument I am gonna make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, youngosu said: Because no one is changing their mind on the topic. If you think its a catch no argument I make will change your mind and you aren't gonna change my mind either. I even somewhat agree that given the current rule its probably a catch. So it appears the NFL has sided with you. So with that I don't really have a counter to the argument that its now a catch, it probably is. It wouldn't have been a catch at anytime in NFL history prior to now IMO so to me making it a catch now lacks common sense. I've never seen a play like that ruled a catch at any level of football I've ever watched/been involve in. If that changes, cool...You guys win I guess. If that is now a catch the NFL has destroyed all credibility IMO. That is the only argument I am gonna make. It's never not been a catch. On the field that's a fumble. In the end zone it's a TD. Always has been...now the rule just more clearly states why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 Just now, incognito_man said: It's never not been a catch. On the field that's a fumble. In the end zone it's a TD. Always has been...now the rule just more clearly states why. I guess if you want to believe that I can't stop you. You are factually wrong to claim that play has "never not been a catch" though. Sorry, that is factually incorrect. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. That play has been called incomplete far more often than its ever been called a catch (Note: Not claiming a similar play has never been ruled a catch but its been ruled incomplete far more often) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, youngosu said: I guess if you want to believe that I can't stop you. You are factually wrong to claim that play has "never not been a catch" though. Sorry, that is factually incorrect. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. That play has been called incomplete far more often than its ever been called a catch (Note: Not claiming a similar play has never been ruled a catch but its been ruled incomplete far more often) It's just as easy and correct for me to call this factually incorrect. 3 steps and possession has always been a catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 38 minutes ago, incognito_man said: It's just as easy and correct for me to call this factually incorrect. 3 steps and possession has always been a catch. I guess, if I had hours to spend doing research I'd try to find a similar play from prior to 2000 but I don't so you can have your facts for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mox Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 1 hour ago, incognito_man said: It's never not been a catch. On the field that's a fumble. In the end zone it's a TD. Always has been...now the rule just more clearly states why. Well it was ruled incomplete so this is false right off the bat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagles101 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 9 minutes ago, Bullet Club said: Well it was ruled incomplete so this is false right off the bat. You shut your mouth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 12 minutes ago, Bullet Club said: Well it was ruled incomplete so this is false right off the bat. So I guess no rules have ever been then ha because a red at some point got it wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.