Now THAT'S a crap call

[kurtfaulk]

Catch, two feet, get lit up, before you are down...fumble.

that's why they brought in the football move rule.

.

 

[DR RAM]

i agree but somehow the falling to the ground rule has come into play and overrides the two feet/football move rules.

.

It shouldn't, that is dumb. Ball crosses the plain, in possession, TD...every-time.

Possession is the key that they fail to unlock.

I'm OK with football move. Posses ball, to the ground, if not already establishing a football move. Possession, two feet, and control all the way through the ground.

 

[DR RAM]

i agree but somehow the falling to the ground rule has come into play and overrides the two feet/football move rules.

.

That is what is wrong. If you clearly have possession, via football move, the ground should not cause a fumble, nor should it make the catch incomplete, but if the catch/ground/fumble all occur in the same sequence, then it wasn't a catch to begin with. Incomplete.....PERIOD

 

[kurtfaulk]

That is what is wrong. If you clearly have possession, via football move, the ground should not cause a fumble, nor should it make the catch incomplete, but if the catch/ground/fumble all occur in the same sequence, then it wasn't a catch to begin with. Incomplete.....PERIOD

the way they're adjudicating now the football move only comes into play if the receiver catches the ball while standing up. if he's falling to the ground in the act of catching the ball the only relevant rule seems to be the falling to the ground rule.

crazy i know but that's the rule they're enforcing.

.

 

[DR RAM]

That is what is wrong. If you clearly have possession, via football move, the ground should not cause a fumble, nor should it make the catch incomplete, but if the catch/ground/fumble all occur in the same sequence, then it wasn't a catch to begin with. Incomplete.....PERIOD

OK, I understand, and I disagree with the way they are calling it, but to say that, I disagree to how they interpret the play down to down.

THAT is the problem! It doesn't need to be confusing, but the NFL just uses it as another way to control the outcome of a game. What are we arguing?????

 

[DR RAM]

the way they're adjudicating now the football move only comes into play if the receiver catches the ball while standing up. if he's falling to the ground in the act of catching the ball the only relevant rule seems to be the falling to the ground rule.

crazy i know but that's the rule they're enforcing.

.

Some of the time, keep up. Lol.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Some of the time, keep up. Lol.

yes but as a wise man (X) once said, "refs are gonna ref".

.

 

[DR RAM]

yes but as a wise man (X) once said, "refs are gonna ref".

.

They will, but never give them a reason to screw you over. Sometimes, and recent history has showed us, don't show them your crack, or they will use it. Better to show them your balls, hard to make a bad call, if your balls are out. Make them flinch, guess. That is what I say.

 

[badnews]

Has anyone pointed out the irony in that Jesse James got robbed?

 

[dieterbrock]

Catch, two feet, get lit up, before you are down...fumble.

Except he didnt do that, his feet didnt hit the ground first.
We can all watch the video and we will likely have different opinions.
Thats what makes it subjective
The ground has always been able to cause a fumble, just not when contact was involved

 

[FrantikRam]

You can disagree with the rule, but this call was correct. I said it as soon as I saw the replay.

I said the same thing on the Dez Bryant catch in the playoffs, and the Jimmy Graham catch against us yesterday - by rule none of those are catches.

I don't think anyone would disagree with the rule needing to be changed though.

 

[Pape]

that's why they brought in the football move rule.

.

The NFL actually removed the term "a football move" from the rule because it was too confusing.
The rule reads:

The guy never maintained possession of the ball when he hit the ground. You can see his hand come off the ball when he hits the ground.

 

[Ellard80]

The NFL actually removed the term "a football move" from the rule because it was too confusing.
The rule reads:

The guy never maintained possession of the ball when he hit the ground. You can see his hand come off the ball when he hits the ground.

Item #1 clearly defines this situation.

 

[Steve808]

Anyone think if that was the patriots scoring the winning TD at Gillette Stadium, the ref would have said "the ruling on the field stands - touchdown!".

Did anyone even hear about the "tuck rule" before the Raiders got jobbed in the playoffs?

 

[dieterbrock]

Anyone think if that was the patriots scoring the winning TD at Gillette Stadium, the ref would have said "the ruling on the field stands - touchdown!".

Did anyone even hear about the "tuck rule" before the Raiders got jobbed in the playoffs?

They would have called it the same way.
The rule absolutely sucks balls, but they called it correctly

 

[XXXIVwin]

falling down rule came about because there was alot of controversy about if the receiver had control of the ball falling out of bounds or falling to the ground anywhere on the field.
.

Fascinating topic.

Dr.Ram, I disagree with you about there being any "simple" solutions. And I don't think the NFL is trying to write these rules in order to "control outcomes." I think it is a genuinely difficult problem with no easy solutions.

kurtfaulk, the key element in this debate is the one you mentioned. above. Clearly, the "surviving the ground" aspect is crucial, and has taken on monumental importance, and now overrides almost all other considerations. My question is, do you recall any examples where the "surviving the ground rule" seemed to be a "good" thing, i.e. it fit in with common sense? Anyone else have ideas about why the league WANTED the "surviving the ground" stuff?

My main thesis is that there would be a lot of problems with ANY rule...it's impossible to write one that would solve all problems.

Suppose the rule is that a receiver has possession of the ball and two feet down, it INSTANTLY is a catch. Well, then there would be a huge amount of "cheap" fumbles and turnovers, as receivers get lit up on a bang-bang play.

OK, so suppose the rule is amended to say that possession only occurs after the receiver "makes a football move" or "establishes himself as a runner." (IMHO, a "football move" rule is now defined more more extensively under the guise of "establishes himself as a runner.") So then what do we do about a receiver who makes a spectacular sideline catch at full extension on his tiptoes and falls straight to the ground? The guy certainly doesn't have time to "make a football move" or "establish himself as a runner" before hitting the ground, right? I believe that this might be one reason why they added the whole "surviving the ground" business.. to give credit to receivers who make a great catch but are "unable to make a football move before they hit the ground." Someone feel free to chime in if I'm wrong about this aspect.

Part of the problem is that athletes have become so good and they push the boundaries of the rules ROUTINELY now. I remember when Cris Carter seemed like an anomaly when he'd make those spectacular tip-toe sideline catches... now every NFL receiver does it. And advanced technology on replays has in some ways made it harder as well... now we can see every slightest bobble in slo-mo, addidng fuel to the fire in these philosophical debates about the true meaning of "control."

My main point: IMHO, there are no easy fixes.

 

[FrantikRam]

The only way to make this a steadfast iron clad easy to please everyone rule is to say something simple like:

Two feet + one full second of possession (defined as the ball in the WRs hands and NOT moving). They could have a timer on the replay to review how long a WR had the ball in his hands before it getting knocked out.

 

[FrantikRam]

But I'll also say this:

I can accurately call whether it will be ruled a catch or not 99% of the time - so how this rule is called is not an issue, just that it's a rule at all.

 

[Angry Ram]

Well this really has divided the football world lol. All over every radio and tv show.

This whole catch no catch thing started with the Calvin Johnson play. That dude had the TD and placed the ball on the ground to...celebrate! And it was a freakin Bears/Lions game. Nothing to do with Dallas or NE.

I can't remember a single time this rule happened prior to that play.

The competition committee really needs to reevaluate that rule (and the fumble in the endzone BS) and make so catch = catch. None of this "through the process" bs.

Also, Steelers need to man up on defense against NE. :rant:

 

[XXXIVwin]

The only way to make this a steadfast iron clad easy to please everyone rule is to say something simple like:

Two feet + one full second of possession (defined as the ball in the WRs hands and NOT moving). They could have a timer on the replay to review how long a WR had the ball in his hands before it getting knocked out.

FrantikRam, thanks for the input.

But I gotta say, I think you are proving my point that ANY rule would have its problems.

I mean, using this "one second equals possession" rule, can you imagine how that might open up a can of worms for debates? (For example, was "control lost" when it "starts to move" at 0.8 seconds? Or when it's "moved to his fingertip" at 1.2 seconds?) On really close plays between 0.5 seconds and 1.5 seconds, the slo-mo replays would be mind-boggling.

Again, IMHO, there is no way to completely eliminate subjective debates. Problems could arise with ANY rule. The goal is to minimize the problems, of course, but I don't think figuring that out is easy.

Frantik, I bet your proposal regarding "using a timer for possession" has been considered at one point or another.