News: Goodell is now worried about the catch rule

[Direwolf63]

I won't because I won't be watching

Nor will I.

 

[khiladi]

Not sure what you're trying to show with that GIF but the ball touching the ground doesn't matter unless the ball rolls without the receiver controlling it or the ball comes loose completely.

Exactly.. it doesn’t matter

So they overturned a catch by the Steelers to give the Pats HF advantage..

 

[khiladi]

What was irrefutable was that the going to the ground rule applied which is why it was changed. When the on field official applies the wrong rule, replay should apply the correct one. The ball hit the ground and the ball came loose which replay clearly showed. Dez intended to reach, he did not execute which is what Pereira, Steratore the official, and Blandino all said after the game that very day.

No, replay can only overturn something based on indisputable evidence.

The fact they had to ‘clarify’ a rule in the off-season proves more than adequately they didn’t have indisputable evidence to overturn it.

 

[khiladi]

Plus even the newly clarified rule doesn’t say one must be a runner, only that one must hold the ball long enough to establish one’s self as a runner. And they then qualify it with examples, such as:

“player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps..”

In every respect, the Steelers were robbed. If a TE turns and reaches to cross a plane, that surely qualifies as long enough to ‘tucking the ball away’ or ‘turning up field’.

So it’s convenient that Goodell would try and say the Steelers losing HF advantage to his buddy Kraft’s team was really about a badly written rule, when the overturning of the TD was on no way a result of a badly written rule, but flat out a contradiction to what is stated in that rule.

This guy is a snake for the Patriots.

 

[CPanther95]

At the risk of traveling down this rabbit hole again, indisputable evidence didn't apply to judgment call portion of replays at the time. Indisputable evidence applied if there was even a split second where the ball was not visible, or a key maneuver was not visible. But in the case of the Dez catch, where the entire play was clearly visible to the replay official, they were to make their own judgment call based on the replay without regard to the on the field judgment call made.

They may have changed since then , but that was the policy at the time.

 

[khiladi]

And even with the new rule, Dez still qualifies because both feet landed, he took some steps and he reached with the ball..

 

[percyhoward]

That ship has sailed.

Okay, who's avoiding things again?

 

[khiladi]

At the risk of traveling down this rabbit hole again, indisputable evidence didn't apply to judgment call portion of replays at the time. Indisputable evidence applied if there was even a split second where the ball was not visible, or a key maneuver was not visible. But in the case of the Dez catch, where the entire play was clearly visible to the replay official, they were to make their own judgment call based on the replay without regard to the on the field judgment call made.

They may have changed since then , but that was the policy at the time.

The whole point of replay is to provide better viewing angles, the main point being it was always going to overturn based on more evidence.

Indisputable evidence in the modern game was even in the NFL 2012 rulebook:

From the Official Playing Rules of the NFL 2012, Rule 15, Section 9 (Instant Replay):

A decision will be reversed only when the Referee has indisputable visual evidenceavailable to him that warrants the change.

Thus rule use to exist before they got rid of it the first time.

The fact fact is there is no indisputable evidence to overrule that Dez didn’t make a football move from the other angles, which is why they tried to modify the rule in the off-season.

 

[BlindFaith]

The whole 'football move' BS needs to be banned forever. A catch is a catch if the player has control of the ball. AND THAT IS ALL.

The problem everyone isn't willing to address is that there are varying situations for a catch.

A guy dives for a ball. Catches it mid air, gets two feet down, hits the ground and the ball pops out. Is that a catch and fumble?

Guy catches a ball, two hands two feet down and simultaneously gets hit and ball pops out. Is that a catch and fumble?

If they revise the rule to allow these controversial non catches to be catches we will see more fumbles.

They could bring back the ground can't cause a fumble rule. Making a catch truly only on possession and two feet down. But that opens up more chance for a fumble as well. Guy catches the ball while stumbling, starts to fall and he looses control before being downed. Do we want that as a fumble?

 

[Juggernaut]

Translation .. a team or team owner he likes had the rule go against them. He was in full support of the rule when it was only affecting teams like the Cowboys.

The Steelers lost a game, time to change the rule

what'd I miss? what play screwed the stealers?

 

[Nightman]

Jesse James clearly made the catch...... then he saw he was short of the goalline and made a second move to extend the ball.... the second it crossed the line it should have been a TD

Same with Dez.....he made the catch...... was bumped on his way to the ground ......he noticed he was going to be short and switched hands to extend the ball for the TD..... when the ball hit the turf he was down by contact just short of the goalline

 

[percyhoward]

You don't "switch" a ball when you have two hands on it. You take one hand off of it which is what happened. Neither was it tucked to the body but left exposed away from the body. Dez should have kept two on to prevent the ball from coming loose. Where is "moving the ball from two hands to one" a football move in the rules?

"Tucking the ball" as a football move has nothing to do with how close the ball is to the body. Receivers in the open field rarely hold the ball against their body like a running back does when hitting the line of scrimmage. This is not about fundamentals of ball protection in traffic, it's about some act that is performed to show that the ball has already been caught.

No receiver willingly takes one hand off a ball he hasn't caught yet.

Why did the commissioner appoint the catch committee to clarify what constitutes a catch in 2016?

Why did the catch committee specifically add "tucking the ball" and "additional steps" as football moves?

Why is Pereira now saying Dez's catch should have stood?

It's because he can't continue to defend Blandino in the light of the reversal of the James play, which he knows was wrong. It's because the 3rd part of the catch process, the time element, is too subjective to judge without looking for the football move. If you just go by "upright long enough," there is no clear diving line between receiver and runner. Blandino's addition to the rule book is flawed and should be removed, just as he himself was removed. Unless you believe he wanted to spend more time with his family.

 

[MarcusRock]

The whole point of replay is to provide better viewing angles, the main point being it was always going to overturn based on more evidence.

Indisputable evidence in the modern game was even in the NFL 2012 rulebook:



Thus rule use to exist before they got rid of it the first time.

The fact fact is there is no indisputable evidence to overrule that Dez didn’t make a football move from the other angles, which is why they tried to modify the rule in the off-season.

Except if they applied the wrong rule to begin with. Then you apply the right one and go from there.

 

[MarcusRock]

The problem everyone isn't willing to address is that there are varying situations for a catch.

A guy dives for a ball. Catches it mid air, gets two feet down, hits the ground and the ball pops out. Is that a catch and fumble?

Guy catches a ball, two hands two feet down and simultaneously gets hit and ball pops out. Is that a catch and fumble?

If they revise the rule to allow these controversial non catches to be catches we will see more fumbles.

They could bring back the ground can't cause a fumble rule. Making a catch truly only on possession and two feet down. But that opens up more chance for a fumble as well. Guy catches the ball while stumbling, starts to fall and he looses control before being downed. Do we want that as a fumble?

This is why all these sub-rules or "items" are needed to govern all the acrobatic catches that happen in the league today. People's justification for getting rid of them is that they don't understand them. That's not enough reason to take it away if you don't have something clearer to put in its place that covers every kind of catch that can be made.

 

[MarcusRock]

Juggs, how do you get entire standalone tweets to post? As I quote your post I see the "MEDIA=twitter" thingy but where do you get that long number from?

 

[percyhoward]

Jesse James clearly made the catch...... then he saw he was short of the goalline and made a second move to extend the ball.... the second it crossed the line it should have been a TD

Same with Dez.....he made the catch...... was bumped on his way to the ground ......he noticed he was going to be short and switched hands to extend the ball for the TD..... when the ball hit the turf he was down by contact just short of the goalline

Control + two feet + football move = catch

James' catch should have stood, but not because it was a TD the second it crossed the goal line. It should have stood because he got control of the ball with two feet down and reached to break the plane. If he'd only had one foot down (no knee), it should have (and probably would have) been ruled incomplete on the field.

 

[dogunwo]

As I read it, they refused to place an ad in the SB program with the hashtag #StandUp because they thought it was too political. Then the Vets group said the NHL and MLB or NBA ran it. The NFL asked them to change the hashtag to #StandUpForVets and they refused.

It's absolutely incredulous that the NFL would deny that ad. That decision goes against such a huge segment of their audience, of course they're trying to bury it.

There's another side to that argument that is always overlooked, and I applaud the NFL for staying out of it instead of catering to only one side of the debate.

 

[percyhoward]

The problem everyone isn't willing to address is that there are varying situations for a catch.

A guy dives for a ball. Catches it mid air, gets two feet down, hits the ground and the ball pops out. Is that a catch and fumble?

No. No football move means that's a receiver going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. Incomplete.

Guy catches a ball, two hands two feet down and simultaneously gets hit and ball pops out. Is that a catch and fumble?

No. No time for a football move = no catch.

Guy catches the ball while stumbling, starts to fall and he looses control before being downed. Do we want that as a fumble?

It already is a fumble, assuming he got two feet down, then took additional steps or tucked the ball or turned up field or reached for the line of gain before he went to the ground (read: hit the ground).

 

[Nightman]

Control + two feet + football move = catch

James' catch should have stood, but not because it was a TD the second it crossed the goal line. It should have stood because he got control of the ball with two feet down and reached to break the plane. If he'd only had one foot down (no knee), it should have (and probably would have) been ruled incomplete on the field.

If he was in the End Zone when he caught the ball he never would have made the second move to stretch the ball over the line......it would be an easy catch and TD

You can see him look down and see that he was short of the goal, hence the lunge......like you said he had a knee down with possession so it was a TD the instant it crossed the goalline since he was now a "runner"........ even if it happened in a split second

 

[Juggernaut]

Juggs, how do you get entire standalone tweets to post? As I quote your post I see the "MEDIA=twitter" thingy but where do you get that long number from?

Each tweet has it's own specific number in it's url: https//twitter.com/RichInFacts/status/942905404660572163