News: Goodell is now worried about the catch rule

[HanD]

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?

on the twitter page, you click the down arrow in the top right corner and choose copy link. then on here, you select the media button (next to the smiley and picture icons) and paste into it.

 

[Nightman]

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.

But they aren't staying out of it

They dedicated almost 100m dollars to promote the causes of the players, even the controversial ones

 

[percyhoward]

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

If he was in the end zone then there would be no football move to look for and it becomes pure judgment based on time. Who knows what they would have ruled? At that point it becomes Calvin Johnson.

But end zone catches are why the rule doesn't specifically require a football move, but instead requires that the player maintain possession long enough to make a football move -- so that the rule can apply to end zone catches as well. Tougher call for officials in the end zone, because there's no observable standard of a football move to satisfy the time element and they have to use judgment.

 

[MarcusRock]

"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.

You can assume what you want with your questions which is just you filling in the answers that support your "theory." But if Blandino was ousted, why would there be talk about bringing him back? Blandino just wants the league to show him the money and he sounds open to it. I guess this would be to cover up the conspiracy the league's engaged in, right? Lol.

https://sports.yahoo.com/could-nfl-bring-blandino-back-122701285.html

 

[MarcusRock]

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

Cool, thanks! The world needs techies.

 

[cowboyblue22]

this i s one of many rules the nfl has to change the outcome of a game to fit what they want

 

[yimyammer]

hate the stealers but thats a TD in my book

 

[percyhoward]

You can assume what you want with your questions which is just you filling in the answers that support your "theory." But if Blandino was ousted, why would there be talk about bringing him back? Blandino just wants the league to show him the money and he sounds open to it.

Actually, that sounds like something the league would do. If Blandino comes back, at least they get the polished media relations expert they're missing with Riveron.

 

[MarcusRock]

this i s one of many rules the nfl has to change the outcome of a game to fit what they want

Lol. Wouldn't holding do just fine? Or, according to theorists around here, non-holding?

 

[dogunwo]

But they aren't staying out of it

They dedicated almost 100m dollars to promote the causes of the players, even the controversial ones

They are staying out of the "stand for the flag or not" issue. The donating the players money was a reaction to the players feeling like they spend a lot of time promoting the NFL's issues (play 60, united way, breast cancer awareness) and none of the issues that have some additional importance to the players.

Why couldn't the message the Veterans advertised be "We fought so you can enjoy all of your freedoms". That covers both sides of that tired debate. But no, it doesn't push the agenda of making players stand for the anthem, so they wouldn't do it.

Aren't we all tired of the topic either way? Running the ad is probably going to stir it up all over again for months as opposed to a few days of coverage.

 

[Nightman]

They are staying out of the "stand for the flag or not" issue. The donating the players money was a reaction to the players feeling like they spend a lot of time promoting the NFL's issues (play 60, united way, breast cancer awareness) and none of the issues that have some additional importance to the players.

Why couldn't the message the Veterans advertised be "We fought so you can enjoy all of your freedoms". That covers both sides of that tired debate. But no, it doesn't push the agenda of making players stand for the anthem, so they wouldn't do it.

Aren't we all tired of the topic either way? Running the ad is probably going to stir it up all over again for months as opposed to a few days of coverage.

No..... donating the money was a direct result of meeting with the players over the kneeling issue

It is the exact opposite of staying out of it

Just because someone else died to give you the right to do something it doesn't make it right to do so

 

[MarcusRock]

No..... donating the money was a direct result of meeting with the players over the kneeling issue

It is the exact opposite of staying out of it

Just because someone else died to give you the right to do something it doesn't make it right to do so

Wasn't it you that said the protesters "lost" but now you cite how they didn't lose.

And people always love to trot out that "people died for those freedoms" line without thinking. If they are available freedoms, then they are expressing one. What's the problem? Or did people only die for certain freedoms they approved of and not others? Not with that statement they didn't. Hello, McFly?

 

[Nightman]

Wasn't it you that said the protesters "lost" but now you cite how they didn't lose.

And people always love to trot out that "people died for those freedoms" line without thinking. If they are available freedoms, then they are expressing one. What's the problem? Or did people only die for certain freedoms they approved of and not others? Not with that statement they didn't. Hello, McFly?

Not me

and you are just spouting jibberish

 

[MarcusRock]

Not me

and you are just spouting jibberish

It's always jibberish when people get busted spouting a phrase everyone else uses but never taking the time to study what it actually means. It's 1 line. Not difficult to analyze.

 

[G2]

If a RB stretches it's a TD if they cross the plane, regardless of if they keep possession after. So, to make the catch rule simpler just make a WR an established running when the ball is caught with one or two hands and two feet down at or after the catch. Just like the sideline tow touch for example. And lose the "football move" jazz, that just muddies the water. The last thing we want as fans is for officials to interpret anything.

 

[dogunwo]

Just because someone else died to give you the right to do something it doesn't make it right to do so

As long as there is no rule that exists, everyone should get over it.

 

[MarcusRock]

As long as there is no rule that exists, everyone should get over it.

They can't though. Once "outrage" materializes, someone has to pay to satisfy their bloodlust. Goodell is still there and got paid (again) so he's out. The players got money for their causes so they're out (except Kaepernick). So I think they've all congregated in the "NFL lower ratings" camp so they can feel like the drama queen boycotting is what actually did it even though there could be a number of factors. Goodell did this right. Just wait out the "outraged" and they'll be back shortly, if they ever left to begin with.

 

[percyhoward]

If a RB stretches it's a TD if they cross the plane, regardless of if they keep possession after. So, to make the catch rule simpler just make a WR an established running when the ball is caught with one or two hands and two feet down at or after the catch. Just like the sideline tow touch for example. And lose the "football move" jazz, that just muddies the water. The last thing we want as fans is for officials to interpret anything.

You need the football move to satisfy the time element, otherwise we'd be seeing a lot of "fumbles" that really aren't fumbles because the receiver didn't have control long enough to establish possession. The football move very basically is just "doing something" after control and two feet down. Getting rid of the football move (or ignoring it, as often happens now) muddies the waters even more, because then there's nothing to look for. It's just judgment at that point, with no observable dividing line.

I suppose they could list every possible action that qualifies as a football move, but that would only seem to benefit those without common sense, and those same people would complain about having such a long list of football moves to have to know.

 

[mugsybows]

The Steelers lost a game, time to change the rule

THIS.

 

[Aviano90]

If a RB stretches it's a TD if they cross the plane, regardless of if they keep possession after. So, to make the catch rule simpler just make a WR an established running when the ball is caught with one or two hands and two feet down at or after the catch. Just like the sideline tow touch for example. And lose the "football move" jazz, that just muddies the water. The last thing we want as fans is for officials to interpret anything.

I don't think they can write a rule where a catch is simple with no interpretation. You can try to simplify it but the waters will still be muddied. Control and 2 feet down seems simple enough. Now you'll have judgement calls on whether control was established when a receiver gets blasted 0.01 seconds after getting the big toe of his 2nd foot down. Then they have to determine if it is a fumble or an incomplete pass.