News: Goodell is now worried about the catch rule

[MarcusRock]

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.

I agree, which is why you need extended rules to account for all that. If it's so simple to write up better rules then I'm shocked as to how it hasn't been done on here yet while accounting for those less than clear cut hypotheticals.

 

[G2]

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.

I can't argue, that makes sense. Then stretching to reach the end zone should at the very least be considered a football move.

 

[G2]

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.

Get rid of all the confusion. Make everyone 100% informed that you have to hang onto the ball or it's not a catch. I'm fine with that.
I don't have all the answers, clearly. but we didn't have these game changing calls a few years ago.
Also, I'm fine with it being a fumble left and right after 2 feet and a catch happen. Hang onto the ball! lol.

 

[Aviano90]

Get rid of all the confusion. Make everyone 100% informed that you have to hang onto the ball or it's not a catch. I'm fine with that.
I don't have all the answers, clearly. but we didn't have these game changing calls a few years ago.
Also, I'm fine with it being a fumble left and right after 2 feet and a catch happen. Hang onto the ball! lol.

I hear you, but we did have catch controversies back then too. One may have prevented Tampa Bay from going to the SB and caused further clarification to the rule the following year.

https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/s/ww...d-the-buccaneers-from-reaching-the-super-bowl

 

[percyhoward]

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.

The time element is already there, in the football move. Unless a player is already in the end zone, he's naturally bound to do something with the ball after he's got control and two feet down. If he can, he'll keep running, if not he can at least turn up field, tuck the ball, take another step.

Literally, anything that shows he's not still just trying to catch it. That's all that's meant by "football move."

 

[SportsGuru80]

**** Goodell....

 

[ESisback]

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.

Why Marcus, that sounds almost like a conspiracy!

 

[diefree666]

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.

Roger, you really need to try and hide your identity better.

 

[CCBoy]

We already went over this percy and you're wrong. Nobody did anything retroactively to cover anything. We established that Blandino was consistent throughout and we used videos and articles YOU provided to show it. Going to the ground applied because "those 3 things" didn't happen, most notably the football move, which when compared to other demonstrative ball reaches (which again, YOU showed examples of), you refused to answer direct questioning about it 4 times. Nails in the coffin if you're actually attempting to debate. Yet you continue spewing this incorrect "conspiracy" angle to rile up the emotional people who can't let it go and would rather play victim than actually read the rules.

Before one insults somebody, he first has to be without blame...and here second person innuendos convey personal emotions only.

As to cause, what is presented is only limiting and hap hazard focus that doesn't begin to approach the discussion presented. Try not ignoring points presented before attempting to define oneself as in possession of a valid perception. He, she, it couldn't....?


Disprove this:

A hand off, lateral, or pass...the ball is advanced by running it. Not, by a stop watch or perceived body tilt..

But leave your own personality out of any attempt, and refer back to all of this statement and actually work with it, first.

 

[MarcusRock]

Roger, you really need to try and hide your identity better.

I blame it on autocorrect. When you ride in these private jets, you can't recall a message to correct it the way you do when you're riding in a limo on the ground.

 

[Beast_from_East]

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

In the game against the Pats, the Steelers scored what appeared to be a game winning TD when the TE caught the ball around the 2 yard line and dove for the endzone. When he hit the ground, the ball popped lose and the game winning TD was overturned so the Pats won.

So now that the Steelers lost a game due to the catch rule, Roger is all in favor of changing it now

 

[Mannix]

--------The Steelers lost a game, time to change the rule

I counted 7 or 8 horrendous calls against Seattle that handed them the Super Bowl years back. Nobody outside of maybe New England and Green Bay gets more gift calls....sickening.

 

[JustChip]

The stupid thing is trying to define a catch when there are too many unanticipated circumstances. I’m in the Potter Stewart camp, I can’t define it but I know it when I see it.

 

[JustChip]

hate the stealers but thats a TD in my book

Agreed 100%

 

[Miller]

Hate the commish but this is a start. Look hard at yourself and the league. Things being more uniform help

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Hopefully, the catch rule will be simplified.

 

[cern]

no rule should be so ambiguous as to require discussion from the analysts and dean blandino every time it comes up.

 

[cern]

Hopefully, the catch rule will be simplified.

hey, furball. you know where qb12 and doomsday 54 are? miss the old group. do you converse with them?

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

hey, furball. you know where qb12 and doomsday 54 are? miss the old group. do you converse with them?

QB12 has his own FB page on which I'm a member (because I have a FB). I don't know where Dooms is.

 

[DogFace]

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?



Almost every Cowboys fan would be fine with the call standing if it favors what they want to happen. I wanted it to be a catch too. It was a gutsy call. But once I saw the replays I knew it would be overturned because of the going to the ground rule. The ball popping out did him in. I don't fault Dez for intending to reach the ball over the goal line because he was just doing what comes natural. It was an awkward fall and the DB Shields did just enough to make the extra effort necessary which is what caused the ball to come loose.

I’m not sure how you can be so wrong if you watched the play. Go watch it again.

1. The ball is grabbed with two hands.
2. The ball is pulled down to his right shoulder chest area.
3. The position of the ball moves from the right side of his body to the left. This is called switching position of the ball. https://www.google.com/search?q=switching+definition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari Switching is a common term and can apply to many different situations.
4. Taking one hand off occurs when you switch the ball from two hands to one and very clearly demonstrates Dez “had time” to make a football move. Because it was a move. Per the rule as written in 2014.