Twitter: New catch rule going into effect

[blindzebra]

You seem to be confused about this. Assuming they go back to the pre-2015 rule, a player who hasn't completed the catch process will still have to maintain possession while contacting the ground. The change is that he'll no longer be required to be "upright long enough" to complete the catch process.

He does not get it because he bought into the BS Blandino pulled. In reality if you have not completed the catch process and you land and the ball comes out it is going to be incomplete. Frankly, GTTG should have never been used in the field of play because it isn't needed there. A, B, C complete it is a catch if not and the ball comes out it is incomplete. OOB or in the end zone you need another requirement to replace part c because those players can't make a football move.

 

[percyhoward]

Nope. They are removing the going to the ground rule. So I hear.

Even if they were to get rid of Item 1 in its entirety, that doesn't mean they're putting in a rule that says if a player is going to the ground he doesn't have to complete the catch process.

 

[percyhoward]

He does not get it because he bought into the BS Blandino pulled. In reality if you have not completed the catch process and you land and the ball comes out it is going to be incomplete. Frankly, GTTG should have never been used in the field of play because it isn't needed there. A, B, C complete it is a catch if not and the ball comes out it is incomplete. OOB or in the end zone you need another requirement to replace part c because those players can't make a football move.

In theory, you could certainly carry on without Item 1. I think the utility of Item 1 (pre-2015 version) was that it spelled out that surviving the ground fulfilled the time requirement, completing the catch process.

 

[blindzebra]

In theory, you could certainly carry on without Item 1. I think the utility of Item 1 (pre-2015 version) was that it spelled out that surviving the ground fulfilled the time requirement, completing the catch process.

I can't believe these guys are having so much trouble with this:

8.1.3
a) Control
b) 2 feet inbounds
c) a football move

Note: If the player goes to the ground (lands on the ground) before completing a-c they must maintain control through contact with the ground.

Keep Items 2 and 3 for OOB and End Zone.

Boom done.

 

[percyhoward]

I can't believe these guys are having so much trouble with this:

8.1.3
a) Control
b) 2 feet inbounds
c) a football move

Note: If the player goes to the ground (lands on the ground) before completing a-c they must maintain control through contact with the ground.

Keep Items 2 and 3 for OOB and End Zone.

Boom done.

That would work. Or you could add to the existing list of football moves, "maintain control after contact with a defender or the ground."

 

[BlindFaith]

Even if they were to get rid of Item 1 in its entirety, that doesn't mean they're putting in a rule that says if a player is going to the ground he doesn't have to complete the catch process.

I'm not saying that. Of course they do.

 

[BlindFaith]

In theory, you could certainly carry on without Item 1. I think the utility of Item 1 (pre-2015 version) was that it spelled out that surviving the ground fulfilled the time requirement, completing the catch process.

Item one was to protect players from fumbling while being exposed.

 

[BlindFaith]

That would work. Or you could add to the existing lists of football moves, "maintain control after contact with a defender or the ground."

Maybe. That's why I want to see the actual rule.

 

[percyhoward]

I'm not saying that. Of course they do.

Then what did you mean when you said, "Nope. They are removing the going to the ground rule." to this:

Assuming they go back to the pre-2015 rule, a player who hasn't completed the catch process will still have to maintain possession while contacting the ground. The change is that he'll no longer be required to be "upright long enough" to complete the catch process.

 

[BlindFaith]

Then what did you mean when you said, "Nope. They are removing the going to the ground rule." to this:

Stop with the pre 2015 stuff.

I'm trying to have a civil conversation with you.

And I don't know. You bounce around so much and try to mix in your logic.

Im done talking about the past. Only the new rule, whatever it ends up being.

 

[percyhoward]

I'm trying to have a civil conversation with you.

It's not much of a conversation if we don't understand each other. A player who hasn't completed the catch process will still have to maintain possession while contacting the ground. I still don't understand how removing the going to the ground rule would change that, so I'm asking you to explain it to me.

 

[blindzebra]

Item one was to protect players from fumbling while being exposed.

LOL, no it was not.

 

[BlindFaith]

It's not much of a conversation if we don't understand each other. A player who hasn't completed the catch process will still have to maintain possession while contacting the ground. I still don't understand how removing the going to the ground rule would change that, so I'm asking you to explain it to me.

Gotcha.

If they completely remove Item 1, then a player CAN complete the catch process while going to the ground and there is no longer a requirement to maintain possession AFTER they contact the ground.

So a player can complete a catch mid way through going to the ground now. At least that's what they are saying.

It also means that if they have completed the process and the ball comes out, its now a fumble.

Unless of course the ground itself causes the ball to come out. Then no fumble.

Or if the receiver is ruled down by contact prior to the ball coming out.

 

[KJJ]

There's still going to be controversy over movement of the ball. So I don't know.

Can you or anyone else come up with a catch rule that won’t have any controversy? You won’t find a rule that doesn’t create some controversy because every rule involves some judgment.

 

[percyhoward]

If they completely remove Item 1, then a player CAN complete the catch process while going to the ground and there is no longer a requirement to maintain possession AFTER they contact the ground.

Right, but that's not what you disagreed with. I said a player who HASN'T completed the catch process would still have to maintain possession while contacting the ground -- and that's true even without item 1. You said, "No, because they're removing Item 1", and I still don't understand why you disagreed or what the removal of Item 1 has to do with it. The only real effect of removing Item 1 compared to 2011-14 is that you'd lose the language that says surviving the ground completes the catch process. Not a big problem, because you could list surviving the ground as a football move.

Very simply, once a player completes the catch process, he's a runner. So all the rules that apply to runners apply to him. If he loses the ball, it's a fumble. If contact sends him to the ground, it's a dead ball and he's down by contact. If he goes to the ground with no contact and loses the ball, it's still a live ball, so that's a fumble.

 

[G2]

Can you or anyone else come up with a catch rule that won’t have any controversy? You won’t find a rule that doesn’t create some controversy because every rule involves some judgment.

I'm sure I could if I spent the time. The important thing for me is maintaining possession of the ball. I'm not getting back into any of the plays that were reversed because I don't have an issue with how the rule was, fans who didn't understand how it was written did. Any of those plays that were called incomplete would have been if they maintained possession. Seems good to me. Just find better ways of explaining the rule.

 

[percyhoward]

I'm sure I could if I spent the time. The important thing for me is maintaining possession of the ball. I'm not getting back into any of the plays that were reversed because I don't have an issue with how the rule was, fans who didn't understand how it was written did. Any of those plays that were called incomplete would have been if they maintained possession. Seems good to me. Just find better ways of explaining the rule.

This seems like an interception to you?

 

[G2]

This seems like an interception to you?

Maybe. Though I would rather consider the WR down by contact. He was clearly tackled and down IMO.

 

[percyhoward]

Maybe. Though I would rather consider the WR down by contact. He was clearly tackled and down IMO.

Most people would agree with you that he was down by contact, but the rule says you can't gain possession if you aren't upright long enough. So he had to maintain control after contact with the ground for it to be a catch.

Plays like this are why most of the league has an issue with the rule. It's not just fans who don't understand how the rule is written.

 

[BlindFaith]

Right, but that's not what you disagreed with. I said a player who HASN'T completed the catch process would still have to maintain possession while contacting the ground -- and that's true even without item 1. You said, "No, because they're removing Item 1", and I still don't understand why you disagreed or what the removal of Item 1 has to do with it. The only real effect of removing Item 1 compared to 2011-14 is that you'd lose the language that says surviving the ground completes the catch process. Not a big problem, because you could list surviving the ground as a football move.

Very simply, once a player completes the catch process, he's a runner. So all the rules that apply to runners apply to him. If he loses the ball, it's a fumble. If contact sends him to the ground, it's a dead ball and he's down by contact. If he goes to the ground with no contact and loses the ball, it's still a live ball, so that's a fumble.

Whatever