Twitter: New catch rule going into effect

[percyhoward]

Still seems clear as mud to me.

Control, two feet, and a football move. Same as it was before 2015.

Replaces "control, two feet, and upright long enough."

 

[BlindFaith]

Control, two feet, and a football move. Same as it was before 2015.

Replaces "control, two feet, and upright long enough."

Or go by what the rules and NFL say and not what some rando poster thinks they say.

 

[blindzebra]

Or go by what the rules and NFL say and not what some rando poster thinks they say.

That is what the pre-2015 rules said, and how the NFL explained the rules before the Dez play.

 

[percyhoward]

In January, you interpreted Blandino as saying that he was looking for a football move until right before the player hit the ground. "It looks like they determine going to the ground just before the receiver hits the ground to see if those Article 3 requirements have been satisfied (control, 2 feet, football move) prior." You said, "Blandino clearly states that Dez is not a runner and hasn't established possession due to lack of a football move," and that Blandino gave "the exact same explanation in describing Johnson's no catch. It's consistent." You concluded that "no reach = no catch."

Then you said this:

"Your own quotes agree with Blandino: 'The rule said nothing about "upright vs. falling," and was only concerned about possession being maintained if the player made contact with the ground before completing the process.' And also: 'That whole section (on which Blandino claimed to base his overturn) doesn't even apply unless the catch process (control, two feet, football move) wasn't completed, and even then, is only concerned with what happens when the player hits the ground.' "

You were clearly agreeing with my quotes that you posted, which said that Item 1 was about hitting the ground -- not falling -- and that Item 1 was subordinate to the catch process. That it did not trump the catch process, but instead only applied when the catch process wasn't completed.


But now you're saying that was never the case. That even if Johnson (2013) or Dez (2014 playoffs) had reached, it wouldn't have mattered because they "got that going to the ground tag slapped on them." Because "the 3-part rule is for a receiver who catches a ball while on his feet."

You have to say that now. You've actually had to come up with a completely different interpretation of that video, otherwise you'd be admitting that they changed the rule after Dez's overturn. Why else would a falling reach complete the catch process in 2013-14, but not now?

 

[MarcusRock]

In January, you interpreted Blandino as saying that he was looking for a football move until right before the player hit the ground. "It looks like they determine going to the ground just before the receiver hits the ground to see if those Article 3 requirements have been satisfied (control, 2 feet, football move) prior." You said, "Blandino clearly states that Dez is not a runner and hasn't established possession due to lack of a football move," and that Blandino gave "the exact same explanation in describing Johnson's no catch. It's consistent." You concluded that "no reach = no catch."

Then you said this:


You were clearly agreeing with my quotes that you posted, which said that Item 1 was about hitting the ground -- not falling -- and that Item 1 was subordinate to the catch process. That it did not trump the catch process, but instead only applied when the catch process wasn't completed.


But now you're saying that was never the case. That even if Johnson (2013) or Dez (2014 playoffs) had reached, it wouldn't have mattered because they "got that going to the ground tag slapped on them." Because "the 3-part rule is for a receiver who catches a ball while on his feet."

You have to say that now. You've actually had to come up with a completely different interpretation of that video, otherwise you'd be admitting that they changed the rule after Dez's overturn. Why else would a falling reach complete the catch process in 2013-14, but not now?

I understand the need to try to continue to boondoggle but I believe you still haven't answered my question.

Where is your additional support for your false claim that the rules changed in their essence from 2014 to 2015? Plenty of support exists out there for the opposite of that. Do you have any?

 

[DogFace]

I understand the need to try to continue to boondoggle but I believe you still haven't answered my question.

Where is your additional support for your false claim that the rules changed in their essence from 2014 to 2015? Plenty of support exists out there for the opposite of that. Do you have any?

Clownish!!!

You’re so fun!

 

[DogFace]

So the competition committee recommends changing the rule back to pre 2015.

Wow. Who ever saw that coming?

HINT—a few Catch Experts did and predicted exactly that.

Prediction: Failed going to the ground theorists struggle to deal with facts yet again.

 

[Bullflop]

It should prove very interesting to see what the committee comes up with when everything is ironed out.

From my early perspective on how this thing might work, it seems there's little to lose and much to gain.

 

[blindzebra]

So the competition committee recommends changing the rule back to pre 2015.

Wow. Who ever saw that coming?

HINT—a few catch theorists did and predicted exactly that.

They did everything short of announcing they blew the call in GB.

 

[percyhoward]

They did everything short of announcing they blew the call in GB.

Surely you're not suggesting the NFL would lie about the misapplication of a rule, then change the rule to make that misapplication seem correct (affecting at least a dozen games over a three-year period), then "realize" their mistake (after that mistake cost the Steelers a win) and change the rule back to the way it was before, and act like it was a completely "new" rule.

Sorry for the personal attack, but you're crazy. I know you're crazy because I haven't seen any major media outlet confirm that anything like that happened.

 

[KJJ]

Part of completing a football move will be a receiver reaching for the endzone with the ball. I knew all this was coming three years ago only surprised that it took this long.

https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/s/ww...new-definitions-for-controversial-catch-rule/

The new rule will eliminate the requirement that a receiver who is in the process of going to the ground while making a catch must maintain control of the football while on the turf to be awarded a legal catch.

 

[DogFace]

Part of completing a football move will be a receiver reaching for the endzone with the ball. I knew all this was coming three years ago only surprised that it took this long.

https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/s/ww...new-definitions-for-controversial-catch-rule/

The new rule will eliminate the requirement that a receiver who is in the process of going to the ground while making a catch must maintain control of the football while on the turf to be awarded a legal catch.

Right. Good rule change back to the old rule. The new rule, the pre-2015 rule was that way as well.

Blandino in 2013:
“This is something we’ve worked really hard at to educate people, in terms of the catch process.”


“Let’s look at the play from week one, the Minn. Det. Game where Calvin is GOING TO THE GROUND in the PROCESS of MAKING THE CATCH.

The process of the catch is a 3 part process-control, 2 feet down, and then have the ball long enough to perform an act common to the game. If you can perform all 3 parts, in that order, you HAVE a catch. If not AND you’re GOING TO THE GROUND you must control the ball when you hit the ground. Watch what happens when Calvin hits the ground, the ball comes loose. He did not have BOTH FEET DOWN prior to THE REACH for the goaline SO this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass

 

[BlindFaith]

Part of completing a football move will be a receiver reaching for the endzone with the ball. I knew all this was coming three years ago only surprised that it took this long.

https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/s/ww...new-definitions-for-controversial-catch-rule/

The new rule will eliminate the requirement that a receiver who is in the process of going to the ground while making a catch must maintain control of the football while on the turf to be awarded a legal catch.

This is a quote from Riverton.

1. Control
2. 2 feet down or another body part
3. A football move such as: - A 3rd step - Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain - Or the ability to perform such an act

"The ability to perform such an act.”

So now we will have judgment calls on whether they had the ability.

Yep, that’s it. That’s going to be the main point of debate. A receiver’s going to get hit and lose the ball a beat after putting his second foot down, and the question will be whether he could have made “a football move” or not, and some people will think yes and some will think no and the referees, after a lengthy review, will rule the opposite of whatever you think should have happened.

Still no distinction of how long that time is. It should be an interesting start to the season.

 

[blindzebra]

This is a quote from Riverton.

1. Control
2. 2 feet down or another body part
3. A football move such as: - A 3rd step - Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain - Or the ability to perform such an act

"The ability to perform such an act.”

So now we will have judgment calls on whether they had the ability.

Yep, that’s it. That’s going to be the main point of debate. A receiver’s going to get hit and lose the ball a beat after putting his second foot down, and the question will be whether he could have made “a football move” or not, and some people will think yes and some will think no and the referees, after a lengthy review, will rule the opposite of whatever you think should have happened.

Still no distinction of how long that time is. It should be an interesting start to the season.

That is the same way it has been for years...do you even watch football?
And it is obvious that the ability part is there for plays in the endzone where a player is not going to perform a football move.

 

[KJJ]

This is a quote from Riverton.
"The ability to perform such an act.”

So now we will have judgment calls on whether they had the ability.

Yep, that’s it. That’s going to be the main point of debate. A receiver’s going to get hit and lose the ball a beat after putting his second foot down, and the question will be whether he could have made “a football move” or not, and some people will think yes and some will think no and the referees, after a lengthy review, will rule the opposite of whatever you think should have happened.

The rule they’ve come up with is pretty much on par with the rule I came up with several weeks ago during our discussion. Remember? You mentioned there would be more fumbles called with my rule and I said that’s because they’ll be more catches called. If it’s too bang-bang of a play where the receiver loses the ball as soon as they get hit it will be called incomplete. They have to have the ball at least tick long enough to be called a catch.

The new rule certainly isn’t going to eliminate judgment and some disagreement. With every call there’s going to be some judgment and debate but this new rule is going to greatly improve the catch rule because you won’t be seeing obvious catches like CJ’s and Dez’s negated because a receiver didn’t survive the ground with the ball.

The going to the ground part of the rule no longer existing is going to make the rulings simpler and far less controversial. No one will be asking what is a catch anymore. It’s also going to make determining what a football move is a lot simpler. The fans want to see more catches not more negated catches.

 

[Aviano90]

I can’t wait for the first controversial catch next year.

 

[LatinMind]

they talked about this on NFLN yesterday and they looked confused on what they are proposing. So nothings gonna change. Just different wording

 

[BlindFaith]

The rule they’ve come up with is pretty much on par with the rule I came up with several weeks ago during our discussion. Remember? You mentioned there would be more fumbles called with my rule and I said that’s because they’ll be more catches called. If it’s too bang-bang of a play where the receiver loses the ball as soon as they get hit it will be called incomplete. They have to have the ball at least tick long enough to be called a catch.

The new rule certainly isn’t going to eliminate judgment and some disagreement. With every call there’s going to be some judgment and debate but this new rule is going to greatly improve the catch rule because you won’t be seeing obvious catches like CJ’s and Dez’s negated because a receiver didn’t survive the ground with the ball.

The going to the ground part of the rule no longer existing is going to make the rulings simpler and far less controversial. No one will be asking what is a catch anymore. It’s also going to make determining what a football move is a lot simpler. The fans want to see more catches not more negated catches.

Simpler yes, but there will be more fumbles now.

 

[glimmerman]

They are still gonna blow some calls.

 

[BlindFaith]

they talked about this on NFLN yesterday and they looked confused on what they are proposing. So nothings gonna change. Just different wording

They are removing the entire going to the ground rule. So yes, it will change dramatically.