Twitter: New catch rule going into effect

[percyhoward]

The number of negated catches has been miniscule. I'd wager we will see 3 times the number of fumbles now. And still have controversy on some catches.

They're just taking plays that most people agree were catches (Dez in 2014 playoffs, James in 2017) and trying to make sure that they're ruled catches. Even with perfect enforcement of a perfect rule, there will always be controversy as long as there are close plays.

Assuming they just go back to the standard that was in place before 2015, there shouldn't be any more fumbles than there were before 2015.

Going back 10 years, these are fumbles lost after a reception.
2017 42
2016 57
2015 65
2014 81
2013 61
2012 63
2011 64
2010 74
2009 65
2008 83

 

[BlindFaith]

As long as they can hold onto the football through the initial hit it’s a catch. Receivers have had more trouble surviving the impact of the ground than the impact of defenders.

Defenders couldn't cause fumbles while a player was falling. Now they can.

If I'm the coach, Im telling all my guys to start drilling guys falling. Legally of course.

 

[BlindFaith]

They're just taking plays that most people agree were catches (Dez in 2014 playoffs, James in 2017) and trying to make sure that they're ruled catches. Even with perfect enforcement of a perfect rule, there will always be controversy as long as there are close plays.

Assuming they just go back to the standard that was in place before 2015, there shouldn't be any more fumbles than there were before 2015.

Going back 10 years, these are fumbles lost after a reception.
2017 42
2016 57
2015 65
2014 81
2013 61
2012 63
2011 64
2010 74
2009 65
2008 83

Good stuff. Can you go back to 1998?

 

[KJJ]

Don't be so sensitive. This is a discussion forum. Not everyone has to have your exact point of view. The whining here about some fans speaking their mind that's not 100% rainbows and puppies is ridiculous.

The rule is better in your opinion.

I’m being sensitive? Lol This is a discussion forum and I’m giving my opinion. I gave my opinion on what I think the rule should be several weeks ago to BlindFaith, it’s the same rule I’ve been posting for 3 years and it’s the exact rule that will being going into effect in 2018. Not everyone does have my exact point of view which is why a lot of people end up being wrong. So what rule can you come up with that would be better than this one?

 

[BlindFaith]

They're just taking plays that most people agree were catches (Dez in 2014 playoffs, James in 2017) and trying to make sure that they're ruled catches. Even with perfect enforcement of a perfect rule, there will always be controversy as long as there are close plays.

Assuming they just go back to the standard that was in place before 2015, there shouldn't be any more fumbles than there were before 2015.

Going back 10 years, these are fumbles lost after a reception.
2017 42
2016 57
2015 65
2014 81
2013 61
2012 63
2011 64
2010 74
2009 65
2008 83

And also, this is a new dynamic we've never seen in the NFL before. There has always been some concept of maintaining possession through contacting the ground.

They tinkered with not having to make a football move then back to football move with the going to the ground exception.

But this will be the first time that possession will not have to be maintained through contact with the ground.

I think this will be a big deal.

 

[percyhoward]

Can you go back to 1998?

2007 80
2006 75
2005 74
2004 74
2003 55
2002 87
2001 68
2000 87
1999 57
1998 66

 

[BlindFaith]

I’m being sensitive? Lol This is a discussion forum and I’m giving my opinion. I gave my opinion on what I think the rule should be several weeks ago to BlindFaith, it’s the same rule I’ve been posting for 3 years and it’s the exact rule that will being going into effect in 2018. Not everyone does have my exact point of view which is why a lot of people end up being wrong. So what rule can you come up with that would be better than this one?

This isn't some earth shattering concept that the never wrong KJJ came up with. We've discussed this for years.

All I can say is let's see how it plays out. I happen to believe it won't be the savior everyone has been looking for.

 

[percyhoward]

This will be the first time that possession will not have to be maintained through contact with the ground.

If the player loses the ball before he completes the catch process, then it's not a catch.

 

[blindzebra]

Defenders couldn't cause fumbles while a player was falling. Now they can.

If I'm the coach, Im telling all my guys to start drilling guys falling. Legally of course.

Incorrect, they can't hit them in the head or lead with the helmet.

 

[BlindFaith]

2007 80
2006 75
2005 74
2004 74
2003 55
2002 87
2001 68
2000 87
1999 57
1998 66

And these are just after any reception? If they fumble at any point after a reception? So it could be 10 yards down field?

 

[percyhoward]

And these are just after any reception? If they fumble at any point after a reception? So it could be 10 yards down field?

or 99, yes.

 

[KJJ]

Defenders couldn't cause fumbles while a player was falling. Now they can.

If I'm the coach, Im telling all my guys to start drilling guys falling. Legally of course.

They could cause fumbles unless a receiver was ruled going to the ground. What’s wrong with a defender being able to cause a fumble while a receiver who’s clearly caught the ball is falling to the ground? If a receiver who’s clearly caught the ball and is switching hands with it has it dislodged by a defender before they have a knee or elbow on the ground, that would be a great play by the defender.

 

[BlindFaith]

If the player loses the ball before he completes the catch process, then it's not a catch.

Correct. But again, take the Dez play. Going forward, if he is hit as soon as that extra step is taken and the ball comes out, it will be a fumble.

 

[BlindFaith]

or 99, yes.

Thanks

 

[percyhoward]

Incorrect, they can't hit them in the head or lead with the helmet.

And defenders have always been able to cause fumbles while a player is falling anyway.

 

[BlindFaith]

They could cause fumbles unless a receiver was ruled going to the ground. What’s wrong with a defender being able to cause a fumble while a receiver who’s clearly caught the ball is falling to the ground? If a receiver who’s clearly caught the ball and is switching hands with it has it dislodged by a defender before they have a knee or elbow on the ground, that would be a great play by the defender.

Because the falling player can not protect himself like a player on his feet. They are much more exposed.

It's the whole reason the going to the ground rule was put in the way it was.

 

[percyhoward]

Correct. But again, take the Dez play. Going forward, if he is hit as soon as that extra step is taken and the ball comes out, it will be a fumble.

Definitely a fumble.

 

[BlindFaith]

And defenders have always been able to cause fumbles while a player is falling anyway.

Not while in the process of making a catch.

 

[KJJ]

This isn't some earth shattering concept that the never wrong KJJ came up with. We've discussed this for years.

All I can say is let's see how it plays out. I happen to believe it won't be the savior everyone has been looking for.

I’ve been giving what I think the rule should be for three years and it’s exactly what the league has come up with. I discussed what I think the rule should be with you weeks ago and you didn’t like it. You thought it would create more fumbles. It’s going to create more catches and a few more fumbles. I’m fine with that trade off. It’s better than seeing great catches negated because the receiver couldn’t survive the ground with the ball.

 

[BlindFaith]

Definitely a fumble.

Like I said, this will be an entertaining year.

I wouldn't be surprised that in the first week there will be a controversy.