Do you Hate the Rule "Didn't make a Football Move" - New England Patriots Forums

brady199 · 07-23-2007, 09:44 PM

I was watching the chargers pats game on NFL NETWORK and a couple of times we should have had turnovers if it wasn't for the "Football Move" Rule.

I personally Hate it, I think it's a tough call to make with too much grey area.
and I think the Game is more exciting with quick hits and fumbles, and the Defenses are already suffering from so many rule changes.

I thought on Pats all Access, they said that rule was going to change, but I'm not really sure.

Does anyone no for sure?

brady199 · 07-23-2007, 09:48 PM

I think a Catch and two feet down, everything is fair game.

Does anyone know the college rule for this type of play?

BradfordPatsFan · 07-23-2007, 10:03 PM

Yes. I've officiated several sports and the more vague the terms, the more problems you have. Define it so there is no grey area.

***richpats*** · 07-23-2007, 10:14 PM

Actually I think it's a good rule.

RayClay · 07-23-2007, 10:33 PM

I totally agree.

What the hell is a "football move"?

Make a rule that's enforceable. I've seen guys come down and start running and it's ruled no football move.

He's not running to catch a bus. Ridiculous. Good thread.

Patsfanin Philly · 07-23-2007, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richpats

Actually I think it's a good rule.

I guess that explains the "unnatural act" Light (?) got flagged for a few years ago........

***reflexblue*** · 07-23-2007, 11:21 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think a Catch and two feet down, everything is fair game. Exactley, "football move" is totaly subjective what realy constatutes a football move ?It probably varies from ref to ref. One of the dumbest rules in sports.

PatsFanInVa · 07-24-2007, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patsfanin Philly

I guess that explains the "unnatural act" Light (?) got flagged for a few years ago........

I think the Unnatural Act call is if you get busted nut-crushing at the bottom of the pile.

I agree, I have no idea what a Football Move is, but I do know when someone has 2 feet in bounds (depending on the freeze frame and camera angle.) That, and whether the receiver has control of the ball, gives you way too much to think about to start with.

Why do we need the "football move" clause? Possibly because with all the OTHER rules changes (like, don't hit the QB below the waist, etc.,) the offenses were going to score way too high. So they had to counteract it with the bogus "football move" addition to a perfectly good catch/no-catch scheme of things.

Here's an idea - make QBs football players again... take out the Kimo-therapy rule, and take out the "football move" clause.

Either that or, screw it, illegalize the forward pass again. I never did like that fad.

PFnV

***richpats*** · 07-24-2007, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reflexblue

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think a Catch and two feet down, everything is fair game. Exactley, "football move" is totaly subjective what realy constatutes a football move ?It probably varies from ref to ref. One of the dumbest rules in sports.

On the other hand, a ref could mistakenly rule that a receiver has possession (when he is in fact bobbling the ball with both feet down) and the ball is knocked out, so without the "football move" rule, plays like that could mistakenly be ruled fumbles.

Fixit · 07-24-2007, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richpats

On the other hand, a ref could mistakenly rule that a receiver has possession (when he is in fact bobbling the ball with both feet down) and the ball is knocked out, so without the "football move" rule, plays like that could mistakenly be ruled fumbles.

It could mistakenly be ruled a fumble if he does make a football move.

I'm in the "dumb rule" camp. Possession and two feet is good enough for me. If a guy catches a ball, good for him. If he gets blasted and coughs it up, good for the defense.