Do you Hate the Rule "Didn't make a Football Move"

[brady199]

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]

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

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

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

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]

Actually I think it's a good rule.

 

[RayClay]

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]

Actually I think it's a good rule.

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

 

[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.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

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]

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

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]

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.

 

[reflexblue]

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.

YEAH, what he said.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

Or they are ruled incomplete, when, in fact, they ARE fumbles as what happened back in 2004 with Marvin Harrison. I remember watching him catch the ball, take 2 steps and then get PUMMELED and he fumbled. The Ref called it incomplete. Unfortunately, it wasn't a challengable play then. Now it is.

 

[brady199]

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.

Thats why we have instant replay

 

[Rob0729]

Personally, I think that with or without this rule, there would be a lot of judgement calls on what is considered a catch or fumble etc. I think adding a football move actually eliminate a lot of the questionable judgement calls because with a football move they usually make it easier to know if a player actually had possession before he fumbles or is down.

I don't think the rule is perfect, but I think it is the best option.

 

[rabthepat]

I suppose other teams probably don't like the tuck rule. I know I do. I guess I can live with the football move rule as long as they are consistent.

It's tough sometimes to watch a game with the new rule and to know it would have been called differently just a couple of years ago. For example, Anotonio Gates fumble of the 2 yard line in the playoff game. It was called incomplete yet before it would have been a fumble.

 

[drakesta101]

I agree, the rule is beyond stupid. The rule actually has holes as well.....for sideline catches the reciever does not need to make a football move....just stretch out of bounds for a ball and have two feet in bounds and fall over...even if possession is only made for a split second....but in the middle of the field the reciever can have a ball with two feet down for as long a time and it can become jarred loose....but its an incomplete pass...advantage offense

 

[signbabybrady]

the rule sux period

 

[Gumby]

The rule is fine.

It is just the referee's whimsical interpretation of it, as in the Harrison example cited above, is what is wrong. Making more referee bogus calls subject to review is a GREAT answer IMO.

We don't need NBA-style-referees; who have one standard for the Dolts & harrisons of the world and a second higher standard for the non-star players or teams like the patriots.