italia44
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,285
- Reaction score
- 0
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Just saw Mike Pereira, VP of NFL officials on the NFLN.
New interpretation of the "catch AND make a football move" rule.
Now it will be:
"Both feet down with control" (NO supplementary football move)
Yippeeeeeeee!
Next season's interpretation:
"Two feet down, with a look of peace and confidence on the face."
This rule is way more important for what constitutes a fumble than for what constitutes a catch.
By a very wide margin, the most controversial places where this comes up are when control is close and the receiver later loses the ball, and the question is whether it was just a broken up pass or a catch and fumble. I thought the football move rule was actually better for judging fumbles after catches. The notion that a guy can have a ball momentarily in his grasp, with both feet down, that is then knocked away and called a fumble is not good to me. I think there should be a football move before sufficient possession is called to call it a fumble.
If this really is the new interpretation, I guarantee it's going to really jack some team up this year -- some play is going to look like a routine broken up pass and it's going to be called a fumble after replay because this is the new rule, even though in regular speed it's not anything anyone would regard as a fumble.
This rule is way more important for what constitutes a fumble than for what constitutes a catch.
By a very wide margin, the most controversial places where this comes up are when control is close and the receiver later loses the ball, and the question is whether it was just a broken up pass or a catch and fumble. I thought the football move rule was actually better for judging fumbles after catches. The notion that a guy can have a ball momentarily in his grasp, with both feet down, that is then knocked away and called a fumble is not good to me. I think there should be a football move before sufficient possession is called to call it a fumble.
If this really is the new interpretation, I guarantee it's going to really jack some team up this year -- some play is going to look like a routine broken up pass and it's going to be called a fumble after replay because this is the new rule, even though in regular speed it's not anything anyone would regard as a fumble.
The key thing is that you can't have a fumble unless you have a reception first. By eliminating the ridiculous and subjective "football move" criterium, more plays will be ruled a completion and a fumble which would have been called an incomplete pass under the previous rule.They'll probably call fumbles consistently with whatever they did last year. The rules are still subjective enough that they can do that. But we'll nevertheless be looking for what you predict.
The key thing is that you can't have a fumble unless you have a reception first. By eliminating the ridiculous and subjective "football move" criterium, more plays will be ruled a completion and a fumble which would have been called an incomplete pass under the previous rule.
The key thing is that you can't have a fumble unless you have a reception first. By eliminating the ridiculous and subjective "football move" criterium, more plays will be ruled a completion and a fumble which would have been called an incomplete pass under the previous rule.
How about they count one - Mississippi.
Next season's interpretation:
"Two feet down, with a look of peace and confidence on the face."
I don't think it does affect that. You still have to maintain control.How does this affect the previous rule where if you catch the ball as you are falling out of bounds, not only do you have to get two feet down in bounds but you have to maintain control of the ball as you hit the ground out of bounds? If you followed this rule change strictly then as long as you had possession of the ball with both feet in bounds then it doesn't matter if you hold onto the ball as you hit the ground.
It was the stupid interpretation that you needed to maintain the ball all the way to the ground when engaged by a defender, even if you had made a "football move" with possession.
...
The "all the way to the ground" interpretation, depending on when the receiver was engaged, was stupid.