Welcome to PatsFans.com

"Both feet down, with control." Thank you, NFL

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by italia44, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. italia44

    italia44 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,286
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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!
     
  2. IndyKen

    IndyKen Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Re: "Both Feet Down,With Control" Thank You,NFL

    So, if the player has both feet down and the ball is moving a little after he starts heading out of bounds before he gains full control, it's still going to be an incompletion?? Wonderful, just wonderful... :(
     
  3. unoriginal

    unoriginal In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3,284
    Likes Received:
    87
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -1

    Re: "Both Feet Down,With Control" Thank You,NFL

    Next season's interpretation:
    "Two feet down, with a look of peace and confidence on the face."
     
  4. patriot lifer

    patriot lifer 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +61 / 0 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    Re: "Both Feet Down,With Control" Thank You,NFL

    How about they count one - Mississippi.
     
  5. PatsFaninAZ

    PatsFaninAZ In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,095
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    Re: "Both Feet Down,With Control" Thank You,NFL

    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.
     
  6. patriot lifer

    patriot lifer 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +61 / 0 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    Re: "Both Feet Down,With Control" Thank You,NFL

    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.
     
  7. Phoenix111

    Phoenix111 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Re: "Both Feet Down,With Control" Thank You,NFL

    Agree with all of this. To point out a somewhat recent example, I remember the S.D. divisional game where Gates appeared to come down with a pass near the goal line and Hobbs tackled him jarring the ball loose. It was ultimately ruled an incomplete pass. It looks like this year that would have been a fumble most likely.

    We would have benefited on this particular play, but generally I feel like this is going to be a bad rule change.
     
  8. PromisedLand

    PromisedLand Virtual Internet Person

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,333
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Re: "Both Feet Down,With Control" Thank You,NFL

    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.
     
  9. italia44

    italia44 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,286
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Re: "Both Feet Down,With Control" Thank You,NFL

    what he said
     
  10. Vern

    Vern Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Re: "Both Feet Down,With Control" Thank You,NFL

    Also, they really took it to the extreme last year, where a guy would catch the ball, take almost two full steps and have it come out on the way down and it was still incomplete.

    Defenses will take the extra fumbles any day, even if it means a few extra completions. Almost all fumbles by WRs are recovered by the D. It turns an incompletion into a INT effectively.
     
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,115
    Likes Received:
    417
    Ratings:
    +915 / 14 / -7

    Re: "Both Feet Down,With Control" Thank You,NFL

    I have no idea why, but in English cricket (as I understand it,) if you catch a ball you have to look at the ump and yell HOWZAT?

    I have no idea why... maybe the mind-numbing repititious boredom of it all... when the game lasts several days and they have timeouts to change sweaters, you know it's going to have some quirks.

    PFnV
     
  12. zippo59

    zippo59 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,072
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Good clarification to the rule. This is cut and dry. A "football move" just left too much room for interpretation and therefore error. The broadcasters would try to define a football move everytime they would go over the rule and they always struggled to put it into a neat definition.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2007
  13. He Ban Me

    He Ban Me Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,671
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Re: "Both Feet Down,With Control" Thank You,NFL

    "Two feet down, and a Desmond Howard Heisman Pose."
     
  14. TomBrady'sGoat

    TomBrady'sGoat 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I hated the "football move" distinction. Whether or not a ball is caught should be determined when it is actually caught, not a second or two later. If someone has both feet down and the ball firmly in his hands it is caught, even if he is hit a second later and the ball comes flying out. Such thinking punishes WRs who can't hold onto the ball and rewards defenders who knock it loose.

    Hopefully that's what this leads to.
     
  15. zippo59

    zippo59 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,072
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    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.
     
  16. PromisedLand

    PromisedLand Virtual Internet Person

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,333
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    I don't think it does affect that. You still have to maintain control.
     
  17. PatsFaninAZ

    PatsFaninAZ In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,095
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    This is a little complicated, so stick with me here.

    I think what you guys really hated last year was not the "football move" rule. I think what you really hated was a bizzare interpretation that was put into place last year in the wake of the Troy Polomalu play in the superbowl. I posted several times about this last year, but nobody really ever understood it, and I admit it's complicated.

    So, here it is. Last year, officials were given an interpretation that divided the world into two different scenarios. First was when a defender made contact with a receiver simultaneously, or nearly simultaneously, with a catch. Second was when the receiver made a catch and was not engaged by the defender for a brief period of time -- like a second or thereabouts.

    What the NFL decided last year was that in the first situation -- where contact by the defender was simultaneous or nearly simultaneous -- in order for the ball to be a "catch," the receiver needed to control it "all the way to the ground." However, in the second situation, there was no such rule. Where the receiver caught the ball in the clear and then was engaged by a defender, the rule was that he needed only to make a "football move" to have it be a catch.

    The result was that to the average fan who did not know about this distinction it seemed hugely inconsistent. The issue almost always came up on the question whether it was a fumble. There were some plays last year where the receiver clearly caught the ball and was immediately engaged by a defender, and then made not one but several "football moves" with the defender hanging on him, and then had the ball stripped. These were often ruled no catch, because the defender did not keep the ball all the way to the ground. There were then other plays (like Troy Brown's in the SD game) where the receiver (or here the interceptor; same rule) caught the ball in the clear and then had the ball poked away an instant later, and those were called fumbles because a "football move" had been made. Unless you knew the reason that the refs were calling these two plays differently -- making it depend on when the defender engaged the receiver -- you would have no conclusion but that these plays were being called woefully inconsistently. The announcers never got it, even though some refs (mostly Ed Hochuli) painfully explained the rule at length whenever it came up. As a result, you'd have announcers in the first scenario talking about how the receiver had clearly made a "football move" so it should be a fumble, which was just not the issue. And the end result was that everyone at home got convinced there was the big controversy over what constitutes a "football move," and thus the football move concept took a beating.

    The bottom line to me is that the new rule change is an overreaction. The real culprit last year was not the football move rule. 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.

    I think the football move rule is a good one. I don't think fumbles should be called merely because the receiver had fingertip control and two feet in bounds. If a defender slaps that ball away, it's an incompletion. Prior to last year, there was not much trouble in deciding what constitutes a "football move," except, unfortunately, in the super bowl on one high profile play. It's an easy to apply concept, and it is more natural with what we all, in common sense, think a fumble should be or not be. When the receiver is in the act of catching, and the defender makes a play, it's just good defense. Not until the receiver becomes a "runner" with real possession should it be regarded as a fumble. That's all the football move rule has ever been about, and it's a good one. The "all the way to the ground" interpretation, depending on when the receiver was engaged, was stupid.

    Ok, hope that's understandable. This has been something of a pet peeve of mine.
     
  18. Vern

    Vern Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    There was a play in an Indy (vs. Ten?) game last year, where I think Wayne caught the ball, took two steps and fell to the ground whereupon the ball popped out and went out of bounds. It was ruled an incomplete. I remember Indy fans griping about how ridiculous the "all the way to the ground" interpretation had gone. If Wayne had done the same thing and just not been angled forward for those two steps, he might not have been ruled as falling forward the whole time (thus a lengthy "football move" vs. "just falling forward two steps" debate ensued.)

    Anyway, I think the change makes it simpler. There is a point at which it is a catch, and whatever happens next is another part of the play post catch.

    Where I think it could get interesting is the same play in the endzone. The catch is made, two feet down, then pop goes the ball. There can't be a fumble after a TD.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2007

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>