What is 'a football move'?

[pencilneckgeek]

"Making a football move" is a bad phrase which leads to the confusion.
It really is doing something that a ball carrier does after taking possession. The act of making the catch is complete when you start another act, such as running cutting, avoid a tackler, etc.

It might even be the worst phrase possible, because the quintessential football move is getting knocked flat on your ass by a 250-pound defender.

 

[Galeb]

A "football move" is vague concept that injects grey area into the NFLs rule book, giving refs more power to influence the outcome of a game.

 

[neuronet]

Based on this discussion, it seems like a stupid rule that only injects uncertainty. Change it to ball control + in bounds. There is already enough ambiguity in whether someone has control of the ball (e.g., when the ball touches the ground); why add this additional layer of uncertainty? On the positive side, it is so ambiguous that a call on the field will rarely be overturned using the 'football move' criterion. Or am I wrong?

 

[patsfaninpa]

To answer the OP, grabbing a sammich with one hand, a beer with the other, and realizing you don't have a third to use. Pick up the bag of chips or doritos with your mouth and head to the tv room

 

[lurker1965]

"a football move" is a purposely ambiguous phrase that will allow the League to rule in favor of Peyton so he can get his second ring. I'm joking. Sort of. Almost. Allegedly.

 

[Bruins29]

What if you're Brandon Lloyd and you're done after catching the ball?

Then you hit the ground like its COMPTON AT MIDNIGHT

Disclaimer: I dont know if Chis Rock said this but it just sounds like something he would say. Can you just hear it?

 

[Marinlik]

Then you hit the ground like its COMPTON AT MIDNIGHT

Disclaimer: I dont know if Chis Rock said this but it just sounds like something he would say. Can you just hear it?

Not gona lie. I thought he had said that, becuase in my head I could really hear him say that.

 

[Wax Frog]

This definition works for me.

 

[IcyPatriot]

If you're a Jet it is a fumble or a INT.

 

[Rob0729]

You want to see a football move, well here it is:

 

[Rob0729]

This definition works for me.

You stole my gif and my joke. So I had to go to plan B.

 

[oldrover]

Not sure if this helps, but Mrs. Rover made chili for last weeks game, and I had a football movement.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

i consider this a football move

 

[Canuck]

It is ridiculously ambiguous and could, literally, mean anything. It's designed to be a catch-all term for a cut, spin, side step, juke, outside arm transfer, etc...

I use a dumbed-down version that I call the "three-step rule" reciever lands on one foot, second foot plants which is possession, third step denotes a "football move". Seems to work well for me.

I use the 3 step rule too. It seems to fit most scenarios of the football move. The other is two feet down and maintain possession when hitting the ground.

 

[Wax Frog]

You stole my gif and my joke. So I had to go to plan B.

In before Rob0729

At least you got 2 votes to my 1. You can thank me later

 

[Wax Frog]

Not sure if this helps, but Mrs. Rover made chili for last weeks game, and I had a football movement.

3 Step Rule?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

And of course, a receiver no longer (as of 2012, I believe) has to make a "football move" to have a completion. However, he does have to control and possess the ball long enough to have made one.

 

[BingoBrown]

Sounds like an ambiguous term that gives more power to referees for willy nilly game changing decisions...

I wish I could star this more then once.The Refs want the ability to
control the flow of the game(that's why you can't challenge)within
reason.

 

[bradydaman29]

Based on this discussion, it seems like a stupid rule that only injects uncertainty. Change it to ball control + in bounds. There is already enough ambiguity in whether someone has control of the ball (e.g., when the ball touches the ground); why add this additional layer of uncertainty? On the positive side, it is so ambiguous that a call on the field will rarely be overturned using the 'football move' criterion. Or am I wrong?

 

[bradydaman29]

I'd also like to see them change the endzone rule for when a receiver catches the ball, both feet in bounds, nice and clean, like Gronk did last week, then they fall to the ground and if the ball moves a fraction of an inch, they say he didn't maintain control. When diving for the end zone, all you have to do is get the nose of the football over the endline and then you can even drop the ball and it still counts as a td. Not sure why the rule has to be so much different for when a receiver catches the ball past the endline. As soon as he establishes control and both feet in, it shouldn't matter what happens after that. Would make it much easier for the refs and more clear cut.