As Usual, Patriots Likely Sparked Another Rule Change This Offseason

[rochrist]

I've looked at the replay several times. It really is two minutes twenty seconds before Romo "focuses on the end of the play". Why? Well, to him, Nantz and the hypothetical fifty guys in a bar, it was a catch. Romo only caught on to the idea that it might not be a catch because the official kept looking at the review for so long. Despite the fact it ended out working in our favor, to me this helps prove my main point that the NFL now comes across as fake and bureaucratic, rather than fun and organic.

Again, except as soon as he looked at the way the ball came loose, he said it was going to be ruled incomplete.

 

[Ring 6]

I've looked at the replay several times. It really is two minutes twenty seconds before Romo "focuses on the end of the play". Why? Well, to him, Nantz and the hypothetical fifty guys in a bar, it was a catch. Romo only caught on to the idea that it might not be a catch because the official kept looking at the review for so long. Despite the fact it ended out working in our favor, to me this helps prove my main point that the NFL now comes across as fake and bureaucratic, rather than fun and organic.

I think the point that is being missed is that going to the ground is a NECESSARY part if the catch. You have to survive the ground because the ground is part of the catch, so therefore if you trap the ball against the ground after bobbling it then it shouldn’t be a catch.

Frankly I think you are wrong about what and why fans think in this case.
It’s only an issue because the ball stayed between his hands when it hit the ground so he never TOTALLY or PERMANENTLY lost control. Had the ball bounced up in the air and away from him no one would be saying anything.
It really is a “he was close enough” argument. If don’t thunk anyone would argue that the rule should be changed to the referee deciding if the length of tone he list control would cause a guy in a bar to think itvead long enough.

 

[Ring 6]

Again, except as soon as he looked at the way the ball came loose, he said it was going to be ruled incomplete.

Right I don’t think a commentator not noticed what happened at the end of the play makes it any less important.

 

[Tony2046]

Fumble before crossing plane = turnover
Fumble after crossing plane = irrelevant
Quite different.

Again, the suggestion is to make the crossing of the plane more significant than surviving the ground. Your focus is the idea that it isn't a catch till it survives the ground, which is of course what the current rules are. The suggestion would be to insert a check into the flowchart right before the 'survives the ground' check, such as 'under control when passing the goal plane', and if yes, it is a catch and a score, regardless of surviving the ground. It would be harder to officiate, but it would have made the Dez Bryant and Jessie James plays become what I think most fans feel is more inline with their expectations. Of course, I'm fine with both of those being incomplete!

Ok I understand what you mean now regarding fumbling differences but I disagree.

To me it starts with obtaining possession. If a player has that and crosses the goal line it's a TD and nothing that happens afterwards matters. If a player has that in the end zone it's a TD and nothing that happens afterwards matters. Simple.

As it is now obtaining possession is consistent everywhere on the field.

If your suggested rule change were in affect two years ago OBJ's would have scored a TD, Butler's strip wouldn't have counted and the Giants would have won . But your suggested rule change also means that if OBJ had caught the ball at the one yard line and Butler stripped him it would have been ruled an incomplete pass. That would more confusing than what we have now imo.

 

[XLIX]

Because the play would end the instant the ball crossed the plane in the receiver's hands. I think this is what the fans want. I think it's not in the rules because it can be hard to judge if the receiver had control at that instant, but it seems most fans think there should be priority given to crossing the goal line.

We just saw a perfect example of why your suggestion wouldn't work. The Bills pass to Clay (the TE) at the very end of the 1st half where he possessed it briefly in the end zone with his knees down, he was going to the ground, and completely lost the ball when he hit the ground. It wasn't a light bobble, I mean the ball came out completely. According to your rule, that's a TD but if they ever changed the rules where that's a TD, it would be atrocious.

 

[Bill Lee]

We just saw a perfect example of why your suggestion wouldn't work. The Bills pass to Clay (the TE) at the very end of the 1st half where he possessed it briefly in the end zone with his knees down, he was going to the ground, and completely lost the ball when he hit the ground. It wasn't a light bobble, I mean the ball came out completely. According to your rule, that's a TD but if they ever changed the rules where that's a TD, it would be atrocious.

I guess we see it a bit differently.

Yes, that was the worse 'corner case' for the rule change being suggested. I've watched it frame by frame on my DVR and it's not clear if he has control crossing the plane. If he had clear control of the ball before crossing the plane I think people would have viewed things differently.

Also, for many of us there's a lot more clarity about the rules now than there was before the James play, so it's hard now to suggest any changes.

And overall that's a good thing. We are all now understanding what will and what will not be called a catch, and the rules are being called correctly.

So, while I don't think it'd be atrocious to change the rule to call a TD on a play where it was clearer that the ball was being controlled before crossing the plane, it's pretty clear the time for tinkering with the rules is over and the rules in place should stand.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

Signing Harris will cause a rule change too.

 

[Joker]

why are you people STILL obsessing over this call? It's like you all believe that if this call went the other way, the Patriots LOSE. I was AT the game and saw the difference between Brady' s first half performance and his play in the 2nd half.Buffalo LOSES this game ,catch or no catch. If you want to keep braying like a troll jackazz that your friggin' sky is falling, see a goddamned shrink. It was a call that raised questions and the answer by the LEAGUE was no catch. WHY WHY WHY is this so important to gnash your teeth over as if it's the Lindbergh baby kidnapping all over again? Move on Let the idiot Barfalo fanbase obsess over their latest "wide right" debacle.

 

[PatsDeb]

Wonder what the rule change will be for this week? We can't sign players cut by the Steelers? LOL.

 

[PatsDeb]

why are you people STILL obsessing over this call? It's like you all believe that if this call went the other way, the Patriots LOSE. I was AT the game and saw the difference between Brady' s first half performance and his play in the 2nd half.Buffalo LOSES this game ,catch or no catch. If you want to keep braying like a troll jackazz that your friggin' sky is falling, see a goddamned shrink. It was a call that raised questions and the answer by the LEAGUE was no catch. WHY WHY WHY is this so important to gnash your teeth over as if it's the Lindbergh baby kidnapping all over again? Move on Let the idiot Barfalo fanbase obsess over their latest "wide right" debacle.

LOL Joker. I agree. Even if the call went the other way, it had no bearing on the outcome of the game. The Bills lost by 21 points, not 4. A 17 pt. loss is still a blowout. Go Pats!

 

[lurker1965]

League of idiots. The guy had the ball, it hit the ground, it moved, his hand was jarred off of it. Move that to the middle of the end zone and no idiots call it a catch.

Call it a catch and suddenly many passes that are incomplete are suddenly fumbles.