As Usual, Patriots Likely Sparked Another Rule Change This Offseason

[everlong]

I see how you're viewing it on James. You're saying the catch and going to the ground are in one motion. I'm saying he caught it, twisted his body and got over the GL. It's close and between the two interpretations so I'm not going to argue it further.

On the three feet in bounds before going out of bounds if you don't maintain control of the ball they will call it incomplete. I tried Youtubing for examples but it's a tough keyword search so I'll agree to disagree.

 

[Two Eight]

The rule is fine, only homers or mediots looking for a sensational headline don't understand it.

The knee doesn't matter. Breaking the plane doesn't matter. He didn't protect the football...look at the shoelace catch Gronk made, he cradled the ball clamped to his chest and spun onto his back so there was no chance of it touching the ground. That's the difference between a great TE making a great catch and an average TE making an incompletion.

 

[Angelpats]

Only because this is about the Patriots and a bunch of mediots predicted the Steelers to win and had their souls crushed when they lost does this issue make the headlines. Same are the touchback in the jets game. These rules have always been there but it takes a patriots game for them to realize they exist. Even former refs who should hate the nfl believe the correct call was made and for patriots fans here who would argue otherwise and thus making our team lose that game, what team are you rooting for exactly?

 

[Ring 6]

I see how you're viewing it on James. You're saying the catch and going to the ground are in one motion. I'm saying he caught it, twisted his body and got over the GL. It's close and between the two interpretations so I'm not going to argue it further.

But going to the ground is going to the ground. Twisting while you do it wouldn’t change that. There is no point in the process of that catch where he wouldn’t end up on the ground.
I think the main distinction here is if you hit the ground in the process of catching the ball you have to keep control.

On the three feet in bounds before going out of bounds if you don't maintain control of the ball they will call it incomplete. I tried Youtubing for examples but it's a tough keyword search so I'll agree to disagree.

That’s fine but I don’t think you can find a catch where there are 3 steps AND going to the ground while making it. They are mutually exclusive.
But as you say, no need to argue

 

[Tony2046]

Not a very helpful article.

No need to rehash the basics of this play, which have been repeated often here and elsewhere in the last 36 hours. Under the rule, if this play occurred at the 30 yard line there would have been no argument that it was an incomplete pass, had it occurred in the last two minutes or had the opposing team had the quickness to challenge the call of a completed pass. Ditto if James had been a runner.

I wrote that the article is "not...very helpful," because other than bloviating on the reactions of other teams, George doesn't make any suggestion regarding what rule change might actually occur. Instead he diverges into this being another possible conspiracy to limit the Patriots in some way...as though Pats receivers are any less likely to lose control of the ball going to the ground after a catch than any other team's and thus not benefit from a rule change like everybody else.

The only reasonable change one could make to the rule, based on this play, would be that a receiver doesn't have to control the ball to the ground after he has crossed the plane of the goal. But that opens up the possibility that a receiver could be juggling the ball as he crosses the plane and, then, after falling forward so his momentum propels the ball out of the back of the end-zone, make the argument that he was in possession of the ball when he crossed the plane and has, therefore, scored a touchdown. If a runner did that, it would be a TD.

In other words, I don't see how they can change this rule unless they just say that a receiver doesn't have to control the ball to the ground, thereby taking us back to a situation where there are multiple "fumbles" and "recoveries" of balls that are now, rightly in my opinion, called "incomplete passes." I just don't think the league wants to go back there and there is really no middle ground that I can see.

The Tuck Rule was a rule that needed to be changed (just glad it wasn't changed before 2001/02). We've all watched that play ten thousand times and there is no doubt that Brady was trying to pull the ball back when he was hit, etc. (no need to repeat that argument).

I don't think George was implying that the league would change the rule to limit the Patriots rather the rule would change because the Patriots had "benefited " from the current rule.

IOW, the outrage over the Bryant and Megatron catch wasn't enough to get the rule changed to pass the eye test but the outrage over the James non catch may be enough because the Patriots benefited.

But for the exact reasons you've stated the rule won't change.

 

[BobDigital]

A lot of people complain about the current catch rule but I honestly like it. I like a catch being harder than it use to be. Particularly with so many rule changes favouring offense these days.

 

[Gumby]

I don't think changing the rule is as complicated as the league makes it.

1. If you take three steps inbounds before going out of bounds the ground cannot cause a fumble.

2. If you get two feet down and make a visible drive to the end zone, maintain control and cross the goal line it's a TD even if you lose the ball after contacting the ground.

All other scenarios revert to the old rule. A quick tapping off the feet on the sideline and you only get two feet in and lose the ball hitting the ground it's incomplete.

Scenario one also means if you get three feet down in bounds and then get popped it's a fumble and live ball. I cannot stand when a receiver takes three steps and has turned up field and he gets hit and they call it an incomplete pass.

Scenario two ASJ is still a fumble.

Nothing you said is a CHANGE!! (or different from current rule)

"Surviving the ground" ONLY occurs when you haven't taken enough steps with possession to become a "runner".

 

[brdmaverick]

I feel confident in saying that there will NOT be a rule change for this. If they were going to change it, it would have been happened when it cost Dez Bryant and the Cowboys a playoff game.

 

[everlong]

Go to 1:02 for the Eifert play. He gets three feet down, breaks the GL and the ball is kicked out and it's ruled no TD. The NFL has a time clause attached to possession and getting your feet down.

 

[Ring 6]

Go to 1:02 for the Eifert play. He gets three feet down, breaks the GL and the ball is kicked out and it's ruled no TD. The NFL has a time clause attached to possession and getting your feet down.

Eifert was a bad call. (Unless he was bobbling which is hard to see from one angle) The others were correct.
Eiferts was wrong because he wasn’t going to the ground to make the catch. If he were, it would correctly be incomplete, but he had completed the catch before being tackled. I don’t know if that was reviewed but it should have been overturned and called a TD.

 

[everlong]

Eifert was a bad call. (Unless he was bobbling which is hard to see from one angle) The others were correct.
Eiferts was wrong because he wasn’t going to the ground to make the catch. If he were, it would correctly be incomplete, but he had completed the catch before being tackled. I don’t know if that was reviewed but it should have been overturned and called a TD.

Blandino disagrees and explains his reasoning. I agree with you but the point is 3 feet down is not enough per the NFL.

 

[Ring 6]

Blandino disagrees and explains his reasoning. I agree with you but the point is 3 feet down is not enough per the NFL.

Blandino is wrong which shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Eifert was a runner, but he got tackled. Going to the ground was not part of the catch.
He explained why eiferts catch was good when explaining Tate’s he is just not applying thecrule properly to eifert.
Riveron would 100% overturn the eifert call.

3 feet down is definitely enough (if upright) because the 3rd establishes you as a runner. 3 feet down while stumbling to ground (see dez) is not because going to the ground is part of the catch process.

 

[yukon cornelius]

lost in all of this.....officials like the rule as it is, and find it very black and white

 

[everlong]

Blandino is wrong which shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Eifert was a runner, but he got tackled. Going to the ground was not part of the catch.
He explained why eiferts catch was good when explaining Tate’s he is just not applying thecrule properly to eifert.
Riveron would 100% overturn the eifert call.

He's definitely not the brightest bulb but the rule clearly isn't defined properly or you wouldn't have multiple interpretations. Three feet down would leave no doubt on the Eifert play.

 

[Ring 6]

He's definitely not the brightest bulb but the rule clearly isn't defined properly or you wouldn't have multiple interpretations. Three feet down would leave no doubt on the Eifert play.

There are multiple interpretations of every rule.
You can’t account for every possible situation. 3 feet down as a rule would have made the dez play a TD, which it wasn’t.
The key is “going to the ground”. Only when blandino can’t see going to the ground was after the catch is it unclear.

 

[everlong]

There are multiple interpretations of every rule.
You can’t account for every possible situation. 3 feet down as a rule would have made the dez play a TD, which it wasn’t.
The key is “going to the ground”. Only when blandino can’t see going to the ground was after the catch is it unclear.

Right and I said 3 feet down should be a rule. You said it was already. If it was both Dez and Eifert are automatic TDs.

 

[Ring 6]

Right and I said 3 feet down should be a rule. You said it was already. If it was both Dez and Eifert are automatic TDs.

I think I said other than when going to the ground, which it is because the 3rd step gives you runner status but if you are going to the ground you have to maintain control.

 

[libra957]

Mike Tomlin: The catch rule 'needs to be revisited'

Oh lord here we go.

 

[jah]

Steelers fans are mad because of Cooks game winner week 3 vs HOU standing. Only thing is...the ball didn't move in his hands. If you check out a Steelers forum, it's absolutely flooded with the same picture of Cooks making the catch with the ball touching the ground. If you go by those two still images you can't tell the difference, but the ball moved in James' hands whereas it did not for Cooks.

FWIW, I would have understood if Cooks' catch was overturned, and I would have understood if James' TD stood. Both were close calls. But that's precisely why it's stupid to act like they were "obviously wrong."

Sounds like they're just going to keep moving the goalposts every time someone explains how their take was invalid. "It didn't hit the ground! Wait, it did? Fine, well, your guy got away with it!"

 

[jah]

Mike Tomlin: The catch rule 'needs to be revisited'

Oh lord here we go.

I can't believe the competition committee agreed on such a dumb rule. Who's on that, anyway? Surely someone who hates Mike Tomlin, and not...Mike Tomlin.