As Usual, Patriots Likely Sparked Another Rule Change This Offseason

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Id love to hear some of the suggestions for an alternate rule from all the stiller fans. And id love to see the results once implemented, but it obviously wont happen. Oh yeah, where were the irate stiller fans when the Cowboys SEASON ENDED on this same play? Where was the uproar?

 

[jah]

Id love to hear some of the suggestions for an alternate rule from all the stiller fans. And id love to see the results once implemented, but it obviously wont happen. Oh yeah, where were the irate stiller fans when the Cowboys SEASON ENDED on this same play? Where was the uproar?

To be fair, where were we? I definitely had no interest in defending the rule.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

To be fair, where were we? I definitely had no interest in defending the rule.

Im not crazy about it either i just think it might open upp a can if worms if you change it and im not sure of the alternative... would it just need to pass the ref’s ‘eye test’ on whether something is a catch everytime the ball hits the ground and rolls slightly?? I mean if there is a solid alternative ruling im all for it....

 

[everlong]

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.

Right and I've been saying after three feet down its a catch to eliminate judgment calls.

 

[RIpats88]

if you change the rule where you can bobble the ball and it can touch the ground now, doesnt that make alot of those "incomplete passes" fumbles?

 

[Ring 6]

Right and I've been saying after three feet down its a catch to eliminate judgment calls.

Then you give credit for catches that I don’t think should be. I’m not sure what you gain because I think the rule now is clear with very little judgment. There has to be judgment at some level.

 

[yukon cornelius]

Then you give credit for catches that I don’t think should be. I’m not sure what you gain because I think the rule now is clear with very little judgment. There has to be judgment at some level.

i've heard multiple officials and league officials quoted this week as saying they very much like the rule as it is now, it is very clear to them and about as good as it is going to get to enforce

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

if you change the rule where you can bobble the ball and it can touch the ground now, doesnt that make alot of those "incomplete passes" fumbles?

As long as its not a steeler fumbling or if a steeler recovers the ball, im sure that would work just fine!! For the better of the league of course

 

[slam]

If they change the rule, it's a good bet that the Patriots will understand it and teach it better than other teams, and will thus benefit from it going forward.

"What? Why is that defensive back picking up the ball from that incomplete pass and scoring? Wait, it's not an incomplete pass this year? Why do the Patriots get all the breaks?!"

 

[XLIX]

It is the NFL's cycle of forward pass rules:

1) Something controversial - albeit correctly ruled - happens
2) Mediots get outraged
3) NFL reacts to mediots by changing the rule, making it more complicated
4) Go to step 1

 

[XLIX]

They should change the rule that allows the Steelers - but not anyone else - to advance the ball 10 yards on a fumble inside 2:00 like they did 2 months ago.

 

[Tunescribe]

WHY are Bob George's terrible "articles" being included again in this forum? I thought this goofball had moved on. The only thing worse than his writing are his perspectives, which include bending over backwards to prove he is NOT a Patriots fan.

 

[Ring 6]

To be fair, where were we? I definitely had no interest in defending the rule.

But we aren’t the ones that are saying it should be changed. We never are.

 

[Ring 6]

WHY are Bob George's terrible "articles" being included again in this forum? I thought this goofball had moved on. The only thing worse than his writing are his perspectives, which include bending over backwards to prove he is NOT a Patriots fan.

I’m going to go with we should know better than to read them by now. Let bob be bob and those that like his articles can read them.

 

[rochrist]

I doubt it gets changed. It's really not that complicated, the refs like it a lot and most of the people who actually know what they're talking about think that changing it would be lead to far worse outcomes.

 

[rochrist]

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.

Um..except that the refs overruled and called it a TD.

 

[rochrist]

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.

It WAS overturned.

Edit: Never mind, I only saw the first play.

 

[XLIX]

To be fair, where were we? I definitely had no interest in defending the rule.

I stated the exact same thing then as I did now: the right call was made according to the rules and there is no way to craft the rules to avoid situations such as this. No matter *how* the rule is written, they will always eventually come up with a situation where someone is within millimeters and/or microseconds of the boundary between catch and no-catch.

 

[XLIX]

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.

And then eventually what will happen is a play like the James play where the receiver is falling to the ground, possesses it at first, crosses the goal line, then hits the ground and it bounces 10 feet away from him (instead of a much more slight movement like we saw Sunday).

The people complaint now will be the same people complaining then about “the ball bounced 10 feet away from the guy - how can they call that a catch??!?”

 

[Tunescribe]

I’m going to go with we should know better than to read them by now. Let bob be bob and those that like his articles can read them.

I've taken issue with Ian about this dope before, point being that he simply does not belong here as a contributor. This is supposed to be a Patriots FAN site, not a platform for "officially sanctioned" faux contrarians. Bob George has stated how he emulates Ron Borges. He approximates the same crap attitude minus the writing ability.